Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Re: True Kin Case study

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    ... term ... I actually meant contrasting but perhaps I was expressing myself rather too concisely to be clear. I was thinking of the contrast at Mk 4.10-11
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Leonard Maluf wrote:

      > Eric, a minor point I missed in my previous response is your use of the
      term
      > "contrasting" in the last sentence here. I assume you meant to say
      > "corresponding"? (If not, you will have to explain.) Also, the full
      > expression in 3:34 is, of course, TOUS PERI AUTON KUKLWi KAQHMENOUS.


      I actually meant 'contrasting' but perhaps I was expressing myself rather
      too concisely to be clear. I was thinking of the contrast at Mk 4.10-11
      between h01 PERI AUTON and those EXW; I can see why you're puzzled though
      since my rather clusmy sentence construction would lead you to expect that I
      was talking about a correspondence between TOUS PERI AUTON at Mk 3.34 and
      hOI PERI AUTON at Mk 4.10. What I meant was "What I would suggest is that
      the ECW at Mk 3.31 prepares for the ECW at Mk 4.11 (as the TOUS PERI AUTON
      at Mk 3.34 prepares for the hOI PERI AUTON at Mk 4.10 that contrasts with
      the ECW at Mk 4.11). "

      [I sent this reply before, but for some reason it didn't make it to the
      list, so I thought I'd include it here for the benefit of anyone else
      following the discussion even though Leonard may have got the copy I sent
      him].

      > Of course hOI PERI AUTON
      > (SUN TOIS DWDEKA) also serves this Markan application of the passage to
      the
      > Christian community he is addressing as well as Mark's intention to
      connect
      > this passage to 3:31-35. There is a transparency here between the events
      > narrated and the present situation of the addressees for whom Jesus in the
      > story is understood to be represented by the reciter of Mark who stands in
      a
      > central place in the house church, surrounded by crowds of catechumens
      (hOI
      > PERI AUTON) about to enter the new family of Jesus. It is in this sense,
      > among others, that I understand Mark to be a "dramatization" of the gospel
      > story.

      As an interpretation of what is going on in Mark's Gospel I would largely
      agree with this. Whether it's evidence for a late or an early Mark (in
      relation to Matthew) is, of course, another question.

      >Eric:

      >> This is possibly so, but EIS OIKON also occurs at Mk 7.17 (apparently but
      >> not necessarily at Gennesaret) and Mk 9.27 on the way through Galilee
      from
      >> Caesarea Philippi but not yet at Capernaum where they apparently enter
      yet
      >> another house (Mk 9.33), although I grant that EIS OIKON means 'home' at
      Mk
      >> 8.3, 26 (although in both cases the sense is made clearer by the addition
      of
      >> AUTWN/AUTOU; cf. Mk 2.11 & 5.19 EIS TON OIKON SOU to send the former
      >> paralytic and the former demoniac home, or Mk 7.30 EIS TON OIKON AUTHS to
      >> refer to the home of the Syrophoenician woman - this seems to suggest
      that
      >> when Mark wants to use EIS [TON] OIKON to mean 'home' he qualifies it
      with a
      >> possessive pronoun). At Mk 7.24 the similar EIS OIKIAN appears in a
      context
      >> (the district of Tyre) where it can hardly mean 'home'. In would thus be
      in
      >> keeping with Markan usage to see Mk 3.20a as implying that Jesus went
      >> inside a house.

      Leonard:
      > This is a careless conclusion from the evidence. But I am glad that you
      bring
      > up the more general question of Markan usage, because it turns out to
      > strongly support my argument against the idea that Jesus is thought to
      enter
      > a house in 3:20. My original statement on this issue as cited above is in
      > fact weak, in light of the evidence you adduce. It is insufficient to
      attend
      > simply to the phrase EIS OIKON or EIS THN OIKIAN when assessing the
      meaning
      > of 3:20. One must look at the entire phrase used in cases where Mark
      > unambiguously intends to speak of entrance into a house. In each of the
      cases
      > you cite, and unlike the case of 3:20, the entire phrase is invariably
      > EISELQHEIN... EIS TON OIKON/THN OIKIAN (TINOS)... (2:26; 9:28; 7:17;
      7:24).
      > In all other cases the meaning is much more likely to refer to "going
      home",
      > which can imply going into a house (cf. 7:30), but does not usually do so.
      > Very instructive is the case of 5:19 where the epexegetic phrase PROS TOUS
      > SOUS interprets what Mark means by the phrase "ELQEIN or hUPAGEIN EIS TON
      > OIKON TINOS", that is, Mark is not thinking in concrete terms about
      entering
      > a house, but rather about the act of returning to a moral sphere
      identified
      > as "home". Mk 5:38 is also very interesting in the way it highlights
      > precisely this distinction. Here the phrase ERXONTAI EIS OIKON TOU
      > ARXISUNAGWGOU... must speak of the arrival at the home of the synagogue
      > leader, not the entrance into his house, since the latter is explicitly
      > referred to at the end of the same verse: KAI EISELQWN LEGEI AUTOIS. Mk
      7:17
      > also provides an important insight in favor of my overall argument. Here
      > Jesus is said to have entered into a house (with EISELQEIN!) APO TOU
      OXLOU,
      > which supports my suspicion that a house in Mark is a way of getting away
      > from a crowd rather than the locus in which Jesus speaks to crowds, as in
      Mk
      > 3:20ff.

      You call my conclusion 'careless' but you seem to agree with a great deal of
      what I say (specifically, we seem in fact to be citing many of the same
      Markan verses as instances of EIS OIKON meaning 'home'). Perhaps I failed to
      make it sufficiently clear that I *was* picking out instances where I
      thought the phrase meant *home*, since much of your argument appears to be
      reinforcing what I thought I'd said! But rather than going over that ground
      again, let's just address your conclusion. Firstly, I agree that in Mark
      entry into a house is frequently a device to separate Jesus from a crowd and
      provide a place for him to interact privately with his disciples. As you
      also correctly say, this is not what happens at Mk 3.20 ff. But is not what
      happens at Mk 3.20ff somewhat similar to what happens at Mk 2.1-12? In each
      case Jesus interacts with scribes (Mk 2.6; 3.22) and with crowds (Mk 2.4;
      3.20); the two pericopae are further linkes through implicit accusations of
      blasphemy (by the scribes against Jesus at Mk 2.7 and by Jesus against the
      scribes at Mk 3.28-30). To be sure, Mk 2.1 contains the phrase EN OIKWi
      ESTIN, not ERXETAI EIS OIKON as in Mk 3.20, but Mk 2.1-12 nevertheless
      provides a clear example of Jesus interacting with scribes and crowds from
      within a house, since Mk 2.4 (the stretcher bearers climbing up onto the
      roof and digging through it) would make no sense unless Jesus were inside at
      that point. Mark is therefore quite capable of constructing a scene in which
      Jesus has gone into a house and yet interacts with scribes and crowds. The
      links between these two scenes (in addition to those already mentioned Mk
      1.1-12 initiates the conflict between Jesus and the scribes while Mk 3.20ff
      brings it to a head) at least provide prime facie evidence that Mark
      envisaged (or, at the very least, could easily have envisaged) the two
      scenes as occurring in the same or similar settings, so that both EN OIKWi
      at Mk 2.7 and EIS OIKON at Mk 3.20 refer to Jesus' being in or entering into
      a house. Moreover, in each of the cases I cite as supporting the meaning
      'home' the phrase is, as you correctly point out, "ELQEIN or hUPAGEIN EIS
      [TON] OIKON TINOS" (I intended Mk 8.3, 26; 2.11; 5.19 & 7.30 to illustrate
      this usage, you quite correctly add Mk 5:38), but Mk 3.20 (ERXETAI EIS
      OIKON) lacks the TINOS (and the definite article, which appears in many,
      though not all, of the other cases), so somewhere we seem to be horribly at
      cross-purposes in the linguistic argument!

      >> Eric:
      >>
      >> In sum then, I think the ECW in Mt 12.46 tends to support Markan priority
      >> (for the reasons stated), but I think you (Leonard) are probably right
      that
      >> this is not strictly an argument from fatigue.
      >>
      > Leonard:
      > As you can see, I don't accept your conclusion here regarding the priority
      of
      > the Markan text. I am happy that you reject the argument from fatigue,
      > although I must admit that some of your comments relative to this argument
      in
      > the course of our discussion seemed to me to reflect a less than accurate
      > understanding of how Goodacre argues fatigue for the case of Mk 3:31-35
      and
      > pars.

      Is this another case of being at cross-purposes? I wasn't responding
      directly to Goodacre's argument here, but to your response to Stephen
      Carlson's post. However, I don't think I have misunderstood Goodacre at this
      point; what he says is (if he and you don't mind me quoting him) is:

      Mark Goodacre:
      We might add a third example that equally points to Matthew's use of Mark,
      the story of Jesus' Mother and Brothers (Matt 12.46-50 // Mark 3.31-35 //
      Luke 8.19-21). Here Matthew has returned, once more, to triple tradition
      material after a section of double tradition material (Matt 12.33-45). The
      transition between the different kinds of material is smooth, with Matthew's
      characteristic, 'While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold . . . '
      (Matt 12.46). However, the apparent ease of progression from one pericope to
      the next masks an incongruity, a genuine continuity error in Matthew's
      account. As in Mark, the mother and the brothers of Jesus are 'standing
      outside' (eisthkeisan exw, Matt 12.46; Mark 3.31: exw sthkontes). This makes
      perfect sense in Mark where Jesus and his disciples are in a house (3.20:
      kai ercetai eis oikon) (12) but it makes no sense in Matthew in which no
      house has been entered and the most recent scene change was a departure from
      the synagogue, with many following Jesus, in 12.15.

      It is unlikely that Matthew has simply allowed himself to be a little loose
      in terminology here. He seems to be presupposing Jesus' presence in a house
      that he has not previously mentioned and this is confirmed by 13.1 which
      follows on from this pericope, 'On that day, after Jesus had left the house
      (exelqwn o Ihsous ths oikias), he was sitting beside the sea'. Matthew has,
      therefore, in switching between sources at 12.46, forgotten to refer to the
      house that had been mentioned earlier on by Mark. By reproducing Mark
      faithfully at this point, Matthew has inadvertently betrayed his hand,
      leaving the detective a key piece of evidence. (13)

      Eric:
      Your counter-arguments to the first paragraph (as I understand it) are (a)
      that Mark does not in fact envisage Jesus as being inside a house at Mk
      3.20ff and (b) that Mt 12.46 does not necessarily imply that Jesus'
      relatives were standing outside a building which Jesus was within. My reply
      was to disagree with you on (a) but grant your point on (b) while providing
      an alternative argument (which you feel to be reversible) for seeing the ECW
      as being original to Mark rather than Matthew. Since I explicitly go on to
      state that this is *not* an argument from fatigue, I thought I had made it
      sufficiently clear that I was departing from Goodacre's line of argument
      here.

      Your counter-argument to the second paragraph cited from Goodacre is that Mt
      13.1 is not intended to follow straight on from as a continuation of the
      same scene concluded at Mt 12.50, and therefore cannot be used as evidence
      that Matthew thought that the preceding scene took place inside a house. I
      expressed some reservations about your argument here, but allowed that EN
      THi hHMERAi EKEINHi could not be pressed beyond reasonable doubt to mean
      "immediately after the events just narrated without change of scene" (though
      it might be intended to convey this). The other point I intened to make was
      that the presence of these words in Mark does not strictly meet Goodacre's
      own definition of 'fatigue', namely "Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that
      will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another's work.
      In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the
      early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout." The example Goodacre
      goes on to illustrate this with is Matthew lapsing into calling Herod
      (Antipas) 'king' after starting to amend Mark's 'king' to 'tetrarch' (I
      don't intend to get into the rights and wrongs of this particular instance,
      only to illustrate what I take Goodacre to mean). Fatigue thus appears to be
      where a later redactor begins by making changes to his source but then
      forgets to continue to do so; but this cannot apply to "exelqwn o Ihsous ths
      oikias" at Mt. 13.1 since this cannot be a phrase Matt took over carelessly
      from Mark (since Mk 4.1 doesn't have it); rather, whatever Matthew intended
      by it, it was something Matthew consciously chose to write. Perhaps I'm
      being over-strict in my interpretation what Goodacre intends by the term
      'fatigue' since he does appeal to Mt 13.1 to support his case here, but I
      don't think I've substantially misunderstood him. Basically, what I thought
      I was doing was to concede your point, but with strong reservations (i.e.
      fatigue is not a knock-down argument at Mt 13.1, but Mark Goodacre's
      argument carries some weight for the probability of Markan priority here).

      I may be guilty of responding in too much of a hurry and hence not being as
      clear as I should have been, but I'm not sure why you should think me guilty
      of any fundamental misunderstanding!

      Best wishes,

      Eric
      ----------------------------------
      Eric Eve
      Harris Manchester College, Oxford





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/5/2002 5:07:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Thanks for this. But since the dramatization is at the same time in the nature of an
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 10/5/2002 5:07:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:


        As an interpretation of what is going on in Mark's Gospel I would largely
        agree with this. Whether it's evidence for a late or an early Mark (in
        relation to Matthew) is, of course, another question.


        Thanks for this. But since the dramatization is at the same time in the nature of an application to more familiar Christian realities (the Gentile house church and its relationship to outsiders) it also implies a later setting, I think. But this will become clearer when I finally get around to giving my positive arguments for a GH model to explain Mk 3:31-35 and parallels.




        >Eric:

        >This is possibly so, but EIS OIKON also occurs at Mk 7.17 (apparently but
        not necessarily at Gennesaret) and Mk 9.27 on the way through Galilee
        from Caesarea Philippi but not yet at Capernaum where they apparently enter
        yet another house (Mk 9.33), although I grant that EIS OIKON means 'home' at
        Mk 8.3, 26 (although in both cases the sense is made clearer by the addition
        of AUTWN/AUTOU; cf. Mk 2.11 & 5.19 EIS TON OIKON SOU to send the former
        paralytic and the former demoniac home, or Mk 7.30 EIS TON OIKON AUTHS to
        refer to the home of the Syrophoenician woman - this seems to suggest
        that when Mark wants to use EIS [TON] OIKON to mean 'home' he qualifies it
        with a possessive pronoun). At Mk 7.24 the similar EIS OIKIAN appears in a
        context (the district of Tyre) where it can hardly mean 'home'. In would thus be
        in keeping with Markan usage to see Mk 3.20a as implying that Jesus went
        inside a house.

        Leonard:
        > This is a careless conclusion from the evidence.[...]>



        Eric:
        You call my conclusion 'careless' but you seem to agree with a great deal of
        what I say.


        By "conclusion", I meant the final statement above only, namely: "I[t] would thus be in keeping with Markan usage to see Mk 3.20a as implying that Jesus went
        inside a house." The conclusion is careless in the sense that it fails to take into account the fact that in every case where Mark wishes to speak unambiguously of entering a house, he uses the expression EISELQEIN EIS (TON/THN) OIKON/OIKIAN (TINOS), whereas he does not do so in 3:20. I ought to have (or, it was careless of me not to have) placed the definite article in parentheses in my original statement of this point, since it is not the article (or the genitive of person) that is essential here but rather the compound verb, as opposed to the simple verb ELQEIN. Where the latter occurs, the context often suggests, as I pointed out, a clear distinction between the "going home" and the "entering of a house", so that Markan expressions with ELQEIN ... EIS OIKON should normally be rendered "to go home", rather than "to enter a house".




        But is not what happens at Mk 3.20ff somewhat similar to what happens at Mk 2.1-12?


        I had not looked at this text at all, but it is very interesting, and does indeed seem to constitute a close parallel in many respects to the text we are examining.


        In each case Jesus interacts with scribes (Mk 2:6; 3:22) and with crowds (Mk 2:4; 3.20); the two pericopae are further linkes through implicit accusations of
        blasphemy (by the scribes against Jesus at Mk 2.7 and by Jesus against the
        scribes at Mk 3.28-30). To be sure, Mk 2.1 contains the phrase EN OIKWi
        ESTIN, not ERXETAI EIS OIKON as in Mk 3.20, but Mk 2.1-12 nevertheless
        provides a clear example of Jesus interacting with scribes and crowds from
        within a house, since Mk 2.4 (the stretcher bearers climbing up onto the
        roof and digging through it) would make no sense unless Jesus were inside at
        that point.


        Indeed. But I would like you to notice something here. On the GH, the house in question was introduced into this set of parallels by Luke, who was familiar with large Hellenistic houses which could accommodate a crowd. This is, however, clearly a secondary feature of the story. Matthew (9:1) has Jesus entering a town (his own, Capernaum, but not a house!) and being approached (for help) by a group of men carrying a lame man on a stretcher. A house is involved in this story ONLY when the cured lame man is told, after having been healed, to "pick up your mat and go home". In 9:9 Jesus "goes on" from there (does not exit from a house) to where he sees Matthew sitting at the tax-collectors' table. Luke's adding of this feature is a typical Lukan addition which attempts to answer a question posed by Matthew's text. For example, Matt 3:11 poses the question, why should John suddenly start contrasting his own identity with that of one who was to be the true Messiah of Israel? Luke attempts to clarify this in 3:15 when he writes: "The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah...". Similarly here, Matt had written, with reference to the men who had brought a lame man to Jesus when he entered the town: "And seeing their faith, he said to the paralytic..". Luke creates a scene in which the words "And seeing their faith..." (Lk 5:20) take on a new and concrete meaning. In the process, the entire scene gets moved into a house, where it could scarcely have fit, involving as it does "crowds", in its original Galilean setting. Accordingly, Luke has Jesus "exiting" (presumably the house) in 5:27, instead of "passing on" from there, as in Matthew (9:9). Mark basically follows Luke's form of the story here, though he seems to correct the references to the roof of the house to correspond more realistically to the houses that would have existed in first century Galilee, or would have been dwelt in more generally by the (social) level of individual Mark was writing for.

        Eric:

        Mark is therefore quite capable of constructing a scene in which
        Jesus has gone into a house and yet interacts with scribes and crowds. The
        links between these two scenes (in addition to those already mentioned Mk
        1.1-12 initiates the conflict between Jesus and the scribes while Mk 3.20ff
        brings it to a head) at least provide prime facie evidence that Mark
        envisaged (or, at the very least, could easily have envisaged) the two
        scenes as occurring in  the same or similar settings, so that both EN OIKWi
        at Mk 2.7 and EIS OIKON at Mk 3.20 refer to Jesus' being in or entering into
        a house.


        Possibly, but this conclusion may be hasty. It ignores, for one thing, the linguistic evidence noted above (namely the use of EISEQEIN .. EIS OIKON by Mark when he means to say entering a house, as opposed to going home). The two texts also differ in that a house and its parts (doors, roof, etc.) are clearly mentioned in the first, and are not mentioned even where they could be in the second. So, in spite of the parallel character of much of the material, I am not yet convinced that Mk 3:31-35 was understood by Mark to have taken place in a house.

        I apologize for suggesting that you may not have understood Goodacre's fatigue argument. Your paragraphs on this issue, which I have not copied here, both convince me that you did and help me to understand your valid critique of that argument as used by Mark G. in reference to the present set of Synoptic parallels.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Eric Eve
        ... You re welcome! I suppose the next question is later than what? I m not quite sure when you want to date GMt, so it could well imply a setting later than
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Leonard Maluf wrote:

          > Thanks for this. But since the dramatization is at the same time
          > in the nature of an application to more familiar Christian realities
          > (the Gentile house church and its relationship to outsiders) it also
          > implies a later setting, I think. But this will become clearer when
          > I finally get around to giving my positive arguments for a GH model
          > to explain Mk 3:31-35 and parallels.

          You're welcome! I suppose the next question is "later than what?" I'm not
          quite sure when you want to date GMt, so it could well imply a setting later
          than the date you have in mind for that. I'm not convinced, however, that it
          implies a date later than some predecessor narrative Gospel. But I shall
          have to await your positive arguments.

          > By "conclusion", I meant the final statement above only, namely:
          > "I[t] would thus be in keeping with Markan usage to see Mk 3.20a
          > as implying that Jesus went inside a house." The conclusion is
          > careless in the sense that it fails to take into account the fact
          > that in every case where Mark wishes to speak unambiguously of
          > entering a house, he uses the expression EISELQEIN EIS (TON/THN)
          > OIKON/OIKIAN (TINOS), whereas he does not do so in 3:20. I ought
          > to have (or, it was careless of me not to have) placed the definite
          > article in parentheses in my original statement of this point, since
          > it is not the article (or the genitive of person) that is essential
          > here but rather the compound verb, as opposed to the simple verb ELQEIN.
          > Where the latter occurs, the context often suggests, as I pointed out,
          > a clear distinction between the "going home" and the "entering of a
          house",
          > so that Markan expressions with ELQEIN ... EIS OIKON should normally be
          > rendered "to go home", rather than "to enter a house".

          I think we have simply been drawing to different linguistic features here.
          Your observation is that Mark always uses the compound verb EISELQEIN when
          he means 'to enter a house' (and that this is lacking in Mk 3.20). My
          observation is that he always uses the possessive adjective when he means
          'to go home' (and that this is lacking in Mk 3.20). So it rather looks like
          the linguistic evidence points both ways! (I'm afraid I don't have time to
          go back and check all Mark's homes and houses right now).

          > Indeed. But I would like you to notice something here.
          > On the GH, the house in question was introduced into
          > this set of parallels by Luke, who was familiar with large
          > Hellenistic houses which could accommodate a crowd. This is,
          > however, clearly a secondary feature of the story. Matthew (9:1)
          > has Jesus entering a town (his own, Capernaum, but not a house!)
          > and being approached (for help) by a group of men carrying a lame
          > man on a stretcher. A house is involved in this story ONLY when the
          > cured lame man is told, after having been healed, to "pick up your
          > mat and go home". In 9:9 Jesus "goes on" from there (does not exit
          > from a house) to where he sees Matthew sitting at the tax-collectors'
          > table. Luke's adding of this feature is a typical Lukan addition which
          > attempts to answer a question posed by Matthew's text. For example,
          > Matt 3:11 poses the question, why should John suddenly start contrasting
          > his own identity with that of one who was to be the true Messiah of
          > Israel? Luke attempts to clarify this in 3:15 when he writes:
          > "The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their
          > hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah...". Similarly here,
          > Matt had written, with reference to the men who had brought a lame
          > man to Jesus when he entered the town: "And seeing their faith, he
          > said to the paralytic..". Luke creates a scene in which the words
          > "And seeing their faith..." (Lk 5:20) take on a new and concrete meaning.
          > In the process, the entire scene gets moved into a house, where it could
          > scarcely have fit, involving as it does "crowds", in its original Galilean
          > setting. Accordingly, Luke has Jesus "exiting" (presumably the house) in
          > 5:27, instead of "passing on" from there, as in Matthew (9:9).
          > Mark basically follows Luke's form of the story here, though he seems to
          > correct the references to the roof of the house to correspond more
          > realistically to the houses that would have existed in first century
          > Galilee, or would have been dwelt in more generally by the (social)
          > level of individual Mark was writing for.

          Indeed, this looks like a good account of how things must have been on the
          GH. On the FH, one would give a rather different account; one would, for
          example, suggest that the Matthew's mention of "seeing their faith..." was
          an instance of fatigue (since Matthew has dropped the Markan details that it
          originally referred to). One would also suggest that Luke had basically
          followed the Markan form of the story while being influenced by Matthew's
          wording at several points (from memory I seem to recall there are about 12
          MAs in this passage, if one counts common omissions) and, perhaps more to
          the point, that he changed Mark's more appropriate mud roof (in the sense of
          being more realistic and more likely to have been dug through) to a tiled
          one that would have applied more to his urban setting (and thus perhaps one
          it is less plausible to envisage someone letting down a stretcher through) -
          but I'm sure you're already quite familiar with all that!

          > Possibly, but this conclusion may be hasty. It ignores, for one thing,
          > the linguistic evidence noted above (namely the use of EISEQEIN ..
          > EIS OIKON by Mark when he means to say entering a house, as opposed
          > to going home). The two texts also differ in that a house and its parts
          > (doors, roof, etc.) are clearly mentioned in the first, and are not
          > mentioned even where they could be in the second. So, in spite of the
          > parallel character of much of the material, I am not yet convinced
          > that Mk 3:31-35 was understood by Mark to have taken place in a house

          But maybe the linguistic evidence is more ambiguous than you think, if I'm
          right about the presence of a possessive pronoun after OIKON when Mark means
          'home'. Of course the roof is integral to the first story (Mk 2.1-12) but
          not really revelant to the second (Mk 3.20ff), though I accept that Mark
          *could* have slipped the odd door or two into the latter account had he
          really wanted to (but the absence of an explicit door hardly proved he
          envisaged the episode as taken place outdoors).

          Another Markan episode to bear in mind is Mk 1.29-34. There Jesus is said to
          HLQON EIS THN OIKIAN SIMWNOS KAI ANDREOU; although the compound EISHLQON is
          not used, and OIKIAN may well refer to Simon's and Andrew's home, the fact
          that Jesus proceeds to take their mother-in-law's hand while she is lying
          down stricken with fever tends to suggest that he entered the house to do
          so. Here we do have explicit mention of a door - we're told the whole town
          thronged around it at sunset (Mk. 1.33). Where was Jesus when he ministered
          to them, I wonder - just inside the door or just outside it? So this *may*
          be another Markan example of Jesus ministering to a crowd from inside a
          house, but I admit it's not very clear.

          > I apologize for suggesting that you may not have understood
          > Goodacre's fatigue argument. Your paragraphs on this issue,
          > which I have not copied here, both convince me that you did and
          > help me to understand your valid critique of that argument as used
          > by Mark G. in reference to the present set of Synoptic parallels.

          Many thanks for this.

          Best wishes,

          Eric
          ----------------------------------
          Eric Eve
          Harris Manchester College, Oxford







          -------------------------------
          Dr Eric Eve
          Harris Manchester College
          Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD
          Tel: 01865 281473



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 10/7/2002 10:01:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... The difference is that my observation is proper and exclusive, and therefore more
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 8, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 10/7/2002 10:01:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:


            I think we have simply been drawing to different linguistic features here.
            Your observation is that Mark always uses the compound verb EISELQEIN when
            he means 'to enter a house' (and that this is lacking in Mk 3.20). My
            observation is that he always uses the possessive adjective when he means
            'to go home' (and that this is lacking in Mk 3.20).


            The difference is that my observation is proper and exclusive, and therefore more significant, whereas you have not identified a "per proprium" feature of the "going home" idea as expressed in Mark's idiom. You are perhaps guilty of the "fallacy of the accident" in Logic ("ab uno disce omnes", or invalid induction) here. Mark uses EISELQEIN with OIKON when, and only when, he intends to speak of entering a house. He may frequently use the possessive adjective (or, more properly, the possessive pronoun) when he means "to go (to someone's) home", but he can also use a possessive when he means to enter someone's house (e.g., Mk 2:26), and there seems to be no essential reason why he could not, in certain contexts, speak of "going home" without the explicit addition of a possessive pronoun (as we do in English). A Lukan case might well illustrate the kind of context in which a possessive would be idiomatically omitted in Greek. In Lk 15:6, the man has been "in the desert", and beyond (15:4), with his sheep, and from there he returns "home" (ELQWN EIS TON OIKON...). (The phrase does not mean entering a house here, unless we are to think that the man calls his neighbors together by telephone). The case almost exactly parallels that of Mk 3:20, where Jesus has been to the mountains (EIS TO OROS: 3:13), and then returns home (KAI ERXETAI EIS OIKON: 3:20). Thus where "home" is being concretely conceived as a topographical space, distinct and contrasting to a given and relatively remote terminus a quo, "going home" is expressed in Greek without the use of the possessive.


            > Indeed. But I would like you to notice something here.
            > On the GH, the house in question was introduced into
            > this set of parallels by Luke, who was familiar with large
            > Hellenistic houses which could accommodate a crowd. This is,
            > however, clearly a secondary feature of the story. Matthew (9:1)
            > has Jesus entering a town (his own, Capernaum, but not a house!)
            > and being approached (for help) by a group of men carrying a lame
            > man on a stretcher. A house is involved in this story ONLY when the
            > cured lame man is told, after having been healed, to "pick up your
            > mat and go home". In 9:9 Jesus "goes on" from there (does not exit
            > from a house) to where he sees Matthew sitting at the tax-collectors'
            > table. Luke's adding of this feature is a typical Lukan addition which
            > attempts to answer a question posed by Matthew's text. For example,
            > Matt 3:11 poses the question, why should John suddenly start contrasting
            > his own identity with that of one who was to be the true Messiah of
            > Israel? Luke attempts to clarify this in 3:15 when he writes:
            > "The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their
            > hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah...". Similarly here,
            > Matt had written, with reference to the men who had brought a lame
            > man to Jesus when he entered the town: "And seeing their faith, he
            > said to the paralytic..". Luke creates a scene in which the words
            > "And seeing their faith..." (Lk 5:20) take on a new and concrete meaning.
            > In the process, the entire scene gets moved into a house, where it could
            > scarcely have fit, involving as it does "crowds", in its original Galilean
            > setting. Accordingly, Luke has Jesus "exiting" (presumably the house) in
            > 5:27, instead of "passing on" from there, as in Matthew (9:9).
            > Mark basically follows Luke's form of the story here, though he seems to
            > correct the references to the roof of the house to correspond more
            > realistically to the houses that would have existed in first century
            > Galilee, or would have been dwelt in more generally by the (social)
            > level of individual Mark was writing for.

            Indeed, this looks like a good account of how things must have been on the
            GH. On the FH, one would give a rather different account; one would, for
            example, suggest that the Matthew's mention of "seeing their faith..." was
            an instance of fatigue (since Matthew has dropped the Markan details that it
            originally referred to).


            This is a case that well illustrates the need to go beyond a simply descriptive to a more analytical approach when one is attempting to construct a valid Synoptic theory on a truly empirical basis. Of course one may -- indeed one must, if one is antecedently committed to Markan priority -- describe the entire scene of the removal of part of a roof and the letting down of a bed into the middle of the room as a "detail" of this story which Matthew omitted by "fatigue". The point is that this is an extremely unlikely scenario, whereas the scenario I described is far more reasonable and likely, and it is confirmed by other examples that show Luke adding a concrete feature to a given Gospel story in plausible response to questions naturally posed by an original and obscure Matthean text.



            Another Markan episode to bear in mind is Mk 1.29-34. There Jesus is said to
            HLQON EIS THN OIKIAN SIMWNOS KAI ANDREOU; although the compound EISHLQON is
            not used, and OIKIAN may well refer to Simon's and Andrew's home, the fact
            that Jesus proceeds to take their mother-in-law's hand while she is lying
            down stricken with fever tends to suggest that he entered the house to do
            so.


            Yes, indeed. I did notice this text after sending my previous post, and it does seem to constitute an exception to my rule, unless I restrict my rule to Markan expressions with OIKON. However, before I make this concession, it should be noted that the case is much clearer in the parallel text of Matthew, where Jesus enters Peter's house and sees his mother-in-law lying flat.. (KAI ELQWN.. EIS THN OIKIAN PETROU EIDEN THN PENQERAN AUTOU..). In Mk 1:29, Jesus -- and his disciples (?) -- are said to have gone out from the synagogue and come to (unto, into?) the house of Simon and Andrew... It is not clear how much Mark intends to say at this point. It is not immediately said here that Jesus "saw" the mother-in-law of Simon lying in bed, but rather (1:30) that this fact was communicated to him orally. It is quite possible to envision this conversation taking place at the door of, but outside, the house, so that we would have here a case similar to that of Mk 5:38, where Jesus' relationship to the house in question is spoken of in two stages: (1) the arrival at the home, and (2) the entrance into the house. This would not necessarily imply that the participial phrase KAI PROSELQWN (1:31) has the same identical function as the participial phrase at the end of 5:38 (KAI EISELQWN). Jesus' approaching Simon's mother-in-law in Mark (1:31) most reasonably assumes that Jesus is already in the house. But it is still possible to think that the actual entrance into the house is simply implied by the situation and not necessarily described by the phrase HLQON EIS THN OIKIAN in 1:29. What do you think?

            Leonard Maluf
          • Eric Eve
            ... possessive Thank you for this further clarification, but see the further discussion of the possible exception below. ... Well, if you restrict your rule to
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Leonard Maluf wrote:

              > The difference is that my observation is proper and exclusive,
              > and therefore more significant, whereas you have not identified
              > a "per proprium" feature of the "going home" idea as expressed
              > in Mark's idiom. [much snipped] The case almost exactly parallels,
              > that of Mk 3:20, where Jesus has been to the mountains (EIS TO OROS: 3:13)
              > and then returns home (KAI ERXETAI EIS OIKON: 3:20). Thus where
              > "home" is being concretely conceived as a topographical space,
              > distinct and contrasting to a given and relatively remote terminus
              > a quo, "going home" is expressed in Greek without the use of the
              possessive

              Thank you for this further clarification, but see the further discussion of
              the possible exception below.

              > Yes, indeed. I did notice this text after sending my previous post,
              > and it does seem to constitute an exception to my rule, unless I
              > restrict my rule to Markan expressions with OIKON. However, before
              > I make this concession, it should be noted that the case is much
              > clearer in the parallel text of Matthew, where Jesus enters Peter's
              > house and sees his mother-in-law lying flat.. (KAI ELQWN.. EIS THN
              > OIKIAN PETROU EIDEN THN PENQERAN AUTOU..). In Mk 1:29, Jesus --
              > and his disciples (?) -- are said to have gone out from the synagogue
              > and come to (unto, into?) the house of Simon and Andrew... It is not
              > clear how much Mark intends to say at this point. It is not immediately
              > said here that Jesus "saw" the mother-in-law of Simon lying in bed,
              > but rather (1:30) that this fact was communicated to him orally.
              > It is quite possible to envision this conversation taking place at
              > the door of, but outside, the house, so that we would have here a
              > case similar to that of Mk 5:38, where Jesus' relationship to the
              > house in question is spoken of in two stages: (1) the arrival at the
              > home, and (2) the entrance into the house. This would not necessarily
              > imply that the participial phrase KAI PROSELQWN (1:31) has the same
              > identical function as the participial phrase at the end of 5:38
              > (KAI EISELQWN). Jesus' approaching Simon's mother-in-law in Mark
              > (1:31) most reasonably assumes that Jesus is already in the house.
              > But it is still possible to think that the actual entrance into the
              > house is simply implied by the situation and not necessarily described
              > by the phrase HLQON EIS THN OIKIAN in 1:29. What do you think?

              Well, if you restrict your rule to Markan expressions with OIKON you would
              miss out Mk 6.10 & 7.24 (EISELQEIN EIS OIKIAN) which you might want to use
              to support your case. In Mk 5.38-40 are there two stages or three? It take
              it your stage (1) is represented by KAI ERXONTAI EIS TON OIKON TOU
              ARXISUNAGWGOU (5.38), and your stage (2) by KAI EISELQWN (5.39). So is there
              not a third stage at 5.40 where KAI EISPOREUTAI hOPOU HN TO PAIDION?
              Presumably Mark evisages this house as having more than one room, with the
              daughter lying in an inner chamber, and at the very least suggests that Mark
              can envisage movement within a house to where a sick person is lying. So,
              together with your point at KAI PROSELQWN in Mk 1.31 this suggests that the
              action took place within the house. Of course it is possible to imagine the
              first part of the scene taking place at the door of but outside the house,
              and I take your point about Jesus being told about Simon's mother-in-law
              rather than seeing her, but presumably it is her illness rather than her
              posture that is being communicated orally, so this does not need Jesus to be
              in a different location. Moreover, v.30 most naturally reads as a
              description of the scene arrived at after the movement narrated in v.29, so
              that the distinction between HLQON EIS THN OIKIAN describing the entrance to
              the house, and the entrance being being seems rather a fine one; in this
              instance the effect of having Jesus and his companions HLQON EIS THN OIKIAN
              is that they end up inside the house. Again, while I can see that it might
              be *possible* to argue that the entrance into the house is simply implied by
              the situation, there seems to me to be a danger that this argument could be
              used to dispose of *any* proposed exception to your rule, on the grounds
              that the evidence that might be adduced to show that the action was taking
              place inside the house could be taken to imply that entrance had taken place
              and so removed the burden of description from the verb employed within
              OIKOS/OIKIA (I hope that's clear). At the very least Mk 1.29 suggests that
              Mark can think of ELQEIN EIS OIKIAN as including the entrance into someone's
              home as well as going to the place where it is located.

              > This [sc. my discussion of the paralytic in Matthew and Mark]
              > is a case that well illustrates the need to go beyond a simply
              > descriptive to a more analytical approach when one is attempting to
              > construct a valid Synoptic theory on a truly empirical basis. Of
              > course one may -- indeed one must, if one is antecedently committed
              > to Markan priority -- describe the entire scene of the removal of
              > part of a roof and the letting down of a bed into the middle of the
              > room as a "detail" of this story which Matthew omitted by "fatigue".
              > The point is that this is an extremely unlikely scenario, whereas
              > the scenario I described is far more reasonable and likely, and it
              > is confirmed by other examples that show Luke adding a concrete
              > feature to a given Gospel story in plausible response to questions
              > naturally posed by an original and obscure Matthean text.

              Here you seem to be achieving your rhetorical effect by misrepresenting what
              I said (and what other defenders of Markan priority would say). I did *not*
              describe the removal of part of a roof and the letting down of a bed as
              something omitted by *fatigue*. What I actually said (as you indeed quote)
              was 'one would, for example, suggest that the Matthew's mention of "seeing
              their faith..." was an instance of fatigue'. In other words, the suggestion
              is that the fatigue lies in the fact Matthew, having compressed this Markan
              miracle story to focus on what he regards as the essentials (as, on the
              thesis of Markan priority, he often does elsewhere, creating what you call
              'an original and obscure Matthean text') retained "seeing their faith" after
              removing the section of the narrative (the actions of the stretcher bearers)
              to which it refers. But perhaps your reply here was a reaction to my use of
              the word 'details'? - if so, you may have read more into it that I intended
              to imply!

              Best wishes,

              Eric

              P.S. If I go a bit silent for the next few days it's because it's the start
              of term here and I've got a bunch of new students to look after, among other
              things.

              ----------------------------------
              Eric Eve
              Harris Manchester College, Oxford





              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.