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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: True Kin Case study

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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

      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
      > 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,


      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

      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.