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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan fatigue in Mk 6:7-13?

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... This is not a problem, if I well remember, all examples of fatigue provided by Mark Goodacre does not fulfill all criteria defined in his article. Am I
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Maluflen@... a écrit :
      >
      > This example may not fit all the precise criteria for fatigue as defined in
      > Mark Goodacre's now famous article --

      This is not a problem, if I well remember, all examples of fatigue
      provided by Mark Goodacre does not fulfill all criteria defined
      in his article. Am I wrong ?

      > and there is the added complication of Mark's relationship
      > to Luke's text, which I have not adequately explored above
      > --, but it is in effect, I believe, a rather close parallel
      > to the phenomenon Mark discusses, though argued here on a
      > neo-Griesbachian premise.

      But there is no premise in the fatigue definition : just a textual
      phenomenon, described as a formal case, and for which Mark provides
      instances, all in compatibility with his synoptic theory. He then
      urges us to find counter-example, i.e. instances of the formal
      definition that contradict his thesis.

      You should be able to show that your counter-example fits the
      criteria, either by considering the formal definition or by
      comparing your example with those provided by Mark Goodacre.

      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ken Olson
      ... Leonard, At present, this is mostly an explanation of Mark s text on the theory Mark used Matthew and Luke rather than an actual argument for Mark s
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment

        On Thursday, February 6, Leonard Maluf wrote:

        >>I think a case for Markan fatigue can be made in the story of the sending out of the apostles in Mark. I cannot treat the subject here in full, but let me attempt a condensed treatment in the following points:<<

        Leonard,

        At present, this is mostly an explanation of Mark’s text on the theory Mark used Matthew and Luke rather than an actual argument for Mark’s dependence on Matthew and Luke.

        LM: >>1. A late Mark, written to a Gentile audience in Rome, would have felt an obvious need to seriously edit his Matthean source at this point, especially with respect to the initial words addressed to the twelve in Matt 10:5b-8: ("do not go into the way of the Gentiles, etc...").<<

        KO: Do you consider Mark’s Gentile audience to be an actual argument for a late Mark or is this just a plausible scenario? I am suspicious of all arguments that assume the NT material moved on a specific trajectory from Jewish to Gentile or from human Jesus to divine Jesus. It seems to me that material could (and probably did) become more or less Jewish and more or less human/divine any number of times in the course of transmission depending on the needs of author and audience. After all, Paul has a Gentile audience and a divine Jesus and he is, by most accounts, early.

        (I am omitting points 2 and 3 here as I don’t think they are actual arguments for Markan dependency.)


        LM: >>4. He does this in a clearly more developed form (by comparison to Luke) in 6:12-13, but here Mark forgets that he had said nothing in 6:7 about Jesus commanding the apostles "to preach", let alone to "preach repentance" and to throw out demons (with DAIMONIA.. EKBALLEIN), but he recalls precisely these elements from the Matthean text in front of him (Matt 10:7-8, which he has omitted earlier for good redactional reasons). Though Matthew does not explicitly have Jesus tell the apostles to preach repentance, Mark is familiar enough with Matt 3:2; 4:17 to know that the preaching of the nearness of the kingdom (Matt 10:7) entails this.<<

        KO: I think the theory that Mark 6.12-13 presupposes Matthew’s text here is unnecessary and misses the point Mark is trying to convey. The apostles kick off their ministry by preaching repentance, and casting out *many* demons and healing, just as Jesus kicked off his ministry by preaching repentance (Mk. 1.14-15), and casting out *many* demons and healing (Mk. 1.34). It looks to me like Mark presupposes Jesus’ ministry, not Matthew’s text, as the model for the apostles’ ministry.

        LM: >>This example may not fit all the precise criteria for fatigue as defined in Mark Goodacre's now famous article -- and there is the added complication of Mark's relationship to Luke's text, which I have not adequately explored above --, but it is in effect, I believe, a rather close parallel to the phenomenon Mark discusses, though argued here on a neo-Griesbachian premise.<<

        KO: I don’t think it does fit Goodacre’s criteria, particularly when you have to speculate on what Mark may have inferred from what Matthew said in a different context when a more pertinent model is available in what Mark had said earlier about Jesus.

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        kaolson@...

      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 2/7/2003 10:05:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... Even if this were true, it would perhaps still have some value, since exactly the same could
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/7/2003 10:05:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, kaolson@... writes:


          On Thursday, February 6, Leonard Maluf wrote:

          >>I think a case for Markan fatigue can be made in the story of the sending out of the apostles in Mark. I cannot treat the subject here in full, but let me attempt a condensed treatment in the following points:<<

          Leonard,

          At present, this is mostly an explanation of Mark’s text on the theory Mark used Matthew and Luke rather than an actual argument for Mark’s dependence on Matthew and Luke.


          Even if this were true, it would perhaps still have some value, since exactly the same could be said of the examples of fatigue given by Goodacre. I have shown in the case of each example he supplies that although G's observations are an interesting way of explaining the texts in question under the presupposition of Markan priority, there are also perfectly adequate explanations of the texts under the opposite presupposition. Thus, the fatigue argument really doesn't succeed in breaking out of the "reversible argument" dilemma. My case becomes even stronger if the example I give here can rightly be included under the rubric of fatigue.

          LM: >>1. A late Mark, written to a Gentile audience in Rome, would have felt an obvious need to seriously edit his Matthean source at this point, especially with respect to the initial words addressed to the twelve in Matt 10:5b-8: ("do not go into the way of the Gentiles, etc...").<<

          KO: Do you consider Mark’s Gentile audience to be an actual argument for a late Mark or is this just a plausible scenario? I am suspicious of all arguments that assume the NT material moved on a specific trajectory from Jewish to Gentile or from human Jesus to divine Jesus. It seems to me that material could (and probably did) become more or less Jewish and more or less human/divine any number of times in the course of transmission depending on the needs of author and audience. After all, Paul has a Gentile audience and a divine Jesus and he is, by most accounts, early.


          We have been through this a number of times before.  I recognize the theoretical validity of your comments here and that is why I do not take the Gentile audience of Mark as an argument for lateness in itself. However, in the concrete, Matthew simply cannot be read as a Judaized version of Mark. It contains Jewishness in a non-reactionary, more primitive and naive way -- a Judaism that makes eminent sense as generative of the common synoptic narrative itself. On the other hand, Mark reads well as a secondary adaptation of originally Jewish material to a largely Gentile audience. Obviously these are judgments that depend on detailed proof, based on careful analysis of both texts and an understanding of both texts in historical and pragmatic terms. My point has always been that it is precisely in conducting such analysis that the Synoptic riddle should be both raised and solved. A solution should not simply be accepted, and then presupposed, because it has a priori plausibility when stated in the abstract, or responds to popular scientific models on a macro-developmental scale, or because it is repeated by a preponderance of scholars, at times with a preening confidence approaching triumphalism.


          LM: >>4. He does this in a clearly more developed form (by comparison to Luke) in 6:12-13, but here Mark forgets that he had said nothing in 6:7 about Jesus commanding the apostles "to preach", let alone to "preach repentance" and to throw out demons (with DAIMONIA.. EKBALLEIN), but he recalls precisely these elements from the Matthean text in front of him (Matt 10:7-8, which he has omitted earlier for good redactional reasons). Though Matthew does not explicitly have Jesus tell the apostles to preach repentance, Mark is familiar enough with Matt 3:2; 4:17 to know that the preaching of the nearness of the kingdom (Matt 10:7) entails this.<<

          KO: I think the theory that Mark 6.12-13 presupposes Matthew’s text here is unnecessary and misses the point Mark is trying to convey. The apostles kick off their ministry by preaching repentance, and casting out *many* demons and healing, just as Jesus kicked off his ministry by preaching repentance (Mk. 1.14-15), and casting out *many* demons and healing (Mk. 1.34). It looks to me like Mark presupposes Jesus’ ministry, not Matthew’s text, as the model for the apostles’ ministry.


          This is an interesting, but weak response to my suggestion. There is in fact a parallel between what the apostles do when they have been sent out by Jesus and what Jesus himself had been doing in his ministry. But this does not come about independently of a specific commissioning by Jesus of his apostles to do specific kinds of things which they were not otherwise doing up to this point in the Gospel narrative (or, for that matter, thereafter). And it is the apostles' obedience to this commissioning by Jesus (not a kind of abstract imitatio Christi) that is directly portrayed in Mark 6:12-13. Only the terms for the carrying out of their mission seem plausibly to be known to Mark from the first and last elements of Matt 10:7-8, where the contents of this commissioning by Jesus is given in the original gospel narrative. Mark also gives a (relatively late) sacramental reinterpretation (anointing with oil of the sick) of Matt's ASQENOUNTAS QERAPEUETE (10:8). For a late Mark to have included a reference to the apostles as raising the dead and "cleansing" lepers (Matt 10:8) would perhaps have departed too drastically from his community's experience of apostolic workers whom the apostles in this Markan pericope arguably represent. A similar adaptation to familiar and realistic pastoral practice is perhaps also seen in the fact that Mark's "apostles" are allowed to wear sandals (6:9).

          Leonard Maluf
        • Ken Olson
          ... Leonard, You’re looking for Mark 6.12-13’s antecedents only in the parallel pericope of Matthew and not examining the antecedents in Mark’s own text.
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I wrote:

            >>I think the theory that Mark 6.12-13 presupposes Matthew’s text here is unnecessary and misses the point Mark is trying to convey. The apostles kick off their ministry by preaching repentance, and casting out *many* demons and healing, just as Jesus kicked off his ministry by preaching repentance (Mk. 1.14-15), and casting out *many* demons and healing (Mk. 1.34). It looks to me like Mark presupposes Jesus’ ministry, not Matthew’s text, as the model for the apostles’ ministry.<<
            And Leonard Maluf responded:

            >>This is an interesting, but weak response to my suggestion. There is in fact a parallel between what the apostles do when they have been sent out by Jesus and what Jesus himself had been doing in his ministry. But this does not come about independently of a specific commissioning by Jesus of his apostles to do specific kinds of things which they were not otherwise doing up to this point in the Gospel narrative (or, for that matter, thereafter). And it is the apostles' obedience to this commissioning by Jesus (not a kind of abstract imitatio Christi) that is directly portrayed in Mark 6:12-13. Only the terms for the carrying out of their mission seem plausibly to be known to Mark from the first and last elements of Matt 10:7-8, where the contents of this commissioning by Jesus is given in the original gospel narrative. Mark also gives a (relatively late) sacramental reinterpretation (anointing with oil of the sick) of Matt's ASQENOUNTAS QERAPEUETE (10:8). For a late Mark to have included a reference to the apostles as raising the dead and "cleansing" lepers (Matt 10:8) would perhaps have departed too drastically from his community's experience of apostolic workers whom the apostles in this Markan pericope arguably represent. A similar adaptation to familiar and realistic pastoral practice is perhaps also seen in the fact that Mark's "apostles" are allowed to wear sandals (6:9). <<

            Leonard,

            You’re looking for Mark 6.12-13’s antecedents only in the parallel pericope of Matthew and not examining the antecedents in Mark’s own text. Here are the relevant texts in the NRSV (*emphasis mine*):

            Mk. 3.14-15: "And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and *to be sent out* to preach and have authority to cast out demons." (This would seem to qualify as a specific commissioning by Jesus).

            Mk. 6.6b-7; 12-13: "And he went about among the villages teaching. And he called to him the twelve, and *began to send them out* two by two, and gave them authority over unclean spirits… [snip] So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them."

            Mt. 9.35: "And Jesus went about in *all* the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom… "

            Mt. 10.1; 7-8: "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal *every* disease and *every* infirmity… [snip] And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons."

            Lk. 9.1; 6: "And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over *all* demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal… [snip] And they departed and went through the villages preaching the gospel and healing *everywhere*."

            Even if Mark knew Matthew and Luke, the closer parallel seems to be with Luke. Luke lacks Matthew’s reference to demons being "cast out", but he also lacks the raising of the dead and cleansing of lepers that you have to explain away on the theory that Mark is taking Matthew’s instructions as his model for the twelve’s ministry. Also, Luke 9.6 has a parallel to Mark 6.13 in having the twelve heal, which Matthew lacks.

            Luke 9.1 and 6 also say that the twelve had authority over *all* demons and healed *everywhere*, which the Markan parallels don’t say. Apparently you don’t see these, or Matthew’s "*all* the cities and villages", which is not paralleled in Mk. 6.6b, as signs of a late universalizing tendency.

            If Mark is modeling his version of the twelve’s ministry on Matthew’s commands, then he has not only failed to use the commands to raise the dead and cleanse lepers, but has retrojected the commands to preach and to cast out demons back to Mk. 3.14-15 in order to provide an anticipation of the narrative in 6.12-13. This leaves healing as the only action of the twelve in Mark 6.12-13 that is described in Mt. 10 but not in Mk. 3. Also, Mark seems to be deliberately recalling Jesus’ own ministry in Mk. 1.34 in that of the twelve in Mk. 6.13, for he says of the twelve KAI DAIMONIA POLLA EXEBALLON just as he had said of Jesus KAI DAIMONIA POLLA EXEBALEN. As Mark also has Jesus EQERAPEUSEN POLLOUJ in 1.34, just as the twelve POLLOUJ… EQERAPEUON in 6.13, it is difficult to see why a Matthean model for Mark’s text is required at all.

            Similarly, if Mark is basing his account of the twelve’s ministry on Luke, he has completed Luke’s own thought by having the twelve cast out demons, in addition to preaching and healing, and retrojecting the commission back to Mk. 3.14-15, and assimilating the language he uses to describe the twelve’s ministry 6.13 to that he used of Jesus in 1.34.

            I cannot prove that Mark did not model his account of the twelve’s ministry on Matthew or Luke, but if he did, it’s a very different phenomenon from the "docile reproduction" on which Goodacre’s fatigue argument is premised. On your theory, Mark is not uncritically taking over parallels from his source that have no context in his own work, but instead creating new events based on hints in his sources. This is more similar to Goulder’s theories on the-technique-formerly-known-as-midrash than to Goodacre’s fatigue theory. In addition, Mark is providing anticipations of the events he’s creating and inserting them earlier in his narrative.

            Your two additional arguments are weak and reversible. The fact that Mark allows the apostles a staff and sandals could equally well (or, rather, equally poorly) be argued to be more primitive and Palestinian (cf.Exodus 12.11) than Matthew and Luke’s version, which is more Hellenized and has modeled the apostles on Cynic philosophers. (I am not, in fact, arguing that this is the case. I think trying to base judgments of relative priority based on the presence or absence of staff and sandals is unwise).

            The argument that the oil used in the healing in Mk. 6.14 is relatively late and sacramental is interesting in light of James 5.14. References to the use of oil in medical treatments are, of course, common (Isa. 1.6, Jos. Ant. 17.172, Lk. 10.34), but James seems to provide a more specific parallel for its use by Christians to cure diseases. If James is indeed a late and pseudonymous epistle then we can not document the use of oil in healing very early, but neither can we assume the practice is late. Mark may have included the reference to oil in Mk. 6.13 in light of the practice of Christian healers in his own day, but that doesn’t tell us much about whether he was earlier or later than Matthew.

            Best Wishes,

            Ken

            kaolson@...

          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 2/10/2003 2:46:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Only in the sense that Luke suggests to Mark the idea of reporting on the apostles
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 2/10/2003 2:46:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, kaolson@... writes:


              You’re looking for Mark 6.12-13’s antecedents only in the parallel pericope of Matthew and not examining the antecedents in Mark’s own text.[...]
              Even if Mark knew Matthew and Luke, the closer parallel seems to be with Luke.


              Only in the sense that Luke suggests to Mark the idea of reporting on the apostles' execution of Jesus' commissioning commands. Otherwise, Mark 6:12-13 is really closer to Matthew's commissioning words of Jesus (10:7-8) than it is to Lk 9:6, isn't it.


              Luke 9.1 and 6 also say that the twelve had authority over *all* demons and healed *everywhere*, which the Markan parallels don’t say. Apparently you don’t see these, or Matthew’s "*all* the cities and villages", which is not paralleled in Mk. 6.6b, as signs of a late universalizing tendency.


              No, indeed. In the first case, Luke simply reverses the universalizing element (PASAN NOSON KAI PASAN MALAKIAN) he found at the tail end of Matt 10:1 and places the "all" with the demons instead of with the sicknesses (Lk 9:1). This is typical Lukan redaction technique.  As for Mark's version of Matt 9:35 (Mk 6:6b), he simply omits the phrase TAS POLEIS PASAS and copies TAS KWMAS from Matthew (which does not have a universalizing PAS), and then adds a favorite adverb KUKLWi, which in effect means ALL around in a circle. For a similar instance of Mark's replacing a somewhat colorless Matthean PAS with a more pointed adverb, see Mk 6:3.

              Also, Mark seems to be deliberately recalling Jesus’ own ministry in Mk. 1.34 in that of the twelve in Mk. 6.13, for he says of the twelve KAI DAIMONIA POLLA EXEBALLON just as he had said of Jesus KAI DAIMONIA POLLA EXEBALEN. As Mark also has Jesus EQERAPEUSEN POLLOUJ in 1.34, just as the twelve POLLOUJ… EQERAPEUON in 6.13, it is difficult to see why a Matthean model for Mark’s text is required at all.


              These close correspondences are interesting and quite possibly deliberate on Mark's part. I had not noticed this close verbal correspondence before. I don't think it weakens my argument too much, though. After all, Matthew quite consciously has Jesus instructing the apostles to engage in precisely the activities he himself has been engaging in prior to Matt 10 (see 4:23-24 and 9:32-34, 35 especially), as well as immediately thereafter (11:1). I just wonder how you evaluate Mk 6:12-13 in the light of the supposed tendency in Mark to play down the twelve.


              I cannot prove that Mark did not model his account of the twelve’s ministry on Matthew or Luke, but if he did, it’s a very different phenomenon from the "docile reproduction" on which Goodacre’s fatigue argument is premised. On your theory, Mark is not uncritically taking over parallels from his source that have no context in his own work, but instead creating new events based on hints in his sources. This is more similar to Goulder’s theories on the-technique-formerly-known-as-midrash than to Goodacre’s fatigue theory. In addition, Mark is providing anticipations of the events he’s creating and inserting them earlier in his narrative.


              OK. Good points. I am willing to give up the idea of fatigue here in a Goodacre sense. I still think, though, that many features of Mk 6:7-13 can well be understood as secondary manipulation and conflation of the Matthean and Lukan parallels. Of course the rather garbled syntax of Mark in this passage (remarkable even for Mark!) has been taken as a sign of primitivity -- an original rough draft of the apostolic commissioning -- but I am not sure this argument holds. Mark simply puts the text into a rough and ready sounding colloquial Greek speech that is his own and that sounds dramatic and that would appeal to his relatively uneducated audience. He of course condenses here drastically, compared to Matthew. But Mark does this with most of Matthew's long sermons, and he has the specific precedent of Luke's own drastic reduction in this case as well.

              Your remaining points seems to me to have some validity as well. Except, do you have a good explanation of why Matthew and Luke would both have removed Mark's references to anointing the sick with oil? This does strike me as more likely a secondary feature.

              Leonard Maluf
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.