Re: [Synoptic-L] RE: [synoptic-l] Matthew's additions to Mark
- on 2/18/03 6:51 AM, Eric Eve at eric.eve@...
> Secondly, I believe it has often been observed that within the SynopticNot only in oral tradition, but in short-term memory, as is required by
> Gospels there tends to be less variation in the wording of sayings material
> than in narrative material. This may indicate that the tradition was more
> conservative towards sayings material, which might help to indicate why,
> even if Matthew's non-Markan sources were mainly or wholly oral, they would
> be more reliable for words that for deeds. In any case, aren't aphorisms
> precisely the sort of material one would expect to be relatively well
> conserved in oral tradition, whereas narratives very easily get re-adapted
> to each fresh telling?
Auditory Piracy. You need only remember the punchline of a joke, you can
rebuild the intro from the bones.
So this sayings/narrative variation (new to me) can be seen as a datum
favorable to AP and unexplained (as is synoptic variation overall) by any
alternative model. Note that this variation is predicted *by* the model.
Actually, you could read texts to undergrads and check the general
reliability of their subsequent reproductions against what we find in the
synoptics. AP predicts a good fit.
This model is not versus Farrer, it concretizes Farrer.
>Gentlemanly wet work, Mr Bond.
> Finally, this whole discussion assumes your point that Matthew's narrative
> additions to Mark are clearly post-70, and I can't say that's something I've
> been immediately struck by (although I'm perfectly open to the possibility
> that many of Matthew's narrative additions to Mark may be Matthean
> inventions). Neither is it immediately obvious to me that all the non-Markan
> sayings material is either clearly pre-60 or obviously authentic; of course,
> this is not exactly what you claim, since you refer not to 'all the sayings'
> but to 'many of the sayings'. Thus I'm not entirely sure how far your
> (effective) assertion that "the oral tradition available to Matthew [is] so
> much more reliable for words (especially aphorisms) than for deeds" is a
> fair description of the evidence. You seem to have moved from 'many of the
> non-Markan sayings in Matthew's Gospels look more likely to be pre-60 in
> origin while most of the non-Markan narrative looks post-70' to 'the sayings
> material in Matthew's non-Markan source is more reliable than the narrative
> material', and there may be a slight gap in logic there (although you may be
> able to justify it with a more detailed discussion of the evidence). Again,
> since you classify much of Matthew's non-Markan narrative as 'redactional
> development of Mark' this clearly labels it as both post-70 (since I take it
> that neither of us is proposing a pre-70 date for Matthew) and as not
> derived from a source (and hence irrelevant to your argument).
> Taken together, I rather think these three points dispose of this particular
> objection to the Farrer hypothesis; but thanks for raising an interesting
> question about Matthew's sources.
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> Best wishes,
> Eric Eve
> Harris Manchester College, Oxford
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...