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

Re: evidence for Markan priority over Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... You are, of course, exactly correct. Individual directional arguments can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However, I would
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 8, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:56 AM 9/5/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      >What the "fatigue" phenomon does provide is evidence against Mark having
      >copied from Matthew. It is a good argument against Matthaean priority.
      >This is very much not the same as a good argument for Markan priority,
      >however.

      You are, of course, exactly correct. Individual directional arguments
      can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However,
      I would expect that a good argument for Markan priority include the good,
      but not the usual weak, arguments that Mark did not copy directly from
      another Synoptic gospel -- with due consideration given to the possibility
      that Matthew and Mark are indirectly related through a shared source.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... This is partly the problem that I faced with the evidence of fatigue from double tradition material. How do we know that Luke is fatigued with Matthew
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 9, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9 Sep 98 at 2:35, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

        > At 08:56 AM 9/5/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
        > >What the "fatigue" phenomon does provide is evidence against Mark having
        > >copied from Matthew. It is a good argument against Matthaean priority.
        > >This is very much not the same as a good argument for Markan priority,
        > >however.
        >
        > You are, of course, exactly correct. Individual directional arguments
        > can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However,
        > I would expect that a good argument for Markan priority include the good, but
        > not the usual weak, arguments that Mark did not copy directly from another
        > Synoptic gospel -- with due consideration given to the possibility that
        > Matthew and Mark are indirectly related through a shared source.

        This is partly the problem that I faced with the evidence of "fatigue" from
        double tradition material. How do we know that Luke is fatigued with Matthew
        and not Q? The answer I gave
        (see http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Back23) was that it is (in my
        opinion -- and I have searched carefully) impossible to find examples where
        Matthew might be fatigued with Q. Given the clear examples in the first half
        of the paper of Matthew's fatigue with Mark, it seems unlikely that he would
        never be fatigued with Q.

        Something similar might be said about the idea that Matthew and Mark were
        independently dependent on a common source. Why does Mark never apparently
        show fatigue with that source in the way that Matthew does? Perhaps he was
        more careful than Matthew. But our evidence of Mark's more rough and ready
        colloquial style hardly make that likely, does it?

        Mark
        --------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

        Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        --------------------------------------

        Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
        Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Jim Deardorff
        Note: a wide screen is needed here! At 10:42 AM 9/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote: ... (in my ... This doesn t necessarily follow if the first half, Given the
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 9, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Note: a wide screen is needed here!

          At 10:42 AM 9/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
          Stephen Carlson wrote:
          >> [...] Individual directional arguments
          >> can only tend to disconfirm a particular priority hypothesis. However,
          >> I would expect that a good argument for Markan priority include the good, but
          >> not the usual weak, arguments that Mark did not copy directly from another
          >> Synoptic gospel -- with due consideration given to the possibility that
          >> Matthew and Mark are indirectly related through a shared source.

          >This is partly the problem that I faced with the evidence of "fatigue" from
          >double tradition material. How do we know that Luke is fatigued with Matthew
          >and not Q? The answer I gave
          >(see http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Back23) was that it is
          (in my
          >opinion -- and I have searched carefully) impossible to find examples where
          >Matthew might be fatigued with Q. Given the clear examples in the first half
          >of the paper of Matthew's fatigue with Mark, it seems unlikely that he would
          >never be fatigued with Q. [...]

          This doesn't necessarily follow if the first half, "Given the clear examples
          in the first half of the paper of Matthew's fatigue with Mark" should be
          incorrect. Recall, some time ago I posted reasons why your fatigue analysis
          re Mt versus Mk is all too easily reversible. In order, they amounted to:

          (1) Mt 14:1-12//Mk 6:14-29 -- AMk's error in trying to correct Matthew or
          make it more understandable to gentiles who don't care about what a tetrarch is.

          (2) Same text -- AMk makes an improvement in Matthean text that contains a
          rather obvious inconsistency.

          (3) Mt 8:1-4//Mk 1:40-45 -- AMk corrects what is inexplicable in Matthew.
          Also, AMk has a good reason of his own to stress the secrecy theme.

          (4) Mt 12:46-50//Mk 3:31-35 -- AMk corrects Matthew's incongruity into
          something that makes perfect sense.

          What makes good sense, therefore, is that AMk did improve upon Matthew at
          times, as n oted above, but was also an inept editor at times and made
          mistakes; some of his improvements could have been accidental results of his
          alterations and omissions. Similar statements could be said for the other
          synopticians. So one continues to seek argumentation much less reversible
          than the "fatigue" argument.

          To this end, I still find the tradition of Matthean priority over Mark
          (allowing for the complication associated with a document in Rome that Mark
          & Peter held) to be the least reversible, since the order in which the
          gospels first appeared would have been noted, remembered, and not likely be
          a falsely generated rumor: their order of appearance would merely have been
          an accepted chronological fact.

          Jim Deardorff
          Corvallis, Oregon
          E-mail: deardorj@...
          Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however, there is a possible example of Mark s fatigue of a source like Matthew-- Mk6:4
          Message 4 of 27 , Sep 9, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:42 AM 9/9/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >Something similar might be said about the idea that Matthew and Mark were
            >independently dependent on a common source. Why does Mark never apparently
            >show fatigue with that source in the way that Matthew does? Perhaps he was
            >more careful than Matthew. But our evidence of Mark's more rough and ready
            >colloquial style hardly make that likely, does it?

            Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however,
            there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew--
            Mk6:4 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for
            John in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:5 agrees with Mt14:8, in
            Matthew's more characteristic language, the "Baptist."

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... Many scholars, possibly including some contributors to Synoptic-L, hold to a hypothesis in which Matthew and Mark were
            Message 5 of 27 , Sep 10, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
              >
              >Something similar might be said about the idea that Matthew and Mark were
              >independently dependent on a common source. Why does Mark never apparently
              >show fatigue with that source in the way that Matthew does? Perhaps he was
              >more careful than Matthew. But our evidence of Mark's more rough and ready
              >colloquial style hardly make that likely, does it?
              >

              Many scholars, possibly including some contributors to Synoptic-L, hold
              to a hypothesis in which Matthew and Mark were independently dependent
              on a common source. It is a variation on the Two Document Hypothesis.
              This hypothesis is listed by Frans Neirynck in his article on the
              Synoptic Problem in "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary" page 593. It
              states that Mark copied from a Proto-Mark which was also used
              independently by Matthew and Luke. On this hypothesis, therefore,
              Matthew and Mark are independently dependent on Proto-Mark. Of course it
              is further held that Matthew and Luke independently copied from
              hypothetical Q.

              Now there are extensive agreements of wording of Matthew and Mark
              against Luke in the triple tradition. Similarly, there are big
              agreements in wording of Mark and Luke against Matthew in the triple
              tradition. But the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the
              the triple tradition are much smaller - for this reason these usually
              being known as the "Minor Agreements". This is strong evidence that
              Mark, if he copied from Proto-Mark, copied wording from Proto-Mark much
              more carefully than did either Matthew or Luke. (Many advocates of the
              Proto-Mark variation on the 2DH posit the Proto-Mark precisely to
              explain the Minor Agreements in this way.)

              Moreover, if Mark copied relatively faithfully from Proto-Mark, "Mark's
              more rough and ready colloquial style" is the style not of the writer of
              the Gospel of Mark himself, but the style of the writer of Proto-Mark.

              On the Proto-Mark variation of the 2DH, therefore, the absence of the
              pattern of "fatigue" in Mark in relation to his source Proto-Mark, is
              the result of the writer of the Gospel of Mark being a much more careful
              copier of Proto-Mark than either Matthew or Luke as they copied from
              Proto-Nark.

              And the "more rough and ready colloquial style" of the Gospel of Mark is
              not the style of the writer of the Gospel of Mark at all, but the style
              which the writer of the Gospel of Mark copied relatively faithfully from
              Proto-Mark. (The style of the writer of the Gospel of Mark himself would
              have to be gleaned from the Minor Agreements.)

              Of course, on this hypothesis the fatigue phenomenon observed in Matthew
              in relation to Mark is the result of Matthew copying in a tired way from
              Proto-Mark, Mark copying faithfully from Proto-Mark.

              The "fatigue" phenomenon which Mark Goodacre observes in Matthew when
              compared with Mark is therefore perfectly consistent with the Proto-Mark
              2DH. And so also is the apparent absence of fatigue in the Gospel of
              Mark, and also the rough style found in the Gospel of Mark. Indeed,
              these phenomena are perfectly consistent with any synoptic hypothesis
              which denies that Matthew copied from Mark and instead posits that
              Matthew and Mark independently copied from the same documentary source
              material.

              Thus "fatigue" is compatible with the Proto-Mark variation on the Two
              Document Hypothesis, the Pierson-Parker Hypothesis, the Boismard
              Hypothesis, the Two Notebook Hypothesis, the Lowe and Flusser
              Hypothesis, the Vaganay-Benoit Hypothesis, and so on, and so on.

              The "fatigue" phenomenon is therefore evidence against Matthew having
              copied from Mark, as well as evidence in favour.

              For it is evidence not only for the Farrer Hypthesis in which Matthew is
              supposed to have copied from Mark, but also for the Proto-Mark variation
              on the Two Document Hypothesis, and the other hypotheses mentioned
              above, in which Matthew is held not to have copied from Mark at all.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
              SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
              10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Stephen, Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the result of fatigue on the part of Mark? Best wishes,
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 12, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                >Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?

                Stephen,
                Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the
                result of fatigue on the part of Mark?

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... No. But I wish to stress that I m using fatigue in a technical sense: viz. the failure to consistently follow through with an editing plan. The Minor
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 12, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 08:42 AM 9/12/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                  >Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                  >>Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?
                  >
                  >Stephen,
                  > Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the
                  >result of fatigue on the part of Mark?

                  No. But I wish to stress that I'm using "fatigue" in a technical sense:
                  viz. the failure to consistently follow through with an editing plan. The
                  Minor Agreements, on the other hand, need not involve fatigue but tend to
                  contradict the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke are independent derivations
                  of Mark.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Brian Wilson replied - ... Stephen replied - ... Stephen, Have you considered that if neither Matthew nor Luke copied from
                  Message 8 of 27 , Sep 13, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                    >Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?
                    >
                    Brian Wilson replied -
                    >Have you considered that the Minor Agreements could be the
                    >result of fatigue on the part of Mark?
                    >
                    Stephen replied -
                    >No. But I wish to stress that I'm using "fatigue" in a technical sense:
                    >viz. the failure to consistently follow through with an editing plan. The
                    >Minor Agreements, on the other hand, need not involve fatigue but tend to
                    >contradict the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke are independent derivations
                    >of Mark.
                    >
                    Stephen,
                    Have you considered that if neither Matthew nor Luke copied from
                    Mark, then the Minor Agreements could be the result of fatigue on the
                    part of Mark - where Mark fails to follow through consistently with his
                    editing plan?

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                    SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                    10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                    Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... Minor correction -- the verses are Mark 6.24 and 6.25. H. Riley comments on this example too -- see: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Note9
                    Message 9 of 27 , Sep 14, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 9 Sep 98 at 21:36, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                      > Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however,
                      > there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew--
                      > Mk6:4 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for John
                      > in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:5 agrees with Mt14:8, in Matthew's
                      > more characteristic language, the "Baptist."

                      Minor correction -- the verses are Mark 6.24 and 6.25. H. Riley comments on
                      this example too -- see:

                      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm#Note9

                      The difficulty with the example is that this is really only variation in
                      wording. As I wrote in the above cited place, "'Baptist' and 'Baptizer'
                      are equally correct. Mark's variation is not unusual or surprising in the way
                      that Matthew's 'tetrarch' and 'king' would be on the assumption of Matthean
                      priority, to say nothing of the king's 'grief'".

                      Further, the vocabulary statistics are hardly convincing: Mark has hO BAPTIZWN
                      (etc.) three times, Mark 1.4, 6.14 (the latter the one under discussion) and
                      6.24 and BAPTISTHS twice, Mark 6.25 and 8.28. This is very little to build a
                      case on, especially in the light of (a) the likelihood of variation in the
                      mss over BAPTISTHS // BAPTIZWN, especially in a place like Mark 6.25 where
                      there is a Matthean parallel and (b) the much more overwhelming case from king
                      / tetrarch.

                      In answer to the general question, I spent some time combing the synopsis for
                      possible examples of Markan fatigue of Matthew / Luke but could not find a
                      single plausible example. This was originally a chapter of my DPhil thesis but
                      it dropped out in order to be re-worked and presented in an article. It is my
                      feeling that the phenomenon of editorial fatigue provides good evidence for
                      Matthew's use of Mark and Luke's use of Matthew and Mark largely because it is
                      so difficult to find good counter-examples.

                      Mark


                      -------------------------------------------
                      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                      Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

                      --------------------------------------------

                      Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
                      Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) - ... Mark Goodacre commented (SNIP) - ... Mark, I wonder whether your finding of no plausible examples of Markan fatigue of
                      Message 10 of 27 , Sep 14, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen Carlson wrote (SNIP) -
                        >Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark?

                        Mark Goodacre commented (SNIP) -
                        >In answer to the general question, I spent some time combing the synopsis for
                        >possible examples of Markan fatigue of Matthew / Luke but could not find a
                        >single plausible example.

                        Mark,
                        I wonder whether your finding of no plausible examples of Markan
                        fatigue of Matthew/Luke does cover the general question of fatigue on
                        the part of Mark?

                        On the Proto-Mark Hypothesis - that all three synoptists independently
                        copied from Proto-Mark, and Matthew and Luke independently copied from Q
                        - there are some Minor Agreements which are consistent with Mark having
                        omitted a word or phrase retained by Matthew and Luke. All these
                        apparent omissions by Mark could be instances of Mark tiring in his
                        editorial programme of faithfully copying the wording of material from
                        Proto-Mark.

                        On the Farrer Hypothesis, of course, this phenomenon would be Matthew
                        adding a word or phrase (in his editing of Mark), with Luke copying this
                        wording from Matthew, and would therefore not show up as fatigue on the
                        part of Mark.

                        Fatigue on the part of Mark on one synoptic hypothesis may therefore be
                        a different phenomenon from fatigue on the part of Mark under another
                        synoptic hypothesis.

                        And the absence of fatigue on the part of Mark on one synoptic
                        hypothesis therefore does not necessarily rule out fatigue on the part
                        of Mark under a different one.

                        Best wishes,
                        BRIAN WILSON

                        E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... I don t think the issue is whether or not Baptist and Baptizer are correct terms, or even, whether tetrarch and king are correct for Herod (e.g.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Sep 15, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 10:53 AM 9/14/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                          >On 9 Sep 98 at 21:36, Stephen C. Carlson wrote [corrected]:
                          >> Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe, however,
                          >> there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew--
                          >> Mk6:24 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for John
                          >> in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:25 agrees with Mt14:8, in Matthew's
                          >> more characteristic language, the "Baptist."
                          >
                          >The difficulty with the example is that this is really only variation in
                          >wording. As I wrote in the above cited place, "'Baptist' and 'Baptizer'
                          >are equally correct. Mark's variation is not unusual or surprising in the way
                          >that Matthew's 'tetrarch' and 'king' would be on the assumption of Matthean
                          >priority, to say nothing of the king's 'grief'".

                          I don't think the issue is whether or not "Baptist" and "Baptizer" are
                          correct terms, or even, whether "tetrarch" and "king" are correct for
                          Herod (e.g. BAGD cites Cicero, Verr. 4,27 for calling Herod Antipas a
                          BASILEUS). Rather, if I understand editorial fatigue or docile
                          reproduction correctly, it is a failure to sustain a set of changes
                          throughout a redaction of another's work. In this example, I am
                          tentatively asserting that Mark has failed to consistently call John
                          "the Baptizer" due to a docile reproduction of a text similar to
                          Matthew.

                          On page 52 of the article, the phenomenon of fatigue is distinguished
                          from the inconsistencies and clumsiness in Mark's gospel, as follows:

                          "Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark
                          at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they
                          are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
                          Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
                          characteristically."

                          I think this can be shown in Mk6:14-29//Mt14:1-12 for the surname of
                          John the Baptist/Baptizer and Mark's inconsistent use of the surname.

                          >Further, the vocabulary statistics are hardly convincing: Mark has hO BAPTIZWN
                          >(etc.) three times, Mark 1.4, 6.14 (the latter the one under discussion) and
                          >6.24 and BAPTISTHS twice, Mark 6.25 and 8.28. This is very little to build a
                          >case on, especially in the light of (a) the likelihood of variation in the
                          >mss over BAPTISTHS // BAPTIZWN, especially in a place like Mark 6.25 where
                          >there is a Matthean parallel and (b) the much more overwhelming case from king
                          >/ tetrarch.

                          I think some factors make the vocabulary statistics more convincing. First,
                          hO BAPTISTHS is the normal title for John, including by Josephus. Ant. 18,
                          116. In contrast, Mark's hO BAPTIZWN is strikingly idiosyncratic -- as far
                          as I can determine, only Mark uses this a surname for John. hO BAPTIZWN is
                          used three times in Mark, 1:4 // Mt3:1 hO BAPTISTHS, 6:14 // Mt14:2 hO
                          BAPTISTHS, and 6:24 // Mt14:8 ** omit. Yet both Markan occurrence of
                          BAPTISTHS are paralleled by Matthew, 6:25=Mt14:8 and 8:28=Mt16:14.
                          (Matthew's three other occurrences of BAPTISTHS are 11:11QD, 11:12QD, and
                          17:13R). Thus, BAPTISTHS 7/2/3+0 should be viewed as characteristic for
                          Matthew, and hO BAPTIZWN 0/3/0+0 as characteristic for Mark. The fact that
                          Mark has BAPTISTHS twice may be due, in both cases, to docile reproduction.

                          Therefore, Mark differs from Matthew at the beginning of the pericope, at the
                          point where Mark is writing most characteristically [Mk6:14 hO BAPTIZWN //
                          Mt14:2 hO BAPTISTHS], and Mark agrees with Matthew later in the pericope,
                          where Mark is writing less characteristically [Mk6:25=Mt14:8 TOU BAPTISTOU].

                          As for the first rebuttal point (a), it is indeed wise to bring up the MSS
                          variants, because our conclusions in source criticism can only be as precise
                          as the textual basis will allow. At Mk6:25 where the critical text reads
                          BAPTISTOU, Aland's Synopsis lists only L, 700, and 892 for support, which
                          is hardly compelling, and both NA27 and UBS4 fail to even note a variant here.
                          Thus, I think the text is secure and MSS is not an issue in this passage.

                          As for "(b) the much more overwhelming case from king / tetrarch," I do not
                          dispute at all that king/tetrarch is a good example of fatigue. However,
                          just because there is one directional indicator of fatigue in one direction
                          it does not preclude fatigue in the other direction--because Matthew and Mark
                          might be both fatigued of a shared, common source.

                          >In answer to the general question, I spent some time combing the synopsis for
                          >possible examples of Markan fatigue of Matthew / Luke but could not find a
                          >single plausible example. This was originally a chapter of my DPhil thesis but
                          >it dropped out in order to be re-worked and presented in an article. It is my
                          >feeling that the phenomenon of editorial fatigue provides good evidence for
                          >Matthew's use of Mark and Luke's use of Matthew and Mark largely because it is
                          >so difficult to find good counter-examples.

                          What your article has done is to shift the burden of production to the Q
                          supporters and to those of more exotic theories to come up with good counter-
                          examples. I hope your article will be taken seriously. If the only example
                          I had for fatigue in Mark's use of Matthew is this Baptist/Baptizer example,
                          I would not be terribly thrilled.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                        • Mark Goodacre
                          ... The definition is right except that I would want to add that it is a failure to sustain a set of characteristic, redactional changes *such as to produce
                          Message 12 of 27 , Sep 16, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 15 Sep 98 at 21:18, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                            > I don't think the issue is whether or not "Baptist" and "Baptizer" are
                            > correct terms, or even, whether "tetrarch" and "king" are correct for
                            > Herod (e.g. BAGD cites Cicero, Verr. 4,27 for calling Herod Antipas a
                            > BASILEUS). Rather, if I understand editorial fatigue or docile
                            > reproduction correctly, it is a failure to sustain a set of changes
                            > throughout a redaction of another's work. In this example, I am
                            > tentatively asserting that Mark has failed to consistently call John
                            > "the Baptizer" due to a docile reproduction of a text similar to
                            > Matthew.

                            The definition is right except that I would want to add that it is a failure to
                            sustain a set of characteristic, redactional changes *such as to produce
                            serious inconsistency*. I think that all of my examples are like that, akin to
                            continuity errors in film and television.

                            In other words, examples that might be explained as simply variation in
                            wording (like BAPTISTHS vs. BAPTIZWN) where each term used does not produce
                            a serious problem in coherently understanding the passage, will not be as
                            striking as examples that involve genuine inconsistency, incoherence, or
                            continuity error.

                            > On page 52 of the article, the phenomenon of fatigue is distinguished
                            > from the inconsistencies and clumsiness in Mark's gospel, as follows:
                            >
                            > "Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark
                            > at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they
                            > are writing most characteristically, and they agree with
                            > Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less
                            > characteristically."
                            >
                            > I think this can be shown in Mk6:14-29//Mt14:1-12 for the surname of
                            > John the Baptist/Baptizer and Mark's inconsistent use of the surname.

                            There is of course a fine line between "inconsistency" and "variation", but if
                            we think carefully about it, BAPTIZWN means precisely the same thing as
                            BAPTISTHS. BASILEUS, on the other hand, does not mean precisely the same thing
                            as TETRAARXHS.

                            > I think some factors make the vocabulary statistics more convincing. First,
                            > hO BAPTISTHS is the normal title for John, including by Josephus. Ant. 18,
                            > 116. In contrast, Mark's hO BAPTIZWN is strikingly idiosyncratic -- as far as
                            > I can determine, only Mark uses this a surname for John. hO BAPTIZWN is used
                            > three times in Mark, 1:4 // Mt3:1 hO BAPTISTHS, 6:14 // Mt14:2 hO BAPTISTHS,
                            > and 6:24 // Mt14:8 ** omit. Yet both Markan occurrence of BAPTISTHS are
                            > paralleled by Matthew, 6:25=Mt14:8 and 8:28=Mt16:14. (Matthew's three other
                            > occurrences of BAPTISTHS are 11:11QD, 11:12QD, and 17:13R). Thus, BAPTISTHS
                            > 7/2/3+0 should be viewed as characteristic for Matthew, and hO BAPTIZWN
                            > 0/3/0+0 as characteristic for Mark. The fact that Mark has BAPTISTHS twice
                            > may be due, in both cases, to docile reproduction.

                            These figures are suggestive but not compelling. Three usages in Mark of hO
                            BAPTIZWN is not much to go on, especially when one of these (1.4) is textually
                            uncertain. NA27 prints hO in square brackets. We may have here "John came
                            baptizing . . ." So two of one kind (BAPTISTHS) versus two or three of another
                            (BAPTIZWN) -- this does not appear strong to me. Of course BAPTISTHS is more
                            characteristic of Matthew. No doubt he knew that that was the proper term (a
                            la Josephus) just as he knew, with Luke and Josephus, that TETRAARXHS was the
                            proper term for Antipas.

                            Mark Goodacre
                            -------------------------------------------
                            Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                            Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

                            --------------------------------------------

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