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

Re: evidence for Markan priority over Matthew

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.