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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Goodacre on Fatigue

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    ... Markan ... individual ... But that s precisely what you asked me to do (see below)! And again, ... you ... of Markan ... I took this to be a challenge to
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 21, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Leonard Maluf wrote:

      > Of course it is possible to say what Matthew must have done, assuming
      Markan
      > priority. I am trying to see, empirically, where the evidence of
      individual
      > parallel pericopes leads one most logically. On these terms, your comment
      > here is out of place.

      But that's precisely what you asked me to do (see below)!

      And again,

      > Again, you simply assume Markan priority here.

      But the context of my remarks was replying to your previous comment:

      > Thanks for at least imagining the scenario of a late Mark here, but don't
      you
      > agree that the Matt 8 text is now difficult to explain on the hypothesis
      of Markan
      > priority?

      I took this to be a challenge to explain the Matt 8 text on the hypothesis
      of Markan priority, which is what I attempted to do. But if you invite me to
      explain something "on the hypothesis of Markan priority" how can you
      complain when I offer an explanation "assuming Markan priority"? And how am
      I meant to explain the Matt 8 text on the basis of Markan priority unless "I
      simply assume Markan priority" for the purposes of the explanation? We must
      now be badly at cross-purposes since it now seems to me that I supplied
      precisely what you asked for and have just been rapped over the knuckles for
      doing so!

      Best wishes,

      Eric
      ----------------------------------
      Eric Eve
      Harris Manchester College, Oxford






      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 11/21/2003 1:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, eric.eve@harris-manchester.oxford.ac.uk writes: [I had written] ... I meant to explain the Matt
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 21, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 11/21/2003 1:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, eric.eve@... writes:

        [I had written]
        > > Thanks for at least imagining the scenario of a late Mark here, but don't you agree that the Matt 8 text is now difficult to explain on the hypothesis of Markan priority?
        >
        > I took this to be a challenge to explain the Matt 8 text on the hypothesis of Markan priority, which is what I attempted to do. But if you invite me to explain something "on the hypothesis of Markan priority" how can you complain when I offer an explanation "assuming Markan priority"? And how am
        I meant to explain the Matt 8 text on the basis of Markan priority unless "I simply assume Markan priority" for the purposes of the explanation?>>

        I was not blaming you for simply assuming Markan priority here, but for thinking that your explanation was successful, whereas I pointed out that it in fact failed to respond to my question as to why Matt would miss an opportunity to harp on a favorite theme of his in his parallel to the story of the healed leper in Mark? What I hoped you would do was to admit that Matt 8:1-4 is difficult to explain on the basis of Markan priority. Instead you illustrated that the point by a rather convoluted explanation, which I suppose is equally valuable. I ought not to have complained.

        By the way, this time your response to my mail arrived in my box prior to my mail itself. Is there a Markan priority bias to the distribution of mail on this list?:)

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Eric Eve
        ... Ah, then perhaps the way in which I ordered my response was at fault, for my final point was intended to challenge your thesis that paradoxical
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 21, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Leonard Maluf wrote:

          > I was not blaming you for simply assuming Markan priority here, but for
          > thinking that your explanation was successful, whereas I pointed out that
          > it in fact failed to respond to my question as to why Matt would miss an
          > opportunity to harp on a favorite theme of his in his parallel to the
          > story of the healed leper in Mark? What I hoped you would do was to admit
          > that Matt 8:1-4 is difficult to explain on the basis of Markan priority.
          > Instead you illustrated that the point by a rather convoluted explanation,
          > which I suppose is equally valuable. I ought not to have complained.

          Ah, then perhaps the way in which I ordered my response was at fault, for my
          final point was intended to challenge your thesis that "paradoxical
          publication" is Matthean rather than Markan property, and of course that
          point needs to be established before the rest of my explanation can stand.
          To my point that Mark does have a parallel to Mark 4.22 and exhibits the
          same theme at Mk 7.36 (where Matthew doesn't) you replied:

          > You're right here, and this illustrates that the "ownership" argument
          > has to be formulated and used with care. "Ownership", in the mere sense
          > of quantitative instances of a theme's occurence, does not necessarily
          > point to priority. Otherwise, Luke would be prior to Matthew on the basis
          > of the fact that he uses the formula: "your faith has saved you" four
          times
          > to Matthew's once. Yes, Mk 4:22 is something of a parallel to Matt
          10:26-27,
          > but notice how Mark reworks the saying drastically to serve as an
          introduction
          > to his own invented parable (remotely based on Matt 13:24-30) of 4:26-29.

          But whereas I take your point that ownership isn't simply a matter of
          relative frequency, I'm afraid your reply doesn't convince me that the theme
          of "paradoxical publication" is primitive to Matthew rather than Mark. On my
          reading of Mark, 4:22 is not only an introduction to 4:26-29 but also a clue
          to the whole parable section, not least Mark 4:2-20 (the parable of the
          sower and its interpretation); why does everything "come in
          parables/riddles" to those outside? Because (at least here) the Markan Jesus
          uses concealement as a strategy for revelation, just as in the various
          parables various kinds of seeds are buried (concealed) in order to sprout up
          (be revealed). It is when Jesus first speaks the word plainly/openly
          (PARRHSIAi TON LOGON ELALEI - Mk 8.31) instead of 'sowing' it in parables
          (hO SPEIRWN TON LOGON SPEIREI - Mk 4.13) Peter (the PETRWDES of the
          parable?) at once rejects it. Hence the Markan Jesus speaks TON LOGON in
          parables to suit his audience's capacity to hear, KAQWS HDUNANTO AKOUEIN (Mk
          4.33). On this interpretation, Mk 4.2-33 is all (at one level) on the theme
          of "paradoxical publication", and given the occurrences at Mk 1.45 and 7.36
          (if indeed these belong to the same motif) one can hardly claim that the
          theme is unMarkan (in the sense of being at home in Mark - I'm not claiming
          that this argument of itself necessarily shows that the idea originates with
          Mark, only that it's one that's important to Mark).

          What is needed to make your argument the clincher that you want it to be is
          a demonstration that Mark obtained this theme from Matthew rather than vice
          versa. So far this seems to be something you are now simply asserting.
          Without such a demonstration that the theme is primitive to Matthew, or else
          so congenial to Matthew that he would almost certainly have taken over every
          occurrence of it he found in his source, your point about Mark 1.45 loses
          its force and, I think, the explanation I offered of Matthew's
          redaction/composition on the basis of Markan priority is perfectly
          legitimate. Of course, I do need to make it clear that an additional
          assumption I'm making here is that the occurrences of the "paradoxical
          publication" theme in Matthew can be explained as borrowings from Mark of a
          theme that Matthew finds only mildly useful, not one in which he is so
          compellingly interested as you suppose.

          In any case one must also be careful of assuming a later author would always
          take over a reference to a theme in which he is meant to be interested. For
          example Luke is generally reckoned to be pretty interested in the Spirit,
          yet he has 'finger of God' for Matthew's 'spirit of God' at Mt 12.28 // Lk
          11.20, which supporters of Q regularly trot out as an argument against
          Luke's use of Matthew. I happen to think this particular argument can be
          countered quite readily, but its logic seems dangerously parallel to that
          you're trying to use in the case of Mk 1.45 (if Matthew had seen this theme
          he's so keen on he would surely have taken it over from Mark 1.45: if Luke,
          who is so keen on the spirit, had seen 'spirit of God' at Mt 12.28 he would
          surely have taken it over at Lk 11.20).

          But that's a subsidiary point; my main point is that it first has to be
          established that "paradoxical publication" really is so important to Matthew
          that he could not have resisted borrowing any reference to it from his
          source(s), and ITSM that this has yet to be established.

          > By the way, this time your response to my mail arrived in my box prior to
          > my mail itself. Is there a Markan priority bias to the distribution of
          mail
          > on this list?:)

          That's probably because my response to your mail came directly from me to
          you (since I copied you explicitly) whereas your copy of your own mail had
          to wait until the list server did whatever it does to incoming mail before
          forwarding it to list members.

          Best wishes,

          Eric



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/21/2003 1:32:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... I think the argument is getting a bit sidetracked, not to say obfuscated, with this and
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 21, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/21/2003 1:32:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, eric.eve@... writes:


            Ah, then perhaps the way in which I ordered my response was at fault, for my
            final point was intended to challenge your thesis that "paradoxical
            publication" is Matthean rather than Markan property, and of course that
            point needs to be established before the rest of my explanation can stand.


            I think the argument is getting a bit sidetracked, not to say obfuscated, with this and your following observations. I don't remember ever saying that "paradoxical publication" is Matthean RATHER THAN Markan property. If I did, I shouldn't have. Any evangelist is occupationally predisposed to be rather keen on the idea of "paradoxical publication" of the Gospel message. It is precisely what he is engaged in, after all. My original use of the "ownership" argument, if you will remember, was in a very different type of context. I claimed that the warp and woof of the leper story was Matthean -- and not Markan -- because the story's substance is keen on showing Jesus upholding the Jewish Law, which is clearly a concern of Matthew's, and not of Mark's. This was one of two arguments I carefully laid out in favor of the priority of Matt in this particular set of Gospel parallels. This, after having rebutted Goodacre's fatigue argument for the priority of Mark in this passage. In the interests of full disclosure, I should state at this point that I would rate the two positive arguments I made for Matthean priority in this passage as valid, not particularly strong, and certainly not decisive (exactly the rating I gave to the argument for Markan priority, based on macro considerations of Synoptic Gospel contents). Nevertheless, I believe my arguments are not negligible, especially by dint of their cumulative effect, and I haven't yet seen either an effective defense of Goodacre's fatigue argument in response to my criticisms of same, or an alternative offer of arguments in favor of Markan priority in, and based solely on, this particular set of parallels. I strongly suspect that no such arguments exist, and that therefore the evidence at this level of consideration tilts strongly (or perhaps just tilts) in favor of Matthean priority. I may yet write a further series of essays showing in particular the features of Luke's and Mark's text in this set of parallels that could very arguably be viewed as secondary. Altogether I would then have proved my original contention that the evidence from an empirical study of individual Gospel parallels does not confirm the hypothesis of Markan priority that might be reasonably assumed on the basis of macro-considerations.

            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA

          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/21/2003 1:32:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Good points. Let me accept your argument that the theme of paradoxical publication is
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 22, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/21/2003 1:32:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, eric.eve@... writes:


              But whereas I take your point that ownership isn't simply a matter of
              relative frequency, I'm afraid your reply doesn't convince me that the theme
              of "paradoxical publication" is primitive to Matthew rather than Mark. On my
              reading of Mark, 4:22 is not only an introduction to 4:26-29 but also a clue
              to the whole parable section, not least Mark 4:2-20 (the parable of the
              sower and its interpretation); why does everything "come in
              parables/riddles" to those outside? Because (at least here) the Markan Jesus
              uses concealement as a strategy for revelation, just as in the various
              parables various kinds of seeds are buried (concealed) in order to sprout up
              (be revealed).


              Good points. Let me accept your argument that the theme of "paradoxical publication" is even more Markan than it is Matthean, that Mark perhaps has a kind of "ownership" of the theme. Now, let us return to Mark's story of the healed leper. What we find is a section of that story that Mark has in common with Matthew, whose substance is owned by Matthew, and which is therefore probably taken by Mark from Matthew, and a section (1:45) that is unique to Mark, which introduces a theme of which Mark is demonstrably very fond. These data are most congenial to the hypothesis of a late Mark who was using Matthew, but had to add a part to the story in order to make it relevant to his community or acceptable for his evangelical purposes.

              Leonard Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Weston, MA
            • Karel Hanhart
              ... From: Eric Eve To: Synoptic-L Cc: Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 22, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Eric Eve <eric.eve@...>
                To: Synoptic-L <synoptic-l@...>
                Cc: <Maluflen@...>
                Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:49 PM
                Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Goodacre on Fatigue


                > Leonard Maluf wrote:
                >
                > >> But there is no need to read the negative command of Jesus in Matthew
                as
                > a command to silence in this sense, as G. does.

                Eric answered:
                > > I confess I'm not sure what you have in mind. So far as I can tell
                MHDENI +
                > a form of EIPEIN comes in two other places in Matthew (16.20 & 17.9);
                these
                > do look like commands to silence, but in both cases this is because a
                direct
                > object is supplied (TO ORAMA in 17.9 and the nouh clause hOTI AUTOS ESTIN
                hO
                > CRISTOS in 16.20). At Mt 9.30 one finds the construction ORATE MHDEIS
                > GINWSKETW addressed to the pair of recently healed formerly blind men,
                which
                > looks like a command to silence without any direct parallel in Mark or
                Luke.
                > Perhaps one could argue (using your ownership argument) that Matthew is in
                > these three cases displaying fragments of a secrecy theme that more
                properly
                > belong to Mark, but I don't think that's what you're driving at.

                Karel's remarks:

                Agreed. The secret motif is primarily Markan. In the dilemma Markan or
                Matthean priority, therefore, one should prefer Markan priority.
                Since Matthew's TWO BLIND MEN are brought up in the discussion, the fact
                that Mark has Jesus heal two different kinds of blind persons, Matthew'
                version is more easily explained as dependent on Mark. He does not have to
                explain the Markan cryptic wordplay in10,46 : bar (Aramaic) and Timaios
                (Greek). Timaios is the title of Plato's widely known main work. Mark
                pictures here a Judean adept of Plato. Matthew does not have a bar-timaios
                in his version. He does not have the second cryptic Markan blind man either,
                who was healed in two stages ("I can see people like trees, walking" 8,24).
                It refers to the parable of Jotam in which indeed "the trees WENT OUT to
                anoint a king". The parable of the trees is a hapax in Tenach, the only
                instance of walking trees. By simply placing the two men together Matthew
                simply combines the two Markan 'healings'. Matthew likes to present his
                material in orderly fashion.
                One must take into account that Mark's gospel was soon copied and sent to
                Matthew's community rather quickly. As I see it, Matthew's Gospel was meant
                for a much larger Judean Christian reading circle than was Mark's Gospel.
                Mark's revised post-70 version was meant mostly, if not only, for the
                community in Rome. After it was sent top Matthew it gained wide approval.
                I would take this opportunity to mention that thus far I havenot
                received a
                rebuttal on the argument that Matthew also reflects knowledge of the
                remarkable time indicator in Mark's passion/resurrection theme (8,31; 9,31
                and 10,34) in Mt 27,63, "that impostor has said while he was still alive.
                "AFTER THREE days I will rise again". Here again Matthew appears to avoid
                Mark's cryptic meaning for the sake of his larger audience (including the
                children and simple folk in the audience).
                The argument that in Hebrew "on the third day" and "after three days" have
                the same meaning does not hold. 1) Mark's opened tomb story does take place
                "on the third day", the Sunday in spite of the emphatic "after three days"
                predictions. Mark goes (deliberately?) against the grain of the early
                confession "raised on the THIRD DAY", stating emphatically three times that
                the Son of Man or Human One would rise AFTER THREE DAYS. He also indicates
                the bewilderment of the disciples questioning what this this "rising from
                the dead" of the Son of Man might mean (9,9).
                2) Matthew, however, returns to the expression "on the third day"
                consistent with the tradition in 16,21, 17,23; 20,19. In Mt 27,63, however,
                the author mocks the high priests (plur!). They cite Mark's "after three
                days!" and they demand on Saturday that the guards must keep Jesus from
                rising ""untill the third day", that is till Tuesday. The high priests in
                narration time are hopelesly confused. The entire scene is dripping with
                irony for they apparently misunderstood the passion prediction altogether.

                cordially,


                Karel k.hanhart@...




                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Eric Eve
                ... that ... did, I ... keen on ... precisely ... No, you didn t say that it so many words, but I took it to be implied by your earlier question Why would
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 25, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Leonard Maluf wrote:

                  > I think the argument is getting a bit sidetracked, not to say obfuscated,
                  > with this and your following observations. I don't remember ever saying
                  that
                  > "paradoxical publication" is Matthean RATHER THAN Markan property. If I
                  did, I
                  > shouldn't have. Any evangelist is occupationally predisposed to be rather
                  keen on
                  > the idea of "paradoxical publication" of the Gospel message. It is
                  precisely
                  > what he is engaged in, after all.

                  No, you didn't say that it so many words, but I took it to be implied by
                  your earlier question "Why would Matthew have missed an opportunity to harp
                  on a favorite theme of his by reproducing Mark 1:45 is some form or other?"
                  You have since apparently conceded that "the theme of 'paradoxical
                  publication; is even more Markan than it is Matthean, that Mark perhaps has
                  a kind of 'ownership' of the theme." The point of my response is that if the
                  'paradoxical publication' theme is primarily Markan, you may be
                  misdescribing it as 'a favourite theme' of Matthew, since on the thesis of
                  Markan priority it would be something Matthew had taken over from Mark
                  without any deep commitment to it, so that Matthew's failure to reproduce
                  the substance of Mark 1:45 in situ presents no particular problem for the
                  thesis of Markan priority. I suspect that where this is really leading is
                  that "ownership" argument can often be difficult to apply in a
                  non-reversible manner, since it does not always select between (a) a theme
                  casually mentioned by Evangelist A that appeals to Evangelist B and so is
                  taken up and developed by Evangelist B and (b) a theme casually mentioned by
                  Evangelist A that is a remnant of something taken over from Evangelist B who
                  has developed it far more fully. 'Paradoxical Publication' could be one
                  case in point, and Matthew's greater interest in cleansing of lepers in
                  relation to Mark could be another.

                  To take another example, you earlier argued that the theme of cleansing of
                  lepers was more Matthean property than Markan, and the main argument offered
                  was the relative frequency of the theme in the two Gospels, citing Matt 10.8
                  & 11.5. Mt 11.5 is, of course, paralleled at Lk 7.18, and Lk also refers to
                  the cleansing of lepers in Jesus' programmatic Nazareth Sermon (Lk 4.27) and
                  in his story of the cleansing of 10 lepers (Lk 17.12ff), so that of the
                  three Evangelists it is arguably Luke who gives this theme the greatest
                  prominence. Are we then to conclude that it is Lukan property that Matthew
                  has borrowed? I assume not, and you will of course quite rightly protest
                  that 'property' is not simply a matter of enumeration, but the point of my
                  argument here is once again to question the weight of your ownership
                  argument.


                  > My original use of the "ownership" argument,
                  > you will remember, was in a very different type of context. I claimed that
                  > the warp and woof of the leper story was Matthean -- and not Markan --
                  > because the story's substance is keen on showing Jesus upholding the
                  Jewish Law,
                  > which is clearly a concern of Matthew's, and not of Mark's.

                  And you are quite right to remind of this, since I haven't addressed this
                  point. You are, of course, also right that Matthew is much more careful (and
                  thus concerned) to present Jesus as upholding the Jewish Law than is Mark
                  (although I'm not sure the Markan Jesus is quite so cavalier towards the
                  Torah as he's sometimes made out to be either). But I think a prior question
                  that needs to be ask is what Mark intended by the phrase EIS MARTURION
                  AUTOIS at 1.44 - is the primary motivation (a) to keep the Mosaic law or (b)
                  to secure the leper's return into society (for which the procedure commanded
                  would presumably have been a practical necessity no matter what one thought
                  of it in theory)? Again, this appeal to Moses would not be totally unique in
                  Mark - in no Markan mention of Moses (7.10; 9.4, 5; 10.3, 4; 12.19, 26) is
                  there any criticism of Moses, it rather appears to be assumed that the
                  authority of Moses is a presupposition shared between Jesus and his
                  opponents - thus Jesus can appeal to Moses' authority at 7.10 & 12.26.

                  That said, I take your point that, ceteris paribus, the theme looks more
                  Matthean than Markan here, so this could be allowed to have some weight in
                  the scales for Matthean priority - I'm just not sure how much weight,
                  because (as I've indicated) I'm not sure how well the ownership argument
                  really works.

                  > In the interests of full
                  > disclosure, I should state at this point that I would rate the two
                  positive
                  > arguments I made for Matthean priority in this passage as valid, not
                  particularly
                  > strong, and certainly not decisive (exactly the rating I gave to the
                  argument
                  > for Markan priority, based on macro considerations of Synoptic Gospel
                  contents).

                  Perhaps we're not disagreeing wildly about the worth of this particular
                  argument then?

                  > Nevertheless, I believe my arguments are not negligible, especially by
                  dint
                  > of their cumulative effect,

                  Well, that's partly why I've been challenging other parts of your arguments
                  (and I realize I've one more to come back to, which I'll take up below). In
                  other words, I'm no so convinced of their cumulative effect.

                  > and I haven't yet seen either an effective defense
                  > of Goodacre's fatigue argument in response to my criticisms of same,

                  I'm not sure I was wholly convinced by your rebuttal of Goodacre here, not
                  least because you seem to have back-tracked on your translation argument.
                  The trouble is I can think of an alternative rebuttal, or at least
                  neutralisation, of Goodacre's argument. On the face of it I think Goodacre
                  is right that if Matt 8.4 is a command to silence (which you have allowed it
                  may be) then it sits uneasily with the presence of the crowd in 8.1; the
                  problem is that this argument can be run in reverse at Matt 9.18-26//Mark
                  5.40-43 where Mark, but not Matthew, has a command to silence that Matthew
                  lacks, and the Markan command to silence is notoriously nonsensical in its
                  context (how can the girl's recovery possibly be kept secret?). On the other
                  hand one could use this as an 'ownership' argument in favour of Markan
                  priority (which, I fully appreciate, is to depart from what Goodacre does
                  here): if Mark is so keen on the theme of commands to silence that he uses
                  one here that apparently makes no narrative or historical sense, this must
                  be a theme that's important to him - important enough, in fact, to be
                  regarded as Markan property (see also Mk 7.36, 8.26). The command to silence
                  at Mt 1.4 (if it be taken that way) is thus rather more likey to be derived
                  from Mk 1.44 than vice versa.

                  You earlier argued (and I have not addressed this before) that the
                  appearance of KAQARISMOU and PARAKALWN in Mark suggested the use of
                  secondary Oberbegriffe. Part of my difficulty in responding to this is that
                  I have some trouble seeing the force of it in the first place - at least in
                  relation to these particular examples. The verb PARAKALEW is used 9 times by
                  Mark, 9 times by Matthew and 7 times by Luke, so there cannot be an obvious
                  trend in an increasing use of this verb by secondary authors in whatever
                  order you place them. Moreover, I fail to see why PARAKALWN cannot be
                  primitive to Mark at Mk 1.40 if it is primitive to Matthew at Matt 8.5 or
                  (on the thesis of Matthean priority) PARAKELOUN at 8.31 & 14.36. Conversely,
                  PARAKALWN is lacking from the parallel to this account in Pap Eg 2.35-57 -
                  is this a good argument for Mark's posteriority in relation to Pap. Eg. 2?

                  Again, I'm afraid I don't see any force in your argument concerning
                  KAQARISMOU at Mk 1.44 // Lk 5.14. It just seems the most natural way of
                  expressing the purpose/kind of the offering in view.

                  Best wishes,

                  -- Eric







                  -------------------------------
                  Dr Eric Eve
                  Harris Manchester College
                  Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD
                  Tel: 01865 281473



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