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

Re: Markan Additions

Expand Messages
  • Mark Matson
    ... To respond to Jeff s question, yes I do think that those who follow the two gospel hypothesis do need to account for the omission. Having said that, and
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 23, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff Peterson wrote:

      > To take one example, on the Griesbach hypothesis Mark foundthe
      > virginal conception of Jesus in both of his source Gospels -- one
      > of these explicitly connecting Jesus' divine sonship with this event
      > (Luke 1:32) -- as well as temptation narratives which explore the
      > implications of living as hUIOS THEOU. Prima facie, this material
      > coheres well with Mark's interest in depicting Jesus as son of God,
      > and a reasoned defense of Griesbach would need to offer a rationale
      > for Mark's omission of them. Do others disagree that this burden
      > must be met, and if not, can a convincing rationale be suggested?
      >
      To respond to Jeff's question, yes I do think that those who follow
      the two gospel hypothesis do need to account for the omission.

      Having said that, and not holding to the Griesbach hypothesis, I
      have always thought it curious the special attention paid to the
      virgin birth. That is to say, isn't it somewhat anachronistic for us
      to think that this defines the concept "Son of God?" Could not, and
      was not, sonship conceived in many ways other than pregnancy and
      birth? Certainly adoptionistic ideas stand early in the
      christological conception of early christians -- and indeed seem to
      even stand in Luke's writings alongside the virgin birth (cf. Luke
      9:35 and 23:35). So I can imagine an early Christian author chosing
      to restate the concept of Son of God into a more adoptionistic form?
      Did Mark do that? Well, I am not as sure of that.

      Mark Matson
      Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
      Asst. Director, Sanford Institute of Public Policy
      Adjunct Professor of New Testament
      Duke University
      Durham, NC 27713
      (919) 613-7310
    • Mark Goodacre
      I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and would be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed Markan additions ,
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 23, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and would
        be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed "Markan additions",
        expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:

        ". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
        Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
        miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection
        appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young
        man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark
        that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (_Matthew_, 1:109).

        In Farmer's recent paper (reproduced at
        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm), he makes the following
        comment on this:

        "At best this very misleading aggregative approach provides a nice
        rhetorical question, and points to a consideration that needs to be
        explained on the view of Mark being third, but it is difficult to see in
        it any "compelling" reason for Marcan priority."

        Do others agree with Farmer, or is this a valuable argument for Markan
        Priority?

        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 Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
      • Stevan Davies
        ... I agree with Farmer. I am a clever guy and can come up with an explanation for practically anything along these lines, especially if paid a little fee for
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 23, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: "Mark Goodacre"
          > I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and would
          > be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed "Markan additions",
          > expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:
          >
          > ". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
          > Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
          > miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection
          > appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young
          > man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark
          > that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (_Matthew_, 1:109).
          >
          > In Farmer's recent paper (reproduced at
          > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm), he makes the following
          > comment on this:
          >
          > "At best this very misleading aggregative approach provides a nice
          > rhetorical question, and points to a consideration that needs to be
          > explained on the view of Mark being third, but it is difficult to see in
          > it any "compelling" reason for Marcan priority."
          >
          > Do others agree with Farmer, or is this a valuable argument for Markan
          > Priority?

          I agree with Farmer. I am a clever guy and can come up with an
          explanation for practically anything along these lines, especially if
          paid a little fee for doing so. Mark Goodacre is a clever guy and can
          do the same thing. So are others.

          It's the same exact line of thought as the one that claims that
          nobody could come up with reasons for Luke to decompose the SM.
          Well, Mark Goodacre did.

          And nobody can come up with a coherent reading of the GTh. Well,
          Valentasis did.

          Whether these clevernesses actually demonstrate anything probative is
          another question.


          But lemme try, no fee required.

          > omit the miraculous birth of Jesus,

          Mark has a possessionist Christology and events prior to the baptism
          are irrelevant (cf. 6:1-7). Probably relevant that all of Luke/Acts
          from 3:1 on are possessionist and ignore the miraculous birth of
          Jesus.

          > the sermon on the mount,

          It is a "fence around the Torah" speech for the most part, and Jesus
          the Pharisee who does not suspend a jot or a tittle is not Mark's
          view in his chapter 7.

          > and the resurrection appearances,

          This is part of Mark's political agenda to undercut the authority
          claims of Jesus' disciples and family.

          > while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young man,

          Just for a change of pace, this one was in Matthew but has been
          lost through scribal transmission error.

          > a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing,

          an overrated focus on the "trouble" because the point is the
          successful healing. Mark does not have such a high view of Jesus'
          healing abilities (cf. 6:1-7) as scholars seem to think he should
          have had.

          > and the remark
          > that Jesus' family thought him mad?"

          This is part of Mark's political agenda to undercut the authority
          claims of Jesus' disciples and family.

          Nothing to it. Not even a challenge. "Can one seriously envision..."
          of course. How can one not?

          Steve
        • Jeff Peterson
          ... Farmer is probably right to draw attention to the rhetorical element in Davies and Allison s question. But there does seem to be a worthwhile point here,
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 23, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            At 1:07 PM 9/23/98, Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and
            >would
            >be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed "Markan
            >additions",
            >expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:
            >
            > ". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
            > Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
            > miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection
            > appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young
            > man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark
            > that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (_Matthew_, 1:109).
            >
            >In Farmer's recent paper (reproduced at
            >http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm), he makes the following
            >comment on this:
            >
            > "At best this very misleading aggregative approach provides a nice
            > rhetorical question, and points to a consideration that needs to be
            > explained on the view of Mark being third, but it is difficult to see in
            > it any "compelling" reason for Marcan priority."
            >
            >Do others agree with Farmer, or is this a valuable argument for Markan
            >Priority?

            Farmer is probably right to draw attention to the rhetorical element in
            Davies and Allison's question. But there does seem to be a worthwhile point
            here, which is more soberly stated by Sanders and Davies in _Studying the
            Synoptic Gospels_, p. 92. The point is that it is part of the burden of the
            Griesbach hypothesis to account for Marcan omission of Double Tradition
            material. My colleague Allan McNicol tells me that the research team of
            which Farmer is a part is currently working on a sequel to _Luke's Use of
            Matthew_ which will attempt do just that, and the argument of that volume
            will be crucial (I think) to the evaluation of the Griesbach hypothesis.

            To take one example, on the Griesbach hypothesis Mark foundthe virginal
            conception of Jesus in both of his source Gospels -- one of these
            explicitly connecting Jesus' divine sonship with this event (Luke 1:32) --
            as well as temptation narratives which explore the implications of living
            as hUIOS THEOU. Prima facie, this material coheres well with Mark's
            interest in depicting Jesus as son of God, and a reasoned defense of
            Griesbach would need to offer a rationale for Mark's omission of them. Do
            others disagree that this burden must be met, and if not, can a convincing
            rationale be suggested?

            Jeff


            Jeffrey Peterson
            Institute for Christian Studies
            Austin, Texas, USA
          • BShiell@aol.com
            I am quite pleased with that argument. In fact, I think this is one of the major arguments against the GH or 2GH, as it were. Our synoptic problem seminar
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 23, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              I am quite pleased with that argument. In fact, I think this is one of the
              major arguments against the GH or 2GH, as it were. Our synoptic problem
              seminar took this discussion up today, as a matter of fact.

              I am interested in finding out some statistical analyses of synoptic
              agreements/disagreements on both order of material, choice of material,
              lexical links, etc. Does anyone know of such material.

              Thanks,
              Bill Shiell
              Biblical Studies Ph.D. student, Baylor University
              254-848-9709
              14309 Chisolm Dr.
              Waco, Tx 76712
              BShiell@...
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Mark Goodacre wrote - ... Mark Goodacre goes on to ask - ... It is no argument for Markan Priority at all. It is an argument against the Neo-Griesbach (Two
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 23, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Goodacre wrote -
                >I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority
                >and would be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed
                >"Markan additions", expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:
                >". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
                >Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
                >miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the
                >resurrection appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of
                >the naked young man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble
                >healing, and the remark that Jesus' family thought him mad?"
                >(_Matthew_, 1:109)..."
                Mark Goodacre goes on to ask -
                >...is this a valuable argument for Markan Priority?

                It is no argument for Markan Priority at all. It is an argument against
                the Neo-Griesbach (Two Gospel) Hypothesis. Even if the Neo-Griesbach
                Hypothesis were to be ruled out completely, this would be no reason for
                accepting the idea that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke.

                The fact that the earth can be shown not to be flat is no support for
                the idea that the moon is made of cheese.

                A synoptic hypothesis can be supported by being shown to be compatible
                with the observed data, not by dismissing other synoptic hypotheses.

                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
                Thanks for the interesting responses on this. Forgive a composite reply. ... Agreed. I think the question of (supposed) Markan omissions of material in
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 24, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for the interesting responses on this. Forgive a composite reply.

                  Jeff Peterson wrote:

                  > The point is that it is part of the burden of the
                  > Griesbach hypothesis to account for Marcan omission of Double Tradition
                  > material. My colleague Allan McNicol tells me that the research team of which
                  > Farmer is a part is currently working on a sequel to _Luke's Use of Matthew_
                  > which will attempt do just that, and the argument of that volume will be
                  > crucial (I think) to the evaluation of the Griesbach hypothesis.

                  Agreed. I think the question of (supposed) Markan omissions of material in
                  Matthew and Luke can be focused in three ways:

                  (1) The rationale for the writing of Mark has sometimes been stated, on the GH,
                  as being the retaining of concurrent testimony in Matthew and Luke. There will
                  therefore need to be strong reasons for the omission of so many places where
                  Matthew and Luke are united in witness, the double tradition.

                  (2) There seem to be places where insertion of double-tradition might have been
                  conducive to Mark's purposes, both literary and theological, e.g. why is there
                  no Lord's Prayer at Mark 11.24-25?

                  (3) Specifically, to come back to the question of the relationship between
                  omissions and additions, is it not difficult for the GH that Mark combines
                  omission of conducive material with additions that may confuse the reader or
                  introduce errors? "When Abiathar was high priest" (2.26) introduces an error;
                  so too does the bringing forward of the Malachi 3.2 quotation at Mark 1.2 (from
                  Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27) as something that "is written in the prophet Isaiah".
                  This is in spite of the fact that on the GH Mark is not averse, on occasions,
                  to making clarifying additions (e.g. Mark 2.15b, "for there were many, and they
                  followed him"). In other words, how consistent is the GH's Mark in his
                  redaction of Matthew and Luke?

                  On 23 Sep 98 at 16:34, Stevan Davies wrote (some omitted):

                  > I agree with Farmer. I am a clever guy and can come up with an explanation
                  > for practically anything along these lines, especially if paid a little fee
                  > for doing so. Mark Goodacre is a clever guy and can do the same thing. So
                  > are others. . . . Whether these clevernesses actually demonstrate anything
                  > probative is another question.

                  Though I enjoyed the post very much, I think that this is where we need to
                  prefer plausibility to (mere) cleverness. For I retain some degree of optimism
                  about the guild, perhaps because I am young and inexperienced. Strong,
                  plausible arguments should win the day in the end, especially among a younger
                  generation of scholars that has not yet committed itself firmly to any source
                  hypothesis (i.e. has not yet published on it).

                  On 24 Sep 98 at 0:15, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                  > It is no argument for Markan Priority at all. It is an argument against
                  > the Neo-Griesbach (Two Gospel) Hypothesis. Even if the Neo-Griesbach
                  > Hypothesis were to be ruled out completely, this would be no reason for
                  > accepting the idea that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke.

                  I suppose the argument runs like this: Mark is usually the middle term in
                  synoptic relationships. This fact is thought to be most compatible with either
                  (1) Markan Priority over Matthew and Luke (2ST, Farrer) or (2) Markan
                  posteriority -- Mark after Matthew and Luke (Griesbach). Therefore shots
                  fired at Griesbach might reasonably count as shots fired for Markan Priority.

                  The question that you are raising is whether someone other than a Markan
                  Priorist might take the spoils from a good attack on Griesbach. If on other
                  grounds Markan Priority is seen to be problematic, I think we would have to
                  entertain this possibility. I am yet to be convinced, however, that Markan
                  Priority is problematic, particularly if combined with Lukan knowledge of
                  Matthew.

                  Mark








                  >
                  > The fact that the earth can be shown not to be flat is no support for
                  > the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
                  >
                  > A synoptic hypothesis can be supported by being shown to be compatible
                  > with the observed data, not by dismissing other synoptic hypotheses.
                  >
                  > 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
                  -------------------------------------------
                  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: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 98-09-23 15:08:18 EDT, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 24, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 98-09-23 15:08:18 EDT, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                    << I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and
                    would
                    be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed "Markan
                    additions",
                    expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:

                    ". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
                    Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
                    miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection
                    appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young
                    man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark
                    that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (_Matthew_, 1:109).

                    LEONARD. This is followed in Mark G's original post by a quote from Farmer,
                    with a final question as to what people think of the soundness of the above as
                    an argument for Markan priority. Let me skip Farmer's response and give my
                    own. The above is, I agree, a devastating argument against Markan
                    posteriority... but ONLY IF one retains the naive PRESUPPOSITION of an
                    Evangelist as one whose duty it is to copy, collect and preserve source-
                    documents about Jesus for posterity. Think for a minute where this
                    presupposition comes from. It is a direct result of the historical succession
                    from interest in Text-criticism to interest in Source-criticism in modern
                    biblical scholarship, which invited the idea of an Evangelist as a glorified
                    scribe. Once this (demonstrably false) presupposition is removed, the entire
                    landscape changes completely. Now, what needs to be justified is not what an
                    Evangelist OMITTED from an earlier source, but rather what he INCLUDED of
                    material with a parallel in an earlier source. And the latter (this inclusion,
                    or the Evangelist's use of this material) is justified on the basis of the
                    fact that said Evangelist believed he could make that material SPEAK MORE
                    EFFECTIVELY, communicate better evangelically, with a particular audience, for
                    a particular purpose, than could the presentation of the same material as
                    found in his source. To have a problem about material in a document-source
                    that an Evangelist did NOT reproduce would be like my having difficulty with a
                    paragraph from Farmer which Mark G DID NOT reproduce in the above post -- or,
                    for that matter, my having difficulty with the fact that Mark G doesn't
                    reproduce the Our Father or the Sermon on the Mount in the above post. Now the
                    fact that GMk does indeed communicate a gospel message to some audiences more
                    effectively than do the more sophisticated and literary productions of Matthew
                    of Luke is amply demonstrated by the success of certain modern productions in
                    theatre of the text of Mark, which, to my knowledge at least, have never been
                    followed by an outcry against familiar evangelical material that was ABSENT
                    from the stage recitation of GMk! Davies and Allison betray the fact that they
                    do indeed suffer from the naive presupposition exposed above by their very
                    formulation of the question: "can one seriously envision...someone REWRITING
                    Matthew and Luke..". Mark is evangelizing, communicating gospel, primarily,
                    and only incidently is he reproducing material with a parallel in either
                    Matthew, Luke or both.

                    As to the "additions" of Mark mentioned by Davies and Allison, it is no more
                    difficult for me to comprehend these having been written with a knowledge of
                    Matthew and Luke's Gospel than to comprehend them having been written at all.
                    It also might be asked (against the standard 2 SH) why, in just these cases,
                    Matt and Lk, who are so adroit at "changing" Mark's text for the better in
                    other places through minor editorial adjustments, both INDEPENDENTLY throw
                    their hands in the air in despair when it comes to dealing with the above
                    passages, and resort to simple omission. This, in addition to very numerous
                    other examples of miraculous simultaneity of performance on the part of
                    independent editors on the 2 SH is a mind-boggling obstacle to the acceptance
                    of this hypothesis. The authors of Matt and Lk, to take but one example, would
                    have independently decided to remove each of 11 verbs used by AMk in the space
                    of five verses at Mk 3:13-17.

                    Finally, it might be mentioned that the scenario described by Davies and
                    Allison (on the 2GH model) is a genuine difficulty for this hypothesis only if
                    it could be proven that there was reason for Mark to fear that his omissions
                    would have resulted in the Our Father, the Sermon on the Mount and the
                    Resurrection apparition stories disappearing from the face of the earth. I
                    believe this would be a difficult case to make.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Jeff Peterson
                    ... Certainly Jesus divine sonship is connected with other christological moments (the late Raymond Brown s term), including not only the baptism but also
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 24, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 11:16 AM 9/23/98, Mark Matson wrote, inter alia:
                      >isn't it somewhat anachronistic for us
                      >to think that this defines the concept "Son of God?" Could not, and
                      >was not, sonship conceived in many ways other than pregnancy and
                      >birth? Certainly adoptionistic ideas stand early in the
                      >christological conception of early christians -- and indeed seem to
                      >even stand in Luke's writings alongside the virgin birth (cf. Luke
                      >9:35 and 23:35). So I can imagine an early Christian author chosing
                      >to restate the concept of Son of God into a more adoptionistic form?
                      >Did Mark do that? Well, I am not as sure of that.

                      Certainly Jesus' divine sonship is connected with other "christological
                      moments" (the late Raymond Brown's term), including not only the baptism
                      but also the resurrection (Rom 1:3; Acts 13:33). But associating sonship
                      with the virginal conception can't be terribly anachronistic; Luke's
                      account itself does so in 1:32, and Ignatius seems to have made the
                      connection within two or three decades -- most likely on the basis of
                      Matthew, interestingly enough, where the association "virgin birth/divine
                      Son" is not explicit in the text. And such an association would have
                      occurred readily enough to readers familiar with tales of gods siring
                      offspring by human women.

                      The birth narrative aside, the threefold Temptation remains for GH as a
                      Marcan omission of material seemingly cohering with his interests
                      elsewhere, and so requiring explanation. Leonard Maluf's recent post states
                      the general question in a helpful way, in light of which one might ask how
                      it is that AMark thinks his account of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of
                      God" is better communicated without the birth and temptation narratives
                      found in his two major predecessors.

                      Jeff


                      Jeffrey Peterson
                      Institute for Christian Studies
                      Austin, Texas, USA
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... Have you considered any of the following? R. Morgenthaler, _Statistische Synopse_ (Zuerich/Stuttgard, 1971) A. M. Honore, A Statistical Study of the
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 24, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 23 Sep 98 at 18:16, BShiell@... wrote:

                        > I am interested in finding out some statistical analyses of synoptic
                        > agreements/disagreements on both order of material, choice of material,
                        > lexical links, etc. Does anyone know of such material.

                        Have you considered any of the following?

                        R. Morgenthaler, _Statistische Synopse_ (Zuerich/Stuttgard, 1971)

                        A. M. Honore, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem," Novum Testamentum
                        10 (1968), 95-147

                        John J. O'Rourke, "Some observations on the Synoptic Problem and the use of
                        stastical procedures," NovT 16 (1974) 272-277.

                        C. Carlson and D. Norlin, "Once More--Statistics and Q", HTR 64 (1971)
                        59-78

                        S. Mattila, "A Problem Still Clouded: Yet Again--Statistics and Q", NovT
                        36 (1994) 313-329

                        There may be more. There is a summary of some of Honore's figures on the web
                        at http://www.biblical.edu/02synop.htm (an article by Robert Newman).

                        Hope this helps.

                        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 Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                      • Jim Deardorff
                        ... I haven t yet seen arguments expressed here against the above contention of Davies & Allison from the modified AH point of view. Their arguments apply to
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 24, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 08:07 PM 9/23/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                          >I am currently working through standard arguments for Markan Priority and
                          >would
                          >be interested in any thoughts on the argument from supposed "Markan
                          >additions",
                          >expressed by Davies and Allison as follows:
                          >
                          > ". . . can one seriously envision [on the Neo-Griesbach (Two-Gospel)
                          > Hypothesis] someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the
                          > miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection
                          > appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young
                          > man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark
                          > that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (_Matthew_, 1:109).
                          >
                          >In Farmer's recent paper (reproduced at
                          >http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm), he makes the following
                          >comment on this:
                          >
                          > "At best this very misleading aggregative approach provides a nice
                          > rhetorical question, and points to a consideration that needs to be
                          > explained on the view of Mark being third, but it is difficult to see in
                          > it any "compelling" reason for Marcan priority."
                          >
                          >Do others agree with Farmer, or is this a valuable argument for Markan
                          >Priority?

                          I haven't yet seen arguments expressed here against the above contention of
                          Davies & Allison from the modified AH point of view. Their arguments apply
                          to the AH as well as the 2SH/GH, upon eliminating "Luke" from the above.
                          Although Leonard M. expressed his views why their argument does not preclude
                          Matthean priority, he did not include the powerful motivational factors that
                          are needed to explain the "why" of each gospel writer's editorial slants.

                          For any who have tuned in to this List late, a key motivational factor in
                          the modified AH is that Matthew's gospel, being written first and
                          denigrating gentiles as it does, even denying that discipleship should be
                          granted to any others than the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," would
                          have been very offensive to the majority of would-be evangelists, who
                          favored making disciples of all nations. That is, to AMk and ALk. In this
                          regard, not only does Mt 28:18-19 appear to be a late addition, added only
                          after Mark & Luke appeared, but also Mt 12:17-23, which includes the
                          quotation from Isaiah that is favorable towards gentiles. I've now amplified
                          upon this latter in my web site.

                          Thus a plausible key reason why AMk omitted the Sermon on the Mount was its
                          presence of anti-gentile statements, expressed at Mt 5:47, 6:7, 6:32 and
                          7:6. (In the latter, "dogs" are plausibly interpreted as an allusion to
                          gentiles just as in Mt 15:26.) In particular, the appearance of "And in
                          praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do..." just prior to
                          the Lord's Prayer plausibly caused AMk not to wish to extract that prayer
                          for use at Mk 11:24-25 or anywhere else (this in reply to Mark G.'s response
                          to Jeff of 11:34 GMT, 24 Sept.). Let's keep in mind that this issue -- that
                          the first gospel out would treat gentiles as the scum of the earth and try
                          to get away with it -- was a much more serious issue at the time in question
                          than are any of our minor quibbles today about which Gospel came first or
                          second or third. It is understandable, then, that evangelists' tempers would
                          flare over that problem much more than do any of ours over issues on this
                          list. It would be impossible for AMk, then, to keep from betraying his
                          feelings against Matthew when copying from that gospel and forming his own.
                          So his feelings on that can be deduced from both his omissions from Matthew
                          and from some of his additions. A similar statement applies to ALk,
                          regarding his placement of Matthean material omitted by AMk in improper
                          context and order, his following of Markan order and content most closely
                          where Mark *deviates* from Matthew's order, and his frequent contradiction
                          of Matthean content. Yet, these evangelists could not expose their feelings
                          too blatantly lest their written products appear too impious.

                          This is one of the key points that requires the label "modified" be placed
                          before this Augustinian hypothesis (AH). As one usually sees it, the AH
                          attributes only the most honorable intentions to the Gospel writers, and
                          usually assumes the Gospels were written by their kata's.

                          This is not to say that there were not several secondary reasons for AMk's
                          overall editorial behavior. He could not have wished his gospel to look like
                          a mere abbreviation of Matthew and yet be judged favorably in its own light.
                          So in order for it to look different from Hebraic Matthew, he wrote it in
                          Greek and abbreviated Matthew heavily, especially abbreviating Judaistic
                          content, and made very numerous minor changes for the sake of change,
                          besides essentially eliminating Matthew's anti-gentile content. He did not
                          favor that Christians keep a meek and humble attitude, and not be willing to
                          defend their faith with a sword. Hence AMk was not favorably inclined
                          towards the Sermon on the Mount from the start.

                          Regarding AMk's omission of the nativity narrative (here obviously relative
                          to Matthew and not also Luke), I believe AMk was uncomfortable with the idea
                          that an angel would interfere with actual events of Jesus' infancy and life,
                          even if only in dreams. However, he did not mind speaking in terms of angels
                          more abstractly as long as angels stayed in heaven. (Mk 1:13b is the one
                          exception to this; angels were apparently necessary there for Jesus to have
                          survived his wilderness stay.) This is scarcely any different from a
                          present-day view that it's quite OK for extraterrestrial intelligences to
                          exist in the galaxy, as long as they don't show up on earth.

                          Regarding AMk's omission of any post-crucifixion appearances, he had only
                          Matthew to go by, not Luke or John (or proto-Matthew). For the reason just
                          mentioned, AMk did not wish to copy Matthew's first appearance as it was,
                          and so altered Matthew's angel into a young man. Plausibly, AMk noticed that
                          Jesus could not have been there near the tomb if he had already headed for
                          Galilee (Mt 28:7). Thus AMk would not logically replicate Matthew's
                          illogical first appearance. And anyway Jesus didn't have anything more to
                          say there, in Matthew, than what the angel had said.

                          Jesus' second Matthean appearance had scarcely any content to it,
                          considering that Mt 28:18-19 (and perhaps more?) had not been present in the
                          original Hebraic Matthew ending available to AMk. There was thus no point in
                          his replicating it, unless he could invent realistic discourse from a
                          resurrected body; but AMk was not that creative.

                          Considering the three additions mentioned by Davies & Allison, these need
                          explanation just as much from a hypothesis of Markan priority as from the
                          2GH or AH, an opinion I think I share with Leonard, and perhaps Brian. Since
                          today's Markan priorists do not believe that a non-disciple named Mark wrote
                          that gospel, with its apparent eye-witness accounts, one can as easily ask
                          why AMk added those three pericopes to his source, whatever that source was.

                          The modified AH I support can only speculate why AMk added the story about
                          the half-naked boy who was following Jesus. But I have yet to read of any
                          plausible explanation for it in the literature. My speculation is that its
                          purpose was to show how cowardly the disciples were for fleeing and not
                          defending Jesus. A young man, half naked even and with no weapon, risked
                          being seized by following Jesus, even to the point of being stripped naked
                          before he finally fled, which was much more heroic than anything the
                          disciples did following Mk 15:49. However, I regard this as a botched
                          editorial addition by AMk because of its ambiguity of meaning. If AMk had
                          allowed the young man to be seized, my speculation might seem to work
                          better, but AMk may have wished to have the boy flee so as to better allude
                          to the fleeing of the disciples.

                          The modified AH explains the two-fold healing in Mk 8:22-26 as having been
                          present within the short document that Peter and Mark brought with them to
                          Rome, later utilized by AMk. This healing had been forgotten by the writer
                          of Matthew's source by the time he got around to writing it ("it" being the
                          document that Papias referred to as the Logia). Perhaps the reason ALk did
                          not make use of it was because it was neither in Matthew or Matthew's
                          source, and so he did not trust its genuineness. (This modified AH allows
                          that ALk and AJn had brief exposure to AMt's source, some time after AMt was
                          done with it.)

                          Concerning Mark's pericope about the ones with Jesus calling him mad, the
                          modified AH explains it as another of AMk's numerous slurs against either
                          the Jewish disciples or Jews in general, relative to Matthew. This was for
                          the purposes of showing that gentiles would make better disciples than Jews,
                          and/or in retaliation for Matthew's anti-gentile statements.

                          Thus I agree with Farmer to the extent that Davies and Allison's argument
                          provides no compelling argument for Markan priority.

                          Plausible rebuttals to any of this will be welcomed.

                          Jim Deardorff
                          Corvallis, Oregon
                          E-mail: deardorj@...
                          Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          ... If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was written first, and
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 25, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mark Goodacre wrote:
                            >I am yet to be convinced, however, that Markan Priority is
                            >problematic

                            If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the
                            Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was
                            written first, and that Matthew and Luke were each documentary
                            descendants of Mark in some unspecified way?

                            The answer, of course, is that by itself Markan Priority is an enormous
                            problem. By itself, it is not a satisfactory account of the similarities
                            and differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke. It does not explain the
                            agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, either in the double
                            tradition or within the triple tradition material.

                            The Two Document Hypothesis attempts to account for the agreements of
                            Matthew and Luke against Mark by positing "Q" as a source copied
                            independently by Matthew and Luke. This patching-up of Markan Priority
                            does not work, however. It fails to account for the Minor Agreements,
                            the "Mark Q Overlaps", and other patterns. The temptation is to patch up
                            even further by positing more sources, or even by speculative
                            emendations to the text of Mark.

                            The Farrer Hypothesis also sets out to patch up Markan Priority. It
                            attempts to account for the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
                            by supposing that they were created ex nihilo by Matthew. With Mark and
                            the Old Testament writings to guide his genius for manufacturing new
                            material out of his own head, Matthew fabricated much of the Sermon on
                            the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, Jesus' Thanksgiving to the Father, the
                            Temptations of Jesus in the Wilderness, parables such as the Two
                            Builders, the Playing Children, the Asking Son, the Lamp and Bushel, the
                            Leaven, the Great Banquet, and so on. Matthew is supposed to have
                            achieved this brilliant feat without using any additional source
                            material, written or spoken, according to Goulder.

                            If any additional source were even mentioned, of course, whether oral or
                            written, this would immediately raise the question of how this source
                            material relates to the "Q" posited by the Two Document Hypothesis. So
                            it is not mentioned, or at least very rarely mentioned. Additional
                            source material sounds too much like "Q" lurking in the shadows.

                            A further difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis is that on its basis Luke
                            must have subtracted the wording of Mark from passages in Matthew where
                            it is combined with double tradition wording. Luke must then have
                            usually assembled the double tradition material into larger units. A by
                            no means easy task as a whole, and not easy to understand in some of its
                            parts. For instance, as G. M. Styler points out, ('Excursus IV' in C.
                            F. D. Moule "The Birth of the New Testament", edition 3, 1981, pages
                            303-304), in the Beelzebub controversy - Mt 12.25-37, Mk 3.23-30, Lk
                            11.17-23 -

                            "...there are close parallels in some verses between Matthew and Luke,
                            and in other verses between Matthew and Mark. This is easily explained
                            if Matthew is conflating what he found in Mark and what he found in Q,
                            and if Luke is following Q faithfully. But if Matthew is the source of
                            one or both of the others, it is extremely difficult to create a
                            plausible sequence of events. If Luke came last, knowing both Mark and
                            Matthew, his procedure must have been quite extraordinary: he must
                            carefully have SUBTRACTED from Matthew almost all that was common to
                            Matthew and Mark and retained VERBATIM much of what was left...Such a
                            procedure would not be difficult to carry out. But to produce a
                            plausible explanation for doing anything so apparently crazy is very
                            difficult indeed."

                            Goulder puts a brave face on the above difficulty ("Luke: A New
                            Paradigm", page 508), but you only have to look at page 30 in W. R.
                            Farmer "SYNOPTICON", (Cambridge,1969), and see the alternate layers of
                            double tradition (in red) and material parallel to Mark but not Luke (in
                            yellow), to realize the huge difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis at
                            this point.

                            Markan Priority is a problem. It could be described as the first step
                            over the edge of a cliff.

                            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
                            ... Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain Matthew and Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the double tradition. So do
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 25, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 25 Sep 98 at 12:43, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                              > If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the
                              > Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was
                              > written first, and that Matthew and Luke were each documentary
                              > descendants of Mark in some unspecified way?

                              Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain Matthew and
                              Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the double tradition. So
                              do we go for Q or Luke's use of Matthew? I prefer Luke's use of Matthew
                              because it helps us to explain not only the double tradition but also elements
                              of the triple tradition, specifically minor and major agreements between
                              Matthew and Luke against Mark.

                              > The Farrer Hypothesis also sets out to patch up Markan Priority. It
                              > attempts to account for the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
                              > by supposing that they were created ex nihilo by Matthew. With Mark and
                              > the Old Testament writings to guide his genius for manufacturing new
                              > material out of his own head, Matthew fabricated much of the Sermon on
                              > the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, Jesus' Thanksgiving to the Father, the
                              > Temptations of Jesus in the Wilderness, parables such as the Two
                              > Builders, the Playing Children, the Asking Son, the Lamp and Bushel, the
                              > Leaven, the Great Banquet, and so on. Matthew is supposed to have
                              > achieved this brilliant feat without using any additional source
                              > material, written or spoken, according to Goulder.

                              As you know I have been critical of Goulder's no-other-sources theory, perhaps
                              the greatest weakness in his approach. But this view, though shared by Drury,
                              is not necessary to the Farrer theory and others like Sanders would regard it
                              as a partial weakness. Farrer himself did not believe this but thought that
                              Matthew had other sources.
                              >
                              > If any additional source were even mentioned, of course, whether oral or
                              > written, this would immediately raise the question of how this source
                              > material relates to the "Q" posited by the Two Document Hypothesis. So
                              > it is not mentioned, or at least very rarely mentioned. Additional
                              > source material sounds too much like "Q" lurking in the shadows.

                              We have to remember what Q constitutes to most of its advocates, a document
                              that can be reconstructed by comparing non-Markan material in Matthew and Luke
                              on the assumption that they used Mark independently. This is not the same as
                              Matthew's non-Markan traditions though of course there is some overlap. The
                              area of overlap is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that some Q research has
                              plausible elements.
                              >
                              > A further difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis is that on its basis Luke
                              > must have subtracted the wording of Mark from passages in Matthew where
                              > it is combined with double tradition wording. Luke must then have
                              > usually assembled the double tradition material into larger units. A by
                              > no means easy task as a whole, and not easy to understand in some of its
                              > parts. For instance, as G. M. Styler points out, ('Excursus IV' in C.
                              > F. D. Moule "The Birth of the New Testament", edition 3, 1981, pages
                              > 303-304), in the Beelzebub controversy - Mt 12.25-37, Mk 3.23-30, Lk
                              > 11.17-23 -

                              For a fuller statement of the case I would recommend F. Gerald Downing,
                              'Towards the Rehabilitation of Q', NTS 11 (1964), pp. 169-81, an article that
                              was written directly to counter Farrer's seminal article. Downing's article
                              deserves to be taken seriously and I have written an 18-page analysis of
                              it for my _Case Against Q_, which will not, I am afraid, see the light of day
                              for a while yet. But let me comment briefly on what is wrong with the
                              following:
                              >
                              > "...there are close parallels in some verses between Matthew and Luke,
                              > and in other verses between Matthew and Mark. This is easily explained
                              > if Matthew is conflating what he found in Mark and what he found in Q,
                              > and if Luke is following Q faithfully. But if Matthew is the source of
                              > one or both of the others, it is extremely difficult to create a
                              > plausible sequence of events. If Luke came last, knowing both Mark and
                              > Matthew, his procedure must have been quite extraordinary: he must
                              > carefully have SUBTRACTED from Matthew almost all that was common to
                              > Matthew and Mark and retained VERBATIM much of what was left...Such a
                              > procedure would not be difficult to carry out. But to produce a
                              > plausible explanation for doing anything so apparently crazy is very
                              > difficult indeed."

                              (1) This is at best a caricature. It is worth noting, for example, that Luke
                              does show clear signs of use of Mark as well as Matthew in this pericope,
                              specifically at Luke 11.15, where EKBALLEI is placed after DAIMONIWN -- seven
                              words verbatim agreement in order against Matthew. Cf. also Luke 11.17 where
                              there is a Mark-Luke agreement against Matthew in both vocabulary and order.

                              (2) The statement that "he must carefully have SUBTRACTED from Matthew almost
                              all that was common to Matthew and Mark" is partly inaccurate and partly
                              misleading. Luke does not 'omit' the relevant material, which in any case only
                              amounts to a sentence and a half, but he re-formulates it, some in accordance
                              with a change in context (12.10) and some in the light of a characteristically
                              Lucan re-working of the Matthew's and Mark's image (11.21-22).

                              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.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                              Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                              ... But why not both, Mark? I think that most elements of the double traditions can be accounted for by the Q hypothesis, and some such elements also indicate
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 26, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                                > On 25 Sep 98 at 12:43, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                                >
                                > > If Markan Priority is unproblematic by itself, why bother with the
                                > > Farrer Hypothesis? Why not be content with the idea that Mark was
                                > > written first, and that Matthew and Luke were each documentary
                                > > descendants of Mark in some unspecified way?
                                >
                                > Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain
                                > Matthew and Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the
                                > double tradition. So do we go for Q or Luke's use of Matthew?

                                But why not both, Mark?

                                I think that most elements of the double traditions can be accounted for
                                by the Q hypothesis, and some such elements also indicate Lk's use of Mt.

                                > I prefer Luke's use of Matthew because it helps us to explain not only
                                > the double tradition but also elements of the triple tradition,
                                > specifically minor and major agreements between Matthew and Luke
                                > against Mark.

                                Minor agreements can of course be adequately explained by the protoMk
                                hypothesis.

                                Regards,

                                Yuri.
                              • Tim Reynolds
                                Stevan, ... Peter s job is witnessing, and he wasn t witness to the miraculous birth. ... I spent an afternoon with Pound at St. Elizabeth s and remember not a
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 26, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Stevan,

                                  I accept that your contribution satirizes the tealeaf-reading rife in the NT biz. Still, analysis of your persona's points is possible:

                                  > > omit the miraculous birth of Jesus,
                                  >
                                  > Mark has a possessionist Christology and events prior to the baptism
                                  > are irrelevant (cf. 6:1-7). Probably relevant that all of Luke/Acts
                                  > from 3:1 on are possessionist and ignore the miraculous birth of
                                  > Jesus.

                                  Peter's job is witnessing, and he wasn't witness to the miraculous birth.
                                  >
                                  > > the sermon on the mount,
                                  >
                                  > It is a "fence around the Torah" speech for the most part, and Jesus
                                  > the Pharisee who does not suspend a jot or a tittle is not Mark's
                                  > view in his chapter 7.

                                  I spent an afternoon with Pound at St. Elizabeth's and remember not a word. I've read and heard read AA stuff hundreds of times but couldn't repeat it. Some can, some can't.
                                  >
                                  > > and the resurrection appearances,
                                  >
                                  > This is part of Mark's political agenda to undercut the authority
                                  > claims of Jesus' disciples and family.

                                  Alleged political agena. It doesn't explain why the text ends in mid-sentence. I think it represents the moment the lynch mob broke in. It could hardly be more dramatic, like the prince's "Turandooo/": "They said nothing lest/" You could hear a pin drop.
                                  >
                                  > > while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young man,
                                  >
                                  > Just for a change of pace, this one was in Matthew but has been
                                  > lost through scribal transmission error.

                                  You're being silly, but your satiric persona's model is less parsimonious. Neaniskoi in sheets are a feature of Mk, not Mt.
                                  >
                                  > > a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing,
                                  >
                                  > an overrated focus on the "trouble" because the point is the
                                  > successful healing. Mark does not have such a high view of Jesus'
                                  > healing abilities (cf. 6:1-7) as scholars seem to think he should
                                  > have had.

                                  Okay.
                                  >
                                  > > and the remark
                                  > > that Jesus' family thought him mad?"
                                  >
                                  > This is part of Mark's political agenda to undercut the authority
                                  > claims of Jesus' disciples and family.

                                  Alleged political agenda. You could claim it was aimed at James and the Jerusalem Home Office (if before 62) but reportage seems more likely. Everything else seems to be.

                                  What's "the SM"? Not "secret Mark", surely?

                                  Tertium datur,

                                  Tim Reynolds




                                  -----
                                  See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=1001
                                  --
                                  Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
                                • Maluflen@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 98-09-24 10:22:49 EDT, peterson@mail.ics.edu writes:
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 27, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 98-09-24 10:22:49 EDT, peterson@... writes:

                                    << The birth narrative aside, the threefold Temptation remains for GH as a
                                    Marcan omission of material seemingly cohering with his interests
                                    elsewhere, and so requiring explanation. Leonard Maluf's recent post states
                                    the general question in a helpful way, in light of which one might ask how
                                    it is that AMark thinks his account of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of
                                    God" is better communicated without the birth and temptation narratives
                                    found in his two major predecessors.

                                    Jeff >>

                                    LEONARD: Thanks Jeff for the above. I think the infancy narratives of Matthew
                                    and Luke posed the following problems for Mark: 1.) they hindered his getting
                                    started with a fast-moving drama of the ministry of Jesus leading to his
                                    death, which seems to have been what AMk intended to create; 2.) the two
                                    accounts of Matt and Lk were extremely diverse from each other, and therefore
                                    posed serious problems for how AMk intended in general to proceed, namely, by
                                    developing materials, in the direction of popular drama, to which Matt and Lk
                                    bore concurrent testimony; 3.) if the setting for the intended,single-reading,
                                    oral recitation or performance of Mk was to be a baptismal vigil of some kind,
                                    there was a strong appropriateness in beginning the narrative with the story
                                    of JB, and in particular, with John's prediction of a future baptism in the
                                    Holy Spirit of which Jesus Christ, Son of God was to be the agent (note that
                                    Mark removed in this narrative all the sayings material in Matt and Lk that
                                    made the baptismal reference of John into a metaphor for future judgment to be
                                    executed by Israel's end-time Messiah. Instead, in MK, the words of JB may be
                                    seen as a prophetic announcement of a baptism which his audience, or part of
                                    it, was to receive in the immediate aftermath of the dramatic recital itself
                                    -- a baptism whose minister was one acting in persona Christi: HE will baptize
                                    you...); 4.) Mark was aware of the kind of writing that was being done in both
                                    infancy narratives, namely, one with close ties to midrashic procedures of
                                    Rabbinic scholarship, which required a sophistication in the addressee that
                                    was probably unrealistic to expect of his popular Roman audience.

                                    As for the temptation account in Mark, by comparison with the versions found
                                    in Matt and Lk, one sees the same urgency on the part of AMk to plunge rapidly
                                    and dramatically into the story of Jesus' ministry itself, and the same
                                    hesitancy to use material of a sophisticated, midrashic character to make his
                                    points. Mark's audience would certainly identify well with a Jesus whose
                                    temptation involved being in the desert "with the beasts", given that some
                                    members of the community had probably faced a similar trial in the
                                    amphitheatres of Rome. Also to be noted is the fact that by the time Mark is
                                    written, the designation Son of God (Mk 1:1, probably) has become fully
                                    titular in character and in the Hellenistic setting of Mark's community, now
                                    designates simply a person who belongs to the divine sphere. For Matt
                                    especially, Jesus' sonship to God is still a much more realistic, Old
                                    Testament-based, and multifaceted metaphor, not yet hardened into a title
                                    designating divinity. It reflects primarily the full spectrum of interpersonal
                                    relationships between a human being and God, as intended by the biblical
                                    revelation: a son is one who, as a human being, is begotten by God (in this
                                    case, through Mary [Matt 1:16], where the passive verb is probably a divinum
                                    passivum -- this with no precedent in biblical tradition, but supported by the
                                    prophecy of Is 7:14); he is one who, like Israel of old, is protected and
                                    nurtured specially by God in his childhood (Matt 2:15 and the surrounding
                                    text); and then, he is one who, as a mature son, must be obedient to his
                                    Father in all things (as Israel was not: cf. the temptation narrative of Matt,
                                    inter alia, as a theological blue-print of Jesus' entire ministry and death);
                                    and finally, a son of God is one who ultimately inherits his Father's
                                    position, in this case, universal authority, royalty, divinity, in the
                                    interests of a world-wide, Gentile mission (Matt 21:42, 22:2; 25:1-14; 25:31;
                                    28:18). Since sonship to God, at least in much of the earlier part of the
                                    Matthean picture, implies a way of being human, rather than the full majesty
                                    of a divine person, it is not really so suitable an image for Mark's audience,
                                    who are being told from the outset that this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
                                    Son of God (a divine being, with full authority, who will be actively involved
                                    in baptizing them in the Spirit in but a few hours).

                                    I hope the above supplies a reasonable account of AMk's procedure in the early
                                    part of his gospel.

                                    Leonard Maluf
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    ... [snip] ... Leonard, Shades of F.C. Grant! Seriously, whatever one is to make of the argument from haste , it seems to me that your thesis hinges on the
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 27, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Maluflen@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > In a message dated 98-09-24 10:22:49 EDT, peterson@... writes:
                                      >
                                      > << The birth narrative aside, the threefold Temptation remains for GH as a
                                      > Marcan omission of material seemingly cohering with his interests
                                      > elsewhere, and so requiring explanation. Leonard Maluf's recent post states
                                      > the general question in a helpful way, in light of which one might ask how
                                      > it is that AMark thinks his account of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of
                                      > God" is better communicated without the birth and temptation narratives
                                      > found in his two major predecessors.
                                      >
                                      > Jeff >>
                                      >
                                      [snip]

                                      > As for the temptation account in Mark, by comparison with the versions found
                                      > in Matt and Lk, one sees the same urgency on the part of AMk to plunge rapidly
                                      > and dramatically into the story of Jesus' ministry itself, and the same
                                      > hesitancy to use material of a sophisticated, midrashic character to make his
                                      > points. Mark's audience would certainly identify well with a Jesus whose
                                      > temptation involved being in the desert "with the beasts", given that some
                                      > members of the community had probably faced a similar trial in the
                                      > amphitheatres of Rome. Also to be noted is the fact that by the time Mark is
                                      > written, the designation Son of God (Mk 1:1, probably) has become fully
                                      > titular in character and in the Hellenistic setting of Mark's community, now
                                      > designates simply a person who belongs to the divine sphere. For Matt
                                      > especially, Jesus' sonship to God is still a much more realistic, Old
                                      > Testament-based, and multifaceted metaphor, not yet hardened into a title
                                      > designating divinity. It reflects primarily the full spectrum of interpersonal
                                      > relationships between a human being and God, as intended by the biblical
                                      > revelation: a son is one who, as a human being, is begotten by God (in this
                                      > case, through Mary [Matt 1:16], where the passive verb is probably a divinum
                                      > passivum -- this with no precedent in biblical tradition, but supported by the
                                      > prophecy of Is 7:14); he is one who, like Israel of old, is protected and
                                      > nurtured specially by God in his childhood (Matt 2:15 and the surrounding
                                      > text); and then, he is one who, as a mature son, must be obedient to his
                                      > Father in all things (as Israel was not: cf. the temptation narrative of Matt,
                                      > inter alia, as a theological blue-print of Jesus' entire ministry and death);
                                      > and finally, a son of God is one who ultimately inherits his Father's
                                      > position, in this case, universal authority, royalty, divinity, in the
                                      > interests of a world-wide, Gentile mission (Matt 21:42, 22:2; 25:1-14; 25:31;
                                      > 28:18). Since sonship to God, at least in much of the earlier part of the
                                      > Matthean picture, implies a way of being human, rather than the full majesty
                                      > of a divine person, it is not really so suitable an image for Mark's audience,
                                      > who are being told from the outset that this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
                                      > Son of God (a divine being, with full authority, who will be actively involved
                                      > in baptizing them in the Spirit in but a few hours).
                                      >
                                      > I hope the above supplies a reasonable account of AMk's procedure in the early
                                      > part of his gospel.
                                      >

                                      Leonard,

                                      Shades of F.C. Grant! Seriously, whatever one is to make of the argument
                                      from "haste", it seems to me that your thesis hinges on the the truth of
                                      two assumptions: (1) an assumption about what "Son of God means for
                                      Matthew and for Mark respectively (and, by the way, I see the ghost of
                                      Bultmann, and therfore the division of Christianity between Jewish
                                      Palestinian and Greek Hellenistic layers, in your reading of Mark's
                                      Christology), and (2) that Matthew *always* uses the title "Son of God"
                                      differently than does Mark. Now while there may be times when Mark's and
                                      Matthew's view of the office *is* as you say, I would question whether
                                      it is actually the case that Mark *never* uses it as it reputedly is
                                      used in GMatt, or that Matthew never sees "Son of God" as Mark
                                      supposedly does. Is the title strictly an equivalent to the "divine man"
                                      in, say, the Centurion's confession in Mk. 15, where shades of Jesus as
                                      embodied Israel appear to permeate the text?

                                      Yours,

                                      Jeffrey
                                      --
                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                                      Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                      e-mail jgibson000@...
                                    • Brian E. Wilson
                                      ... What use is it trying to explain the double tradition by Luke s use of Matthew ? Markan Priority has nothing to say about the double tradition material.
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 27, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                        >Markan Priority on its own is of course not adequate to explain Matthew and
                                        >Luke. What one needs is something to explain also the double tradition. So
                                        >do we go for Q or Luke's use of Matthew? I prefer Luke's use of Matthew
                                        >because it helps us to explain not only the double tradition but also elements
                                        >of the triple tradition, specifically minor and major agreements between
                                        >Matthew and Luke against Mark.
                                        >
                                        What use is it trying to explain the double tradition by "Luke's use of
                                        Matthew"? Markan Priority has nothing to say about the double tradition
                                        material. So from where did Matthew obtain the double tradition for
                                        Luke to use?

                                        If the Farrer Hypothesis is Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew,
                                        then it does not account for the existence of the double tradition in
                                        Matthew.

                                        The Farrer Hypothesis must be Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew
                                        plus something else, therefore.

                                        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
                                        ... The question of Matthew s sources for non-Markan material is of course an interesting one, just as the question of Mark s sources is an interesting one. So
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 28, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 27 Sep 98 at 21:50, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                                          > What use is it trying to explain the double tradition by "Luke's use of
                                          > Matthew"? Markan Priority has nothing to say about the double tradition
                                          > material. So from where did Matthew obtain the double tradition for
                                          > Luke to use?
                                          >
                                          > If the Farrer Hypothesis is Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew,
                                          > then it does not account for the existence of the double tradition in
                                          > Matthew.

                                          The question of Matthew's sources for non-Markan material is of course an
                                          interesting one, just as the question of Mark's sources is an interesting one.
                                          So too the question of Q's sources on the 2ST, or the question of Matthew's
                                          sources on the GH, and so on. But surely what we are dealing with when we are
                                          discussing the Synoptic Problem is the issue of explaining the literary
                                          agreement among the Synoptics. We will naturally focus, therefore, on the two
                                          major areas of apparent literary agreement of some kind among the Synoptics --
                                          the triple tradition (as well as Mark // Matthew and Mark // Luke) and the
                                          double tradition. It is this material that is naturally one's focus in the
                                          discussion of Synoptic interrelationships and it is this material that was the
                                          focus of my attention in the Email to which Brian was responding.
                                          >
                                          > The Farrer Hypothesis must be Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew
                                          > plus something else, therefore.

                                          One might as well say, of course, that the 2ST is Markan Priority + Q +
                                          something else, or that Griesbach is Luke's use of Matthew, Mark's use of
                                          Matthew and Luke + something else. And so on. But if one is talking about
                                          the literary relationships among the Synoptics, Markan Priority + Luke's use of
                                          Matthew is indeed adequate to the task. The Farrer Theory would explain triple
                                          tradition (including Mark // Luke and Mark // Matthew) largely by Markan
                                          Priority, the double tradition by Luke's use of Matthew.

                                          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.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                                          Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • Brian E. Wilson
                                          ... I think this proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement and assigning sources is muddled. For literary agreement between two synoptic
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 28, 1998
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                            >The question of Matthew's sources for non-Markan material is of course an
                                            >interesting one, just as the question of Mark's sources is an interesting one.
                                            >So too the question of Q's sources on the 2ST, or the question of Matthew's
                                            >sources on the GH, and so on. But surely what we are dealing with when we are
                                            >discussing the Synoptic Problem is the issue of explaining the literary
                                            >agreement among the Synoptics.

                                            I think this proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement
                                            and assigning sources is muddled. For literary agreement between two
                                            synoptic gospels can be explained only by positing either that one was
                                            the source of the other, or that both are dependent on the same source.
                                            The question of sources is not something we begin to answer after we
                                            have solved the Synoptic Problem. The question of sources is integral
                                            to the Synoptic Problem itself.

                                            Moreover, if your analysis above is accepted, the phenomenon of
                                            "fatigue" in Matthew when compared with Mark would be outside the
                                            discussion of the Synoptic Problem, since "fatigue" requires the
                                            occurrence of literary disagreement, as well as agreement. What we are
                                            dealing with when we are discussing the Synoptic Problem is surely the
                                            issue of explaining the literary agreement AND DISAGREEMENT among the
                                            Synoptics.

                                            The question is from where, on the Farrer Hypothesis, did the double
                                            tradition in Matthew come? If it was from a documentary source, then why
                                            is this not posited by the Farrer Hypothesis, and was this source also
                                            used by Luke? If it was from an oral source, then was this source used
                                            by Luke also? Is Yuri right to suggest that Matthew did use Mark, and
                                            that Luke used both Mark and Matthew, but that Matthew and Luke also
                                            used Q, so that Q is re-dispensed rather than dispensed with? Or what?

                                            Without an answer this is surely a missing link in the Farrer
                                            Hypothesis. In John Drury's immortal words, "This is a loud silence"
                                            (Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel, page 41).

                                            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
                                            ... Of course it is. And there was no proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement and assigning sources and so, I hope, no muddle. The
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 29, 1998
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 29 Sep 98 at 7:25, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                                              > I think this proposed distinction between explaining literary agreement
                                              > and assigning sources is muddled. For literary agreement between two
                                              > synoptic gospels can be explained only by positing either that one was
                                              > the source of the other, or that both are dependent on the same source.
                                              > The question of sources is not something we begin to answer after we
                                              > have solved the Synoptic Problem. The question of sources is integral
                                              > to the Synoptic Problem itself.

                                              Of course it is. And there was no "proposed distinction between explaining
                                              literary agreement and assigning sources" and so, I hope, no muddle. The
                                              distinction I was making was between (1) the primary issue of explaining the
                                              literary agreement between the synoptics, primarily constituted by triple
                                              tradition and double tradition, and (2) the secondary but interesting question
                                              of the pre-Synoptic origin of that material.

                                              Let us get our thinking clear and spell out what I expressed more tersely
                                              before. The triple tradition is usually explained, in my opinion correctly, by
                                              the theory of Markan Priority. Mark is thus the source of the literary
                                              agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke. But that primary question (1 above)
                                              does not, of course, settle the secondary question of Mark's own sources (2
                                              above).

                                              Likewise on the 2ST, the double tradition is usually explained by the theory of
                                              Q. Q is thus the source of much of the non-Markan literary agreement between
                                              Matthew and Luke. But that primary question (1 above) does not, of course,
                                              settle the secondary question (2 above) of Q's own sources.

                                              Likewise on the Farrer Theory, that same double tradition material is explained
                                              on the theory of Luke's use of Matthew. Matthew is thus the source of much of
                                              the non-Markan literary agreement between Matthew and Luke. But that primary
                                              question (1 above) does not, of course, settle the secondary question (2 above)
                                              of Matthew's own non-Markan sources.

                                              Likewise on the Griesbach Theory, Matthew is the main source for Luke's Gospel.
                                              Thus Matthew is the source of much of the literary agreement between Matthew
                                              and Luke. But that primary question (1 above) does not, of course, settle the
                                              secondary question (2 above) of Matthew's own sources.

                                              And so on. Each of these theories has to ask its own secondary questions on
                                              the origin of the material in the source(s) it considers primary.

                                              It is the second of the questions that I think Brian wants to press me on,
                                              as the following makes clear:

                                              > The question is from where, on the Farrer Hypothesis, did the double
                                              > tradition in Matthew come? If it was from a documentary source, then why
                                              > is this not posited by the Farrer Hypothesis, and was this source also
                                              > used by Luke? If it was from an oral source, then was this source used
                                              > by Luke also? Is Yuri right to suggest that Matthew did use Mark, and
                                              > that Luke used both Mark and Matthew, but that Matthew and Luke also
                                              > used Q, so that Q is re-dispensed rather than dispensed with? Or what?

                                              I think that Brian is quite right to push the question of Matthew's non-Markan
                                              sources, and the implications of this question for the Farrer theory overall.
                                              Steve Davies pushed this a good deal some time ago on the Crosstalk list and
                                              there was some (I thought) helpful discussion.

                                              One of the weaknesses in Goulder's and Drury's perspective has been the theory
                                              of minimal sources for Matthew (and Luke). I find it most unlikely that
                                              Matthew had no other substantial sources for material outside of Mark and the
                                              Hebrew Bible. On the contrary, I am sure that Matthew creatively interacted
                                              with oral traditions, Mark and the Scriptures just as Luke creatively
                                              interacted with oral traditions, Matthew, Mark and the Scriptures.

                                              This final point is important and I would like to place some stress on the term
                                              "interaction". In what I wrote at the beginning of this Email, I talked
                                              about sources in a mechanical way for the sake of clarity. However,
                                              the term "interaction" with source material might be more appropriate
                                              than the term "use of" or "dependence on" source material. Thus Matthew was
                                              influenced by his sources and he also influenced (changed / re-worked) them.
                                              Furthermore, I do not think that oral traditions die the moment that some of
                                              them are crystallised in texts. Thus it is likely that Matthew has interacted
                                              with Mark itself in the light of oral traditions. And so on.

                                              I hope that this helps to clarify things.

                                              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 Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                              Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                                            • Brian E. Wilson
                                              ... It helps to clarify your position, Mark. Thank you for that. I am not sure, however, that it strengthens the Farrer Hypothesis. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 30, 1998
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                                >Thus it is likely that Matthew has interacted with Mark itself in the
                                                >light of oral traditions. And so on. I hope that this helps to
                                                >clarify things.
                                                >
                                                It helps to clarify your position, Mark. Thank you for that.

                                                I am not sure, however, that it strengthens the Farrer Hypothesis.

                                                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
                                              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                                On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote: ... Thanks for mentioning this, Brian. Actually I believe that the authors/editors of Lk were using Mt, but perhaps
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 30, 1998
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                                                  ...

                                                  > The question is from where, on the Farrer Hypothesis, did the double
                                                  > tradition in Matthew come? If it was from a documentary source, then why
                                                  > is this not posited by the Farrer Hypothesis, and was this source also
                                                  > used by Luke? If it was from an oral source, then was this source used
                                                  > by Luke also? Is Yuri right to suggest that Matthew did use Mark, and
                                                  > that Luke used both Mark and Matthew,

                                                  Thanks for mentioning this, Brian.

                                                  Actually I believe that the authors/editors of Lk were using Mt, but
                                                  perhaps only at the last stages of Lk's composition. The number of Lk's
                                                  passages visibly influenced by Mt is not that great.

                                                  The nativity stories were probably added up to both Mt and Lk ca. 140.
                                                  (One reason for this was to fight Adoptionism, but anti-Marcionite
                                                  polemic may have been a factor as well.) So the idea of adding a nativity
                                                  story may have been what anthropologists call "stimulus diffusion".

                                                  > but that Matthew and Luke also used Q, so that Q is re-dispensed
                                                  > rather than dispensed with? Or what?

                                                  I don't think there's much doubt that various sayings collections were
                                                  circulating in the first century and later. GTh pretty well proves this.
                                                  GTh certainly can be considered as providing very good support for Q.

                                                  > Without an answer this is surely a missing link in the Farrer
                                                  > Hypothesis. In John Drury's immortal words, "This is a loud silence"
                                                  > (Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel, page 41).

                                                  Regards,

                                                  Yuri.

                                                  Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                                  http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                                • Stephen C. Carlson
                                                  ... I don t quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    At 11:34 AM 9/24/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                                    >(3) Specifically, to come back to the question of the relationship between
                                                    >omissions and additions, is it not difficult for the GH that Mark combines
                                                    >omission of conducive material with additions that may confuse the reader or
                                                    >introduce errors? "When Abiathar was high priest" (2.26) introduces an error;
                                                    >so too does the bringing forward of the Malachi 3.2 quotation at Mark 1.2 (from
                                                    >Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27) as something that "is written in the prophet Isaiah".

                                                    I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                                    that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                                    clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                                    recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                                    Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write
                                                    it in the first place?

                                                    >This is in spite of the fact that on the GH Mark is not averse, on occasions,
                                                    >to making clarifying additions (e.g. Mark 2.15b, "for there were many, and they
                                                    >followed him"). In other words, how consistent is the GH's Mark in his
                                                    >redaction of Matthew and Luke?

                                                    I think the pattern of omissions and additions can be problematic for any
                                                    direct dependence theory between Matthew and Mark. For example, Bussmann,
                                                    cited by Sanders (1969) at 150-1, noted that although Matthew emphasis
                                                    names and numbers, he frequently does not have the names and numbers that
                                                    appear in Mark. Bussmann felt that the details, which would normally be
                                                    congenial to Matthew, were therefore added later to Matthew's Vorlage.

                                                    Sanders goes on to say:

                                                    Bussmann would argue, then, that Matthew had no tendency to
                                                    omit details, since he adds to many on his own. If we accept
                                                    this agument, as I am inclined to do, it poses a considerable
                                                    problem. Either Matthew's relation to Mark is not what it is
                                                    usually thought to have been, or else his redactional method
                                                    is not what it is thought to have been.... It is interesting
                                                    to note that, if one rejects the hypothesis that Matthew was
                                                    an abbreviator, one encounters the same problem ordinarily
                                                    encountered by those who wish to place Matthew before Mark....
                                                    It is just this consideration which led Bussmann to embrace
                                                    the view that neither knew the other directly.
                                                    Sanders at 151 (footnote omitted)

                                                    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
                                                  • Jeff Peterson
                                                    ... Maurice Casey argued in NTS 34 (1988) -- no doubt incorporated in his forthcoming _Aramaic Sources of Mark s Gospel_ -- that EPI here should be understood
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      At 3:01 AM 10/2/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                                                      >At 11:34 AM 9/24/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                                      >>(3) Specifically, to come back to the question of the relationship between
                                                      >>omissions and additions, is it not difficult for the GH that Mark combines
                                                      >>omission of conducive material with additions that may confuse the reader or
                                                      >>introduce errors? "When Abiathar was high priest" (2.26) introduces an
                                                      >>error;
                                                      >>so too does the bringing forward of the Malachi 3.2 quotation at Mark 1.2
                                                      >>(from
                                                      >>Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27) as something that "is written in the prophet
                                                      >>Isaiah".
                                                      >
                                                      >I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                                      >that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                                      >clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                                      >recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                                      >Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write
                                                      >it in the first place?

                                                      Maurice Casey argued in NTS 34 (1988) -- no doubt incorporated in his
                                                      forthcoming _Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel_ -- that EPI here should be
                                                      understood as a translation of the Aramaic BYWMY, "in the days of," citing
                                                      the rendering of Hebrew BYMYK by EPI SOU in Job 38:12 LXX. The suggestion
                                                      has some interest even for those skeptical that well-defined Aramaic
                                                      sources stand behind the Gospels if AMark was more at home in a Semitic
                                                      language than in Greek.

                                                      Jeff


                                                      Jeffrey Peterson
                                                      Institute for Christian Studies
                                                      Austin, Texas, USA
                                                    • Mark Goodacre
                                                      ... Good point; thanks -- this was a rotten argument. EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS will qualify as a clarifying addition on the GH, albeit an erroneous one. The
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        On 2 Oct 98 at 3:01, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                                        > I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                                        > that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                                        > clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                                        > recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                                        > Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write it in
                                                        > the first place?

                                                        Good point; thanks -- this was a rotten argument. EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS will
                                                        qualify as a clarifying addition on the GH, albeit an erroneous one.

                                                        The movement forward of the Malachi quotation to Mark 1.2 may not be so weak,
                                                        however. Here Mark, if he is using Matthew and Luke, goes against their
                                                        concurrent testimony by bringing forward Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27 to a new
                                                        place whereby it introduces an error. It is not said to be from Isaiah in
                                                        that context, but it is now in the new one. While is it possible that Mark has
                                                        done this, will we not be more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew and
                                                        Luke each correcting their source?

                                                        > I think the pattern of omissions and additions can be problematic for any
                                                        > direct dependence theory between Matthew and Mark. (snip)

                                                        Thanks for the interesting information from Bussmann and Sanders. On the
                                                        general issue of omissions and additions on the pericope level, I find myself
                                                        inclined towards Markan Priority for the following reason (among others). Does
                                                        Mark’s Gospel makes better sense on the assumption that its unique elements are
                                                        matters that Mark has added to Matthew and Luke or on the assumption that its
                                                        unique elements are matters that Matthew and Luke have each omitted from Mark?
                                                        Equally, is the material that is absent from Mark better explained as material
                                                        that Mark has omitted from Matthew and Luke or as material that Matthew and
                                                        Luke have added to Mark?

                                                        Given that some of the double tradition appears congenial to Mark (e.g. the
                                                        Lord's Prayer, which has an obvious potential location in chapter 11) and given
                                                        that all of the material unique to Mark appears uncongenial to Matthew and Luke
                                                        (e.g. Blind Man of Bethsaida -- secrecy, saliva and limiting Jesus' power),
                                                        might we not be more naturally inclined to Markan Priority in this category?

                                                        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.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                                                        Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                        In a message dated 98-10-02 12:33:01 EDT, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Oct 2, 1998
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          In a message dated 98-10-02 12:33:01 EDT, M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

                                                          <<
                                                          On 2 Oct 98 at 3:01, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                                          > I don't quite understand the point about Mk2:26. I suppose the argument is
                                                          > that why would Mark, wishing to clarify, introduce something that is not a
                                                          > clarification, but an error? Doesn't this argument assume that Mark
                                                          > recognized EPI ABIAQAR ARXIEREWS as erroneous but added it anyway? But if
                                                          > Mark thought it was erroneous, why did he, under Markan priority, write it
                                                          in
                                                          > the first place?

                                                          MARK: Good point; thanks -- this was a rotten argument. EPI ABIAQAR
                                                          ARXIEREWS will qualify as a clarifying addition on the GH, albeit an erroneous
                                                          one.

                                                          LEONARD: Thanks for this, Mark. I wish we were all as prompt to retreat from
                                                          previously held weak positions, or lapsus mentis.

                                                          MARK: The movement forward of the Malachi quotation to Mark 1.2 may not be so
                                                          weak, however. Here Mark, if he is using Matthew and Luke, goes against their
                                                          concurrent testimony by bringing forward Matt. 11.10 // Luke 7.27 to a new
                                                          place whereby it introduces an error. It is not said to be from Isaiah in
                                                          that context, but it is now in the new one. While it is possible that Mark
                                                          has
                                                          done this, will we not be more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew
                                                          and
                                                          Luke each correcting their source?

                                                          LEONARD: Not really. At least not all of us will be. Against the 2 SH, it is
                                                          somewhat too wonderful to believe that the two other synoptic evangelists
                                                          independently settled on exactly the same MANNER of correction. And in any
                                                          case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark thought of as writing
                                                          third, as it does with Matt-Lk making a correction. One would think, e.g.,
                                                          that that such a correction would have included indicating the CORRECT source
                                                          for the OT quotation at Matt 11:10// Lk 7:27, if this was all such a conscious
                                                          procedure to begin with. And a change in the other direction made by Mark only
                                                          produces half an error anyway, one that would be easily missed by, and not at
                                                          all of concern to, the popular audience I imagine Mk to have been written for.
                                                          Couldn't we leave this one a draw?

                                                          MARK: Thanks for the interesting information from Bussmann and Sanders. On
                                                          the
                                                          general issue of omissions and additions on the pericope level, I find myself
                                                          inclined towards Markan Priority for the following reason (among others).
                                                          Does
                                                          Marks Gospel makes better sense on the assumption that its unique elements
                                                          are
                                                          matters that Mark has added to Matthew and Luke or on the assumption that
                                                          its
                                                          unique elements are matters that Matthew and Luke have each omitted from
                                                          Mark?

                                                          LEONARD: Perhaps predictably, I find the first possibility more plausible
                                                          (that Mark added his unique material to what he found in Matt and Lk). What
                                                          possible difficulty could Matt and Lk have had, e.g., with Mark 4:26-28? And
                                                          as for the healing miracles in Mark 7 and 8, it baffles me why so many
                                                          scholars assume that the only or most natural solution to possible
                                                          difficulties with these texts on the part of Matt and Lk is for them both to
                                                          simply omit both stories. Matt and Lk have elsewhere exibited considerable
                                                          talent in (supposedly) editing Mark by deft editorial touches. Could at least
                                                          one of them not have thought of simply removing the saliva, if that indeed was
                                                          such a serious problem? (It seems not have been, by the way, for John).

                                                          MARK: Equally, is the material that is absent from Mark better explained as
                                                          material
                                                          that Mark has omitted from Matthew and Luke or as material that Matthew and
                                                          Luke have added to Mark?

                                                          LEONARD: Here, of course, the case is not nearly so clear. In itself, it
                                                          makes perfect sense to think of Matt-Lk material as having been added to a
                                                          shorter Mark.
                                                          But this only becomes a strong argument against Markan posteriority, if we
                                                          assume that Mark's audience had not ever heard of Matt or Lk, or that the
                                                          publication of Mark was considered, in political terms, the equivalent of
                                                          placing the earlier Gospels on the church's index (of forbidden books). I
                                                          think neither of these positions can be seriously maintained, and therefore
                                                          Mark's audience should be assumed to have full familiarity with the "omitted"
                                                          material from Matt and Lk, and the absence of these materials in GMk should be
                                                          thought of as no more significant than their absence also from most other late
                                                          first- and early second-century Christian documents. In other words, this
                                                          argument is not strong enough in itself to override the EVIDENCE for Markan
                                                          posteriority, as a conflation and popular dramatization of material found in
                                                          the earlier, more literary documents of Matt and Lk. Once again, let me state
                                                          that the presupposition of an evangelist's task as that of a collector, for
                                                          the sake of posterity, of earlier materials about the life of Jesus would also
                                                          validate Mark G's argument here. But I doubt the validity of this
                                                          presupposition, and am therefore free to take seriously the evidence of Mark's
                                                          lateness, without being disturbed in the least by his omissions.

                                                          Leonard Maluf
                                                        • Mark Goodacre
                                                          On 2 Oct 98 at 16:37, Maluflen@aol.com wrote on Matt. 11.10 // Mark 1.2 // ... I agree that the 2ST is in difficulties here. It is not only the moving of the
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Oct 6, 1998
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            On 2 Oct 98 at 16:37, Maluflen@... wrote on Matt. 11.10 // Mark 1.2 //
                                                            Luke 7.27:

                                                            > LEONARD: Not really. At least not all of us will be. Against the 2 SH, it is
                                                            > somewhat too wonderful to believe that the two other synoptic evangelists
                                                            > independently settled on exactly the same MANNER of correction.

                                                            I agree that the 2ST is in difficulties here. It is not only the moving of the
                                                            quotation but also the use of the identical, non-LXX wording with KATASKEUEIN
                                                            plus EMPROSQEN SOU. Both Goulder (and to some extent Sanders) have made a good
                                                            deal of this as evidence of Luke's use of Matthew as well as Mark, in my view
                                                            rightly.

                                                            > And in any
                                                            > case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark thought of as writing
                                                            > third, as it does with Matt-Lk making a correction. One would think, e.g.,
                                                            > that that such a correction would have included indicating the CORRECT source
                                                            > for the OT quotation at Matt 11:10// Lk 7:27, if this was all such a conscious
                                                            > procedure to begin with.

                                                            It is common for Matthew not to indicate the source of OT quotations (4.4, 4.6,
                                                            4.7, 4.10, 21.13, 26.24, 26.31) so we will not particularly expect him here to
                                                            write "This is the one about whom Malachi wrote . . . " Indeed, the tendency
                                                            is to leave the source of the GEGRAPTAI unspecified.

                                                            > And a change in the other direction made by Mark only
                                                            > produces half an error anyway, one that would be easily missed by, and not at
                                                            > all of concern to, the popular audience I imagine Mk to have been written for.
                                                            > Couldn't we leave this one a draw?

                                                            I'll grant that Griesbach and Farrer are both preferable to the 2ST on this
                                                            one, but I think that Farrer remains preferable to Griesbach. Most will be
                                                            more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew and Luke each correcting their
                                                            source than towards one that sees Mark introducing an error against the
                                                            concurrent testimony of his predecessors, a testimony that elsewhere is held to
                                                            be important to him.

                                                            > LEONARD: Perhaps predictably, I find the first possibility more plausible
                                                            > (that Mark added his unique material to what he found in Matt and Lk). What
                                                            > possible difficulty could Matt and Lk have had, e.g., with Mark 4:26-28?

                                                            On the assumption that Matthew knew and used Mark, it seems clear that he has
                                                            preferred the very Matthean Wheat and Tares parable to the very Markan Seed
                                                            Growing Secretly. Luke, as is his habit with long discourse material
                                                            (Collection of Sayings in Mark 9.33-50; Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7 etc.),
                                                            keeps some, omits some and redistributes the remainder. This pericope is one
                                                            of those omitted by Luke.

                                                            > And
                                                            > as for the healing miracles in Mark 7 and 8, it baffles me why so many
                                                            > scholars assume that the only or most natural solution to possible
                                                            > difficulties with these texts on the part of Matt and Lk is for them both to
                                                            > simply omit both stories. Matt and Lk have elsewhere exibited considerable
                                                            > talent in (supposedly) editing Mark by deft editorial touches. Could at least
                                                            > one of them not have thought of simply removing the saliva, if that indeed was
                                                            > such a serious problem? (It seems not have been, by the way, for John).

                                                            It is arguable that Mathew did precisely that with the Blind Man of
                                                            Bethsaida. Once one has taken away all the difficulties (healing method,
                                                            secrecy, limits on Jesus' power) one is left simply with a blind man being
                                                            healed, typically doubled up in Matt. 9.27-31? The difficulty particularly
                                                            with the Blind Man of Bethsaida is that there are several odd motifs.

                                                            > LEONARD: Here, of course, the case is not nearly so clear. In itself, it
                                                            > makes perfect sense to think of Matt-Lk material as having been added to a
                                                            > shorter Mark. But this only becomes a strong argument against Markan
                                                            > posteriority, if we assume that Mark's audience had not ever heard of Matt or
                                                            > Lk, or that the publication of Mark was considered, in political terms, the
                                                            > equivalent of placing the earlier Gospels on the church's index (of forbidden
                                                            > books). I think neither of these positions can be seriously maintained, and
                                                            > therefore Mark's audience should be assumed to have full familiarity with the
                                                            > "omitted" material from Matt and Lk, and the absence of these materials in GMk
                                                            > should be thought of as no more significant than their absence also from most
                                                            > other late first- and early second-century Christian documents.

                                                            This is similar to what Prof. Longstaff was saying in his message last week and
                                                            I find it a helpful perspective. I do tend to think about Matthew as an
                                                            attempt to correct and replace Mark, and Luke (perhaps explicitly, 1.1-4) as an
                                                            attempt to correct and replace Mark and Matthew. And it might be problematic to
                                                            hold such a view on the assumption of Markan Posteriority. One potential
                                                            problem that occurs to me is what, then, of the analogy between Mark and
                                                            Tatian? If Mark is taking such trouble to conflate (aspects of) Matthew and
                                                            Luke, is he not in some way supposedly doing an early harmony, the purpose of
                                                            which would more naturally be to supercede Matthew and Luke?

                                                            > In other
                                                            > words, this argument is not strong enough in itself to override the EVIDENCE
                                                            > for Markan posteriority, as a conflation and popular dramatization of material
                                                            > found in the earlier, more literary documents of Matt and Lk. Once again, let
                                                            > me state that the presupposition of an evangelist's task as that of a
                                                            > collector, for the sake of posterity, of earlier materials about the life of
                                                            > Jesus would also validate Mark G's argument here. But I doubt the validity of
                                                            > this presupposition, and am therefore free to take seriously the evidence of
                                                            > Mark's lateness, without being disturbed in the least by his omissions.

                                                            By the evidence of Mark's "lateness", I take it that posteriority to Matthew
                                                            and Luke is meant? If not, I would be interested to know what the evidence for
                                                            "lateness" is. Most, of course, have seen Matthew and Luke as more obviously
                                                            late with possible references to AD 70 etc.

                                                            Thanks for the thoughtful response to my earlier post.

                                                            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 Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                            Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                                                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                            Continuing the discussion on Markan additions: (LEONARD: And in any case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark thought of as writing third, as it
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Oct 7, 1998
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Continuing the discussion on Markan additions:

                                                              (LEONARD: And in any case, the direction seems easily as imaginable with Mark
                                                              thought of as writing third, as it does with Matt-Lk making a correction. One
                                                              would think, e.g., that that such a correction would have included indicating
                                                              the CORRECT source for the OT quotation at Matt 11:10// Lk 7:27, if this was
                                                              all such a conscious
                                                              procedure to begin with.)

                                                              MARK: It is common for Matthew not to indicate the source of OT quotations
                                                              (4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 21.13, 26.24, 26.31) so we will not particularly expect
                                                              him here to
                                                              write "This is the one about whom Malachi wrote . . . " Indeed, the tendency
                                                              is to leave the source of the GEGRAPTAI unspecified.

                                                              LEONARD: Good point. In all of the cases cited, it is not the Evangelist, but
                                                              someone else in the narrative, usually Jesus, who is speaking. Jesus is also
                                                              speaking in Matt 11:10, and therefore one would not expect to find a reference
                                                              to Malachi there. However, the fact that the quotation is found in this
                                                              context of an entire incident about John the Baptist that is absent in Mark
                                                              makes it difficult to see Matthew's work here as a "correction" of Mark's
                                                              faulty citation. In other words, Matt's work has a ratio all its own, and
                                                              produces a fully coherent picture without any reference to the text of Mark.

                                                              (LEONARD: And a change in the other direction made by Mark only
                                                              produces half an error anyway, one that would be easily missed by, and not at
                                                              all of concern to, the popular audience I imagine Mk to have been written
                                                              for.
                                                              Couldn't we leave this one a draw?)

                                                              MARK: I'll grant that Griesbach and Farrer are both preferable to the 2ST on
                                                              this
                                                              one, but I think that Farrer remains preferable to Griesbach. Most will be
                                                              more inclined towards a theory that sees Matthew and Luke each correcting
                                                              their
                                                              source than towards one that sees Mark introducing an error against the
                                                              concurrent testimony of his predecessors, a testimony that elsewhere is held
                                                              to
                                                              be important to him.

                                                              LEONARD: If this is so, I remain comfortably in the minority here. It is
                                                              misleading to speak of Mark as "introducing an error against the concurrent
                                                              testimony of his predecessors" here. If anything, Mark is guilty of being
                                                              overliteral in transcribing his sources (he could have avoided all
                                                              embarrassment, if he hadn't copied the reference to Isaiah the prophet from
                                                              Matt 3 in the first place.) Knowing that he was to omit the entire pericope of
                                                              Matt 11:1-19 par., Mark simply tacked on the UNIDENTIFIED OT quotation found
                                                              in that passage to the citation found in Matt 3, which is indeed from Isaiah,
                                                              and therefore sufficiently justifies his introduction to the combined quote,
                                                              as far as his unlearned audience is concerned. I really do find this scenario
                                                              much more plausible than that of a correction of Mark by Matt and Luke
                                                              involving the elaborate construction of an entire pericope, in another part of
                                                              their respective Gospels, in which the incorrect portion of the Marcan
                                                              citation miraculously finds a perfectly tailor-made home.

                                                              > LEONARD: Perhaps predictably, I find the first possibility more plausible
                                                              > (that Mark added his unique material to what he found in Matt and Lk). What
                                                              > possible difficulty could Matt and Lk have had, e.g., with Mark 4:26-28?

                                                              MARK: On the assumption that Matthew knew and used Mark, it seems clear that
                                                              he has preferred the very Matthean Wheat and Tares parable to the very Markan
                                                              Seed Growing Secretly.

                                                              LEONARD: But why not use both? And is the fact that this parable appears as
                                                              "very Markan" not indicative of Mark's having WRITTEN this particular
                                                              pericope, in contrast to the less Markan portions of most of his text which he
                                                              has BORROWED from Matt and Lk?

                                                              MARK: Luke, as is his habit with long discourse material (Collection of
                                                              Sayings in Mark 9.33-50; Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7 etc.), keeps some,
                                                              omits some and redistributes the remainder. This pericope is one of those
                                                              omitted by Luke.

                                                              LEONARD: But again, why?

                                                              > LEONARD: Here, of course, the case is not nearly so clear. In itself, it
                                                              > makes perfect sense to think of Matt-Lk material as having been added to a
                                                              > shorter Mark. But this only becomes a strong argument against Markan
                                                              > posteriority, if we assume that Mark's audience had not ever heard of Matt
                                                              or
                                                              > Lk, or that the publication of Mark was considered, in political terms, the
                                                              > equivalent of placing the earlier Gospels on the church's index (of
                                                              forbidden
                                                              > books). I think neither of these positions can be seriously maintained, and
                                                              > therefore Mark's audience should be assumed to have full familiarity with
                                                              the
                                                              > "omitted" material from Matt and Lk, and the absence of these materials in
                                                              GMk
                                                              > should be thought of as no more significant than their absence also from
                                                              most
                                                              > other late first- and early second-century Christian documents.

                                                              MARK: This is similar to what Prof. Longstaff was saying in his message last
                                                              week and I find it a helpful perspective. I do tend to think about Matthew
                                                              as an
                                                              attempt to correct and replace Mark, and Luke (perhaps explicitly, 1.1-4) as
                                                              an
                                                              attempt to correct and replace Mark and Matthew. And it might be problematic
                                                              to
                                                              hold such a view on the assumption of Markan Posteriority. One potential
                                                              problem that occurs to me is what, then, of the analogy between Mark and
                                                              Tatian? If Mark is taking such trouble to conflate (aspects of) Matthew and
                                                              Luke, is he not in some way supposedly doing an early harmony, the purpose of
                                                              which would more naturally be to supercede Matthew and Luke?

                                                              LEONARD: Conflation is a compositional METHOD frequently employed by Mark, not
                                                              his goal or purpose, which must be defined in terms of the Gospel's intrinsic
                                                              pastoral effectiveness, and independently of its author's method. And of
                                                              course Mark's text is supposed to supercede Matthew and Luke FOR THE LIMITED
                                                              PURPOSES OF ITS INTENDED USE IN A PARTICULAR LITURGICAL OR OTHER SETTING. I
                                                              would only argue that it is not intended to supercede or replace the older
                                                              gospels simpliciter, as the Scholastics would put it.

                                                              (LEONARD: In other words, this argument is not strong enough in itself to
                                                              override the EVIDENCE for Markan posteriority, as a conflation and popular
                                                              dramatization of material found in the earlier, more literary documents of
                                                              Matt and Lk. Once again, let
                                                              me state that the presupposition of an evangelist's task as that of a
                                                              collector, for the sake of posterity, of earlier materials about the life of
                                                              Jesus would also validate Mark G's argument here. But I doubt the validity of
                                                              this presupposition, and am therefore free to take seriously the evidence of
                                                              Mark's lateness, without being disturbed in the least by his omissions.)

                                                              MARK: By the evidence of Mark's "lateness", I take it that posteriority to
                                                              Matthew
                                                              and Luke is meant? If not, I would be interested to know what the evidence
                                                              for
                                                              "lateness" is. Most, of course, have seen Matthew and Luke as more obviously
                                                              late with possible references to AD 70 etc.

                                                              LEONARD: Yes, by evidence of Mark's lateness I do mean the fairly pervasive
                                                              evidence of its posteriority to Matthew and Luke, which is often ignored
                                                              because isolated pieces of possible evidence for relative lateness of Matt and
                                                              Luke have been accorded an inflated and decisive value.

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