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

Re: Mark 2:16 - Conflict of Internal Evidence

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    Dear Countach: C: What I should have asked is what proportion of the time Matthew abbreviates, compared to expands. After all, we are discussing
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Countach:

      C: "What I should have asked is what proportion of the time Matthew
      abbreviates, compared to expands. After all, we are discussing
      probabilities."

      I seem to recollect a statement of Hawkins to the effect that when
      one places parallel-pericopes of Matthew and Mark side-by-side, it
      looks like Matthew condenses Mark more than he expands. But I don't
      know what the exact proportion is. Plus, it might be a bit hazardous
      to apply something like that to the question about Mark 2:16, since
      some of Matthew's condensation is limited to his treatment of things
      like Mark's double-statements.

      C: ... "Anyway, the point is that eating and drinking go together
      like a horse and carriage, and it could never be surprising to expand
      it to both."

      But such a tendency may be assigned to authors as easily as to
      scribes. If ESQIEI KAI PINEI is the original text in Mk. 2:16, it is
      not surprising that Mark would mention that the scribes observed that
      Jesus was eating and drinking.

      C: "I think there's at least 35 times in the gospels where eating
      and drinking are mentioned together, and by my count that means that
      drinking is mentioned in the context of eating more often than it is
      not."

      I question that. Using a Strong's Concordance as a rough guide,
      "drink," "drinketh," and "drinking" (#4095) occur in the Gospels a
      total of 46 times. "Eat," "eaten," "eateth," and "eating" (#2068)
      occur in the Gospels a total of 34 times. Of those 34 occurrences of
      #2068, #4095 is in the vicinity in 12 instances (Mt. 11:18, 11:19,
      24:38, 24:49, Lk. 5:30, 5:33, 7:33, 7:34, 12:45, 17:27, 17:28, and
      22:30) -- 26% of the occurrences of #4095 and 35% of the occurrences
      of #2068. Now, the analysis could be a lot more precise, but I don't
      think the picture is going to be reversed.

      JS2: [previously] "But why would anyone harmonize with Mt. 11:19 (a
      non-parallel) when they could harmonize with Mt. 9:11 (a parallel)?"

      C: "How about because the tendancy to expand is stronger than the
      tendancy to contract? We are playing two TC principles off against
      each other. Scribes don't sit down and think "what is the best
      passage to harmanize against". It's only one possible cause of this
      corruption."

      But ~ overlooking for the moment the question of whether or not the
      tendency to add text really is stronger than the tendency to omit ~
      tendencies are tendencies, and in the case of Mk. 2:16 there's a
      combination of factors that outweigh that consideration: if ESQIEI
      KAI PINEI is original, then
      (A) the text is susceptible to parablepsis,
      (B) copyists would expect only ESQIEI (being more familiar with
      Matthew). Plus,
      (C) ESQIEI KAI PINEI is not a true harmonization,
      (D) ESQIEI KAI PINEI has strong attestation in terms of age and
      diversity, and
      (E) ESQIEI KAI PINEI seems somewhat less likely to have been written
      by unrelated copyists than ESQIEI (since paraplepsis could occur
      independently, and so could harmonization to Mt.); harmonization to
      Lk. 5:30 would tend to consistently result in ESQIETE KAI PINETE
      rather than ESQIEI KAI PINEI.

      Yours in Christ,

      Jim Snapp II
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.