Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preaching

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preaching

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:02 am

Horae Synopticae

Image

Ben Smith
Textual excavation at its very finest. The phrase horae synopticae is Latin for synoptic hours. Hawkins named his book after all the time that he spent on the synoptic problem. And it shows. He compiles list after list of textual phenomena: Historical presents, distinctive vocabulary words, doublets, and many, many others.

Hawkins himself subscribed to the two-source hypothesis, but this book is a must-have for anyone interested in the relationship between the synoptics, regardless of position. It is, quite simply, without peer in its field.
JW:
Hawkins wrote HS (Horae Synopticae) in 1898 demonstrating Markan priority and it has not been significantly challenged since. In an irony that the author of GMark would approve of, Hawkins, a Reverend and believer of the historical assertions of orthodox Christianity, made a fundamental historical assertion of orthodox Christianity disappear, that the original Gospel narrative was written by "Matthew", the apostle.

The related, more recent confession of orthodox Christianity is that the original Gospel GMark, originally ended at 16:8, with no resurrection appearances. Subsequent editing of GMark and subsequent Gospels based on GMark added resurrection appearances to their versions.

The problem this creates for orthodox Christianity is that its traditional primary assertion is that Jesus was resurrected and its related traditional primary claim of historical support is that the Gospels provide historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. But without a resurrection appearance in the original narrative, there is no resurrection appearance in the source for subsequent Gospels which added resurrection appearances.

Again, the above is all confessed by Christian Bible scholarship. Christian assertion than, goes back to its roots of Paul/"Mark" (author). Belief in the resurrection is based on revelation/faith and not historical witness evidence.

The average Christian in the street has no idea of the above and thinks the issue is that the Gospels provide multiple first hand witness to a resurrected Jesus and non-Christians just choose not to believe what was written. Skeptics know better but I fear, based on discussions on this unholy Forum, that the average Skeptic here does not appreciate just how good the evidence is for Markan priority.

Since Hawkins wrote, the case for Markan priority has gotten stronger with new arguments developed, but HS is still the starting point. So let the Revelation of the argument for Markan priority begin:

In the first half of the book Hawkins compiles the raw data. In the second half he presents the argument for Markan priority:

Page 117 = Passages that would seem to be problems for orthodox Christianity are more prominent in GMark:
A. Passages seeming (a) to limit the power of Jesus Christ, or (b) to be otherwise derogatory to, or unworthy of, Him.

[Numerous examples]

B. Passages seeming to disparage the attainments or character of the Apostles.

[Numerous examples]

C. Other passages which might cause offence or difficulty.

[Numerous examples]
Since Hawkins wrote, Textual Criticism has determined that there are possibly/likely/probably many more difficult readings in GMark that Hawkins did not identify.

Our own Peter Kirby, The Young Wolf, has a splendid related article here:

The Priority of Mark

for those who prefer the Truth in digest form (so to speak).

Enjoy!



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7559
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preac

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:52 pm

Hawkins inspired much of my work on the synoptic problem. I have my own slightly modified version of his synoptic vocabulary tables on my website: http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticvocabulary.html.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preac

Post by DCHindley » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:53 pm

What do members think of E. P. Sanders' The tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969)?

My recollection is that there was about as much evidence of shortening of accounts as lengthening. Are we just looking at examples, regardless of whether we want them to be shortened or lengthened versions of some other account, that are all reversible? There are supposed to be literary clues to determine whether some account has been shortened or lengthened, but are they based on reality or wishful thinking?

The TOC:
CONTENTS

Preface page xi

List of Abbreviations xiii

I THE PROBLEM 1

The Need for Criteria 1

The Present Situation and the Task 8

Analysis of the form-critical method of establishing the tendencies of tradition, 13;
Evaluation of the form-critical method of establishing the tendencies of the tradition, 21;
The relation of this study to Memory and Manuscript, 26

The Material 29

The textual tradition, 29;
The early Fathers, 35;
The Apocryphal Gospels, 40

The Categories 45

II INCREASING LENGTH AS A POSSIBLE TENDENCY OF THE TRADITION 46

Introduction 46

Method of Citation 51

The Evidence from the Post-Canonical Tradition 53

Addition of all or part of an Old Testament quotation, 53;
Omission of all or part of an Old Testament quotation, 54.;
Additions to speeches, 54;
Omissions from speeches, 56;
Addition of speeches, 57;
Omission of speeches, 58;
Addition of dialogue, 59;
Omission or curtailment of dialogue, 60;
The creation of new scenes and events, 60;
Addendum: Creation of new material, 61;
Addition of actions, 61;
Omission of actions, 62;
Addenda: Other instances of expansion, 63;
Other instances of abbreviation, 64;
Instances in which the shorter of two possible readings is chosen, 66

The Evidence from the Synoptic Gospels 69

Old Testament quotations in one Gospel but not in another, 69;
Speeches longer in one Gospel than in another, 71;
Speeches present in one Gospel but not in another, 74;
Dialogues in one Gospel but not in another, 76;
Scenes and events in one Gospel but not in another, 78;
Actions in one Gospel but not in another, 80;
Miscellaneous differences of length, 82

III INCREASING DETAIL AS A POSSIBLE TENDENCY OF THE TRADITION page 88

Introduction 88

The Evidence from the Post-Canonical Tradition 96

The addition of the subject, 96;
The omission of the subject, 101;
The addition of the direct object, 104;
The omission of the direct object, 105;
The addition of indirect objects and equivalent pros phrases, 107;
The omission of indirect objects and equivalent pros phrases, 110;
The addition of non-adjectival prepositional phrases, 112;
The omission of non-adjectival prepositional phrases, 114;
The addition of adjectives and adjectival phrases, 116;
The omission of adjectives and adjectival phrases, 118;
The addition of a noun in the genitive, 119;
The omission of a noun in the genitive, 121;
The addition of a personal pronoun in the genitive, 122;
The omission of a personal pronoun in the genitive, 126;
The addition of a noun to a proper name, 128;
The omission of a noun from a proper name, 129;
The addition of a proper name to a noun or its equivalent or to another proper name, 129;
The omission of a proper name from a noun or its equivalent or from another proper name, 130; Other additions of proper names, 131;
Omissions of proper names, 132;
The substitution of a proper name for a noun or pronoun, 133;
The substitution of a noun or pronoun for a proper name, 134;
The substitution of a noun for a pronoun, substantive adjective, or participle, 135;
The substitution of a pronoun for a noun, 136;
The addition of a noun to a pronoun, substantive adjective, or substantive participle, 137;
The omission of a noun from a pronoun, adjective, or participle, 138;
The addition of circumstances, 139;
The omission of circumstances, 140;
The addition of explanations, 140;
The omission of explanations, 141;
The addition of conclusion and result, 141;
The omission of conclusion and result, 142;
The addition of emotion, 143;
The omission of emotion, 143;
The addition of miscellaneous details, 143;
The omission of miscellaneous details, 144

The Evidence from the Synoptic Gospels 146

Subjects in one Gospel but not in another, 152;
Direct objects in one Gospel but not in another, 155;
Indirect objects and equivalent pros phrases in one Gospel but not in another, 157;
Prepositional phrases in one Gospel but not in another, 160;
Adjectives and adjectival clauses in one Gospel but not in another, 163;
Genitive nouns in one Gospel but not in another, 165;
Genitive pronouns in one Gospel but not in another, 167;
The use of a noun with a proper name in one Gospel but not in another, 168;
The use of a proper name with a noun or with another proper name in one Gospel but not in another, 169;
Other instances of proper names in one Gospel but not in another, 170;
The appearance of a proper name in one Gospel where a noun or pronoun appears in another, 171;
The appearance of a noun in one Gospel where a pronoun appears in another, 173;
The use of a noun with a pronoun in one Gospel where only a pronoun appears in another, 174;
The use of a phrase indicating circumstance in one Gospel but not in another, 176;
Explanations in one Gospel but not in another, 179;
Conclusions and results mentioned in one Gospel but not in another, 180;
Emotions mentioned in one Gospel but not in another, 181;
The presence of miscellaneous details in one Gospel but not in another, 182

IV DIMINISHING SEMITISM AS A POSSIBLE TENDENCY OF THE TRADITION page 190

Introduction 190

The Evidence from the Post-Canonical Tradition 209

The change of other conjunctions to kai, 209;
The change of kai to other conjunctions, 211;
The creation of parataxis by changing a participle to a finite verb and adding kai, 212;
The avoidance of parataxis by changing a finite verb with kai into a participle, 213;
Addendum: Other instances of parataxis, 213;
The omission of the conjunction: creation of asyndeton, 214;
The addition of a conjunction: avoidance of asyndeton, 217;
Addendum: Other instances of asyndeton, 220;
Verbs changed to the historic present, 221;
Verbs changed from the historic present, 222;
Addendum: Other instances of the historic present, 223;
The use of heis for tis; the addition of heis, to mean tis, 224;
The change of heis to tis; the omission of heis with the meaning of tis, 224;
Wording made more Semitic, 225;
Wording made less Semitic, 226;
Addendum: Semitisms in material not strictly paralleled in the Synoptics, 227

The Evidence from the Synoptic Gospels 232

The use of kai in one Gospel but not in another, 233;
The use of a finite verb with kai in one Gospel where another Gospel has a participle, 237;
The use of asyndeton in one Gospel where another Gospel has a conjunction, 240;
The use of the historic present in one Gospel but not in another, 242;
The use of heis in one Gospel where another has tis, 246;
More Semitic wording in one Gospel than in another, 246

V DIRECT DISCOURSE AND CONFLATION 256

The Use of Direct Discourse 256

Introduction, 256;
The Evidence from the Post-Canonical Tradition, 258;
The Evidence from the Synoptic Gospels, 259

Conflation 262

Introduction, 262;
The Evidence from the Post-Canonical Tradition, 265;
The Evidence from the Synoptic Gospels, 268

VI CONCLUSIONS page 272

Summary of Results 272

The Synoptic Problem 276

The Pre-Canonical Tradition 279

APPENDIXES 286

Translation Variants 286
Suggested Exceptions to the Priority of Mark 290
The Christian Method of Transmission of Tradition 294
Semitisms and the Provenance of Documents 297
Selected Passages 301

Bibliography 307

Index 319
His conclusion(s):
[272] CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Since the individual results of this study have been summarized throughout the body of the work, it will not be necessary to offer a lengthy conclusion here. We may briefly indicate the principal results of the study, and then discuss the significance of this study for the Synoptic problem and the study of the pre-canonical Synoptic tradition. The principal conclusions, then, are as follows:

There are no hard and- fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition. On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It became both longer and shorter, both more and less detailed, and both more and less Semitic. Even the tendency to use direct discourse for indirect, which was uniform in the post-canonical material which we studied, was not uniform in the Synoptics themselves. For this reason, dogmatic statements that a certain characteristic proves a certain passage to be earlier than another are never justified.

On all points it was necessary to consider the question of editorial tendencies. Some particular writers would have an editorial custom contrary to the general course of development. For the sake of convenience, the tradition is often personified; that is, it is given characteristics of its own. We have spoken in this manner in this work. At each point, however, we were reminded that the tradition has no tendencies apart from the sum of the tendencies of the individuals who transmit it. To say that the tradition tends to become more specific is actually to say that, more often than not, the transmitters tend to make it more specific. For this reason, we must always give room for human differences and be alert to the editorial tendencies of each particular writer.

A brief digression to consider a modern parallel may make this point clearer. The stock market resembles the Christian tradition in many respects. Both are personified. Just as it is said that ‘the tradition tended to become more specific’, it is [273] also said that ‘the stock market did so and so’. The market is said not only to go up or down, but to hesitate, waver, and even spit.1 After a period of hesitation, it ‘decides’ to move in one way or another. Further, the market, like the tradition, is said to operate according to certain laws. Thus, to take one of the simplest of the stock market ‘ laws ’ as an example, it is said that a sharp increase of odd lot purchases over odd lot sales indicates the approaching end of a bull (rising) market. The reasoning behind the ‘law’ is that those who buy odd lots (usually fewer than one hundred shares), the small investors, are always on the wrong side. Small investors are thought to buy at the top and sell at the bottom.2 It is clear that this ‘law’, like all other ‘ laws ’ of the stock market, is only a law in the sense that it is an observation based on the behavior of most of the individuals who buy and sell stocks. It is thus possible not only that an individual small investor could break the ‘ law ’ and be on the right side of the market, but even that, through better public advice, a majority of small investors could be on the right side, thus reversing the ‘law’. Although it is convenient in discussing the Christian tradition, as in discussing the stock market, to personify it and attribute to it a regular form of behavior which can be characterized by laws, it must never be forgotten that this is only a convenience of speech, and that the ‘laws’ do not necessarily control the behavior of individuals. This consideration does not prevent us from identifying general tendencies of the transmitters of early Christian tradition, but it cautions us against too easily supposing that each individual transmitter conforms to the general pattern.3

Some tendencies which have been thought to have been generally operative among the transmitters of the early Chris-

1 See The New York Times, Sunday, 27 Feb. 1966, section 3, p. 1, col. 3: ‘The stock market, which has been trying to say something for more than a month, spit it out last week.’
2 It is perhaps worth noting that this law of the market, like the form-critical laws of the Christian tradition, is oversimplified and applied too inflexibly when used by those who are dependent on the experts. The statement of the odd lot law just presented is derived from newspaper accounts. A much more sophisticated, complex, and flexible version is presented by professional stock market technicians.
3 A similar problem is the application of ‘national characteristics’ to individual citizens of the nation. It may be more or less valid to characterize national groups in certain terms, but to suppose that any individual from that group must fit the stereotype is often misleading and unfair.

[274]tian tradition have been shown not to have been so common. Thus we have seen that the material did not necessarily grow in overall length1 and did not necessarily become less Semitic.2

Some tendencies, however, appear to have been fairly common. On the whole, there was a tendency to make the material more detailed3 and a considerable tendency to change indirect to direct discourse.4 Speeches, conversations, and scenes were frequently added to material which was being used, but abbreviation was common enough to make the use of these categories dubious.6 Unless there are offsetting considerations (for example, the redactional tendency of a certain editor), it may be held that material which is richer in detail and direct speech (and perhaps also in speeches, conversations, and scenes) is probably later than parallel material less rich in these items. Even here, however, certainty cannot be achieved. One may only say that the balance of probability is that material richer in detail and direct speech is later. Further, these criteria should be applied to an entire document, and not to any one pericope. The canons are not so certain that one may say that a detail in one of Matthew’s pericopes proves it to be later than the parallel in Luke. Yet if the pericope in Matthew has several different aspects which are characteristic of later tradition, it may be justifiable to argue that Matthew’s pericope is probably later than Luke’s.

Since it may appear that the principal force of this section of the study is negative, I should emphasize its positive aspects. In arguing that the criteria which have claimed our attention cannot be simply applied to any one passage to test its antiquity, I have attempted to counteract certain abuses of these criteria. They have often been used as if they were all of equal weight and all universally applicable, as if the tradition uniformly moved in one direction or other. It has become evident that some of the criteria which have been used ought not to be used at all. To this extent, the study is negative. But other criteria have been shown to be useful. Here I have tried to determine how strong each criterion is in order to establish relative degrees of confidence with which the criteria should be used. This is intended as a contribution on the positive side. As long as

1 See above, p. 68.
2 See above, p. 230.
3 See above, p. 146.
4 See above, p. 259.
5 See especially pp. 64-6 above.

[275] scholars had only a large number of possible criteria with no way of determining their relative reliability, and, indeed, with different scholars taking totally opposite positions on some of the criteria, these criteria were really useless, even though they were employed. Perhaps a step has been taken here toward improving this situation. In saying that certain criteria do not always hold true, but hold true more frequently than not, I have tried to show how they must be used and what degree of confidence should be attached to each of them. The degree of confidence which each criterion deserves cannot be stated statistically (e.g. this criterion holds true three times out of five), but rather in general terms of strength or weakness. Such assessments have been made throughout this study.

In some categories of the present study, we saw that the tradition followed no more or less regular tendency. No criteria can be derived from such categories. In other cases, however, a tendency to change in one way or other was more or less pronounced, and from these categories useful criteria may be derived. The strength of each criterion depends upon the degree of uniformity shown by the post-Synoptic tradition on each point. The relative strength of each of the useful criteria may now be indicated by way of summary. Numbers in parentheses refer to the chapters in which each item is discussed.

Not Very Strong: new speeches (II); new scenes (II); addition of adjectives (III); addition of nouns to proper names (III).

Fairly Strong: new dialogues (II); addition of subjects (III); genitive pronouns (III); addition of proper names to nouns (III); nouns substituted for pronouns (III); nouns added to pronouns (III); addition of circumstances (III).

Strong: addition of proper names (iii) ; substitution of proper names for nouns and pronouns (iii) ; addition of miscellaneous small details (iii) ; addition of genitive nouns (iii) .

Very Strong: direct discourse and first person (V).
Does it add to our understanding of which accounts might be prior to others?

Did Sanders make his case and establish criteria, or not?

:scratch:

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preac

Post by DCHindley » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:31 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:Hawkins inspired much of my work on the synoptic problem. I have my own slightly modified version of his synoptic vocabulary tables on my website: http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticvocabulary.html.
Was this based on the original edition, or the revised 2nd edition of 1909?

Hawkins also expanded on some of the points related to Luke in two chapters of W. Sanday's Studies in the Synoptic Problem (1911):
II. Three Limitations to St. Luke's Use of St. Mark's Gospel:
1. The Disuse of the Marcan Source in St. Luke ix. 51—xviii 14. 29
2. The Great Omission by St. Luke of the Matter contained in St. Mark vi. 45—viii 26. 61
3. St. Luke's Passion-Narrative considered with reference to the Synoptic Problem. 76

III. Probabilities as to the so-called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke . 95
:scratch:

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7559
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preac

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:13 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Hawkins inspired much of my work on the synoptic problem. I have my own slightly modified version of his synoptic vocabulary tables on my website: http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticvocabulary.html.
Was this based on the original edition, or the revised 2nd edition of 1909?
I honestly forget. I checked the book out via interlibrary loan and preserved the table for my own benefit long before placing it on my site.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7559
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preac

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:18 pm

DCHindley wrote:What do members think of E. P. Sanders' The tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969)?

My recollection is that there was about as much evidence of shortening of accounts as lengthening. Are we just looking at examples, regardless of whether we want them to be shortened or lengthened versions of some other account, that are all reversible?
Out of curiosity, whom do you have in mind as someone who uses pericope length or degree of detail to establish priority or posteriority?

For my money, Sanders effectively removed those two criteria from my list back when I first read that book.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preac

Post by DCHindley » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
DCHindley wrote:What do members think of E. P. Sanders' The tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969)?

My recollection is that there was about as much evidence of shortening of accounts as lengthening. Are we just looking at examples, regardless of whether we want them to be shortened or lengthened versions of some other account, that are all reversible?
Out of curiosity, whom do you have in mind as someone who uses pericope length or degree of detail to establish priority or posteriority?

For my money, Sanders effectively removed those two criteria from my list back when I first read that book.

Ben.
To be honest, I don't recall for sure. When I first joined Synoptic-L many years ago (mid 90s?) there were many who posted there who would make claims that sound like what Sanders complained about. IIRC, they would say that "x" criteria seals the argument, and anything otherwise is foolish. Very biased and inflammatory things were said, such as most scholars wear blinders or hinder postgrads who decide to tackle a subject that is not "assured" such as questioning the Q hypothesis. To them the minor agreements more than trumped the 50% of Mark being copied into Matt & Luke almost verbatim. The real issue, it seemed to my uneducated eyes, was that the Q hypothesis did not fit well with patristic tradition.

It was my intent then to read up as best I could, in English, the various books staking positions in the matter, but to date it has had to wait (job, family, etc). I still would like to do it, and maybe summarize the various arguments (well, at least the more important ones) of each of the many sides to the issue, if only for my own edification.

Someday, someday :whistling:

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Intercalations As Evidence Of Markan Priority

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:50 am

Gospel Style

JW:
I have faith that another major category of support for Markan priority is style. Once upon a time the Legendary Vorkosigan commented that Chiasms are evidence of Markan priority as they are often complete/near complete in GMark and somewhat less complete in GMatthew/GLuke:

Excursus: An Additional Argument for Markan Priority
The question is clear: did Matt write an almost-chiasm adjusted by the writer of Mark, or did Matt delete and interpolate a beautiful Markan chiasm?
Going beyond Vorkosigan we can ask the same question of Markan Intercalations:

Intercalations in the synoptic tradition.[Living Legend Ben Smith]
An intercalation is a literary device whereby two pericopes, or narrative units, are combined by splitting one apart and inserting the other between the parts. Quite a few intercalations may be found in our canonical gospels, especially in the synoptic three.

But pericope manipulation is only half the picture. There is nearly always a broader point at stake, something fundamental to the purposes for writing the gospel in the first place. Usually this point is fairly obvious, perhaps not on a first reading, but upon a second or a third. I have found that the main point of the intercalation generally revolves around an interplay of past and future; one kind of thing is ending while another is just beginning.

The external pericope of any intercalation (the pericope that has been split apart) I label A1 for part 1 and A2 for part 2. The internal pericope or pericopes (that or those held between the two parts of the other) I label B. This distinctive structure has led many critics to call the intercalation a sandwich.
Specifically:

The cursing of the fig tree and the temple incident.

- Matthew. Mark. Luke. Events.
A1. - 11.12-14. - Between Bethany and Jerusalem Jesus finds a fig tree with no figs and curses it.
B. 21.12-17. 11.15-18. 19.45-48. Jesus enters the temple in Jerusalem and wreaks havoc with the buyers and sellers.
A2. 21.18-22. 11.19-24. - Jesus and his disciples pass by the fig tree again and notice that it has withered up.

These pericopes combine powerfully to render the temple complex in Jerusalem obsolete. What we often call the cleansing of the temple is probably more of a symbolic destruction of the temple. Jesus is not purifying the temple of superfluous traders; he is temporarily halting basic temple procedures. Just as the fig tree is no longer useful, so too the temple has finally outlived its usefulness.

The past in this intercalation is the temple and associated rites and rituals. The future is the community of faith which with a word can cast a mountain (the temple mount?) into the sea.

This intercalation is present only in Mark, since Matthew combines A1 with A2 after B and Luke eliminates A altogether (though in 13.6-9 he has a parable about a fruitless fig tree that Matthew and Mark lack).
Nice. Of course the greater the amount of material in the Markan chiasm that can be found in GMatthew/GLuke somewhere else in those Gospels (as opposed to nowhere else) the better the argument for Markan priority.

We'll look at the details of the offending verses next.

Bonus material for Solo = You would agree that Jesus "hungering" in GMark is simply the ironic contrast reversal of the feeding stories. The Markan feeding stories refer to Jesus satisfying the hunger of the Masses with teachings, which can never run out. The reverse is Jesus hungering for good deeds from "The Jews" as a result of his teaching, which unfortunately, for "Mark's" (and more so for our Jews) Jews, leave Jesus starving. But regarding the part of the Markan chiasm apparently not used by editors M & L, where else in GMatthew/GLuke might we find a seemingly out of place but matching reference to producing fruit and stones, not directly found in GMark (and with apologies to Goodacre)?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Judas Priests

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:42 am

Judas Priests

JW:
Over at the Superior Bart Ehrman blog, Ehrman has been spending his time lately looking for historicity in the Judas Iscariot story when he should be looking for fiction. The Judas Iscariot story is a typical example for Markan Priority:

Subject of Comparison "Mark" "Matthew" "Luke" "John" Acts Commentary
Theme regarding Judas Judas preserves physical life at cost of forfeiting spiritual life. Judas repents and sacrifices his physical life. Appears to follow "Mark" Judas' betrayal is only a plot device No repentence, just dies a physical death 1. Per "Mark", because Judas preserved his physical life he forfeited his spiritual life ("better for him if he had not been born"). Thus "Mark" does not want to show Judas' death as related to the betrayal. "Mark" is completely consistent here because he wrote the original narrative. There was no editing.

2. "Matthew", the closest to the Jewish Bible of the others, shows the theme of justice. Judas convicts himself and kills himself. This undoes the Markan theme above. "Matthew" leaves in "better for that man had he not been born". Does "Matthew's" Judas' spirit have eternal punishment or did Judas' atone Jewish Bible style and "Matthew" neglected to remove this or didn't understand what it meant?

3. "Luke" agrees with "Mark" against "Matthew" regarding no Judas' death. Markan priority. "Luke" also exorcises "better for that man had he not been born" now leaving "Matthew" agreeing with "Mark" against "Luke". Markan priority. "Luke" only has "woe to that man" leaving the woe unclear (physical or spiritual or both). Reducing the Markan consistency.

4. "John" has trimmed the above so that Judas' betrayal is only a plot device. Judas' human motivation and any punishment is exorcised.

5. Acts, written as a sequel to "Luke", but written long after, has Judas die a physical death but there is no repentance or intent. This is consistent with the "woe" and the exorcism of not been born by "Luke".

6. In total we have a consistent and complete theme in "Mark", betraying/not following Jesus preserves your physical life but forfeits your spiritual one. All subsequent editors have undone this and all in different ways. Markan Priority.

Bonus material for Solo = Compare "Iscariot" with "Christos" by phonetic components.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

cora
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preaching

Post by cora » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:38 pm

Dear people, what exactly is the USE of discussing for a 100 years about which gospel was first? Was it Mark? Is he the most "historically reliable"? I have just spent 3,5 year trying to find the origins of christianity. I did this day and night: reading in the day, and thinking in the night. But I found it, so I share something.It is all a question of studying history, not of studying the bible. Studying the bible will bring you nowhere.
If you want to know what happened 800 BC, where will you look? In the old testament? That is fiction. So, if you want to know what happened in the year 30, where are you going to look? In the new testament? That is fiction too.
Maybe you all believe that the gospels were written in the 1st century, but there is no shred of evidence for that. It is only an assumption. Well, they were not. In 145 there still was nothing in the church, except the old testament. So, who were they?
The gospels all were written or heavily forged by 1 person. He was done in 185 and it came out. And there you have your "resurrection". In 185. It is all fiction. And Mark was third written. Please use your common sense. greetings from Cora.

Post Reply