It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:02 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
neilgodfrey wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:15 pm
Are you able to use the same methods by which you detected the various sources in that Mark pericope discussed earlier in detecting Luke's sources in 3:1-18? Or do we need to have Mark, Matthew and Isaiah all with us to identify them?
In the case of Luke 3.1-18? No.
So my point is valid? (even if you don't agree with it?)

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
But in other cases, yes. I gave an example of this earlier: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3616&p=77915#p77890 (Luke 5.12-16), and there are quite a few more. We can in no way expect seams like that to happen every time; that would be crazy. We are basically waiting patiently for the author to slip up, and s/he is not necessarily going to slip up every single time s/he writes a new pericope.

So, in Luke 3.1-18, if we did not have Mark and Matthew to hand, I would almost certainly not know (with the tools at my disposal so far) that Luke sourced most of that passage from other texts. It has been my intent for a while now, however, to find instances (like Luke 5.12-16) of certain kinds of seams which we can tell have resulted from source manipulation, and then see if we can find the same kinds of seams in Mark. I think we can, and I have made those arguments, moving from the known (seams in Luke or Matthew based on following Mark) to the unknown (seams in Mark based possibly on following somebody else). I do not expect you to agree with them, but that has been an interest of mine for some time.
That's fine. I have no problem with your interest. I'm also interested in it.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
I ask that question because I think "Luke" is writing like a real author, creatively adapting his sources (Mark and Matthew in particular) to produce a new story. .... It is difficult to imagine "Luke" studying the various sources before him and marking different passages in each of them to see how he can combine them, or studying two similar narratives and working out how he has to somehow use them both. Luke has worked with his sources to create something new and it would be difficult to describe his narrative as an artless "patchwork".
Honestly, I fail to see how the Arabic Diatessaron fails to qualify as your patchwork text, then. It adds very little to the four gospel texts, takes very little away, and is woven together phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence, and block by block; also, it is very easy to imagine the harmonist studying the various sources before him and marking different passages in each of them to see how he can combine them; I am not even sure how else s/he could have done it. If neither the Arabic Diatessaron nor Luke 3.1-18 qualify as what you are talking about, please give an example (even hypothetical, if necessary) to let me know.
I am interested in literary criticism which looks at the whole. We can break anything down to say blocks of 10 or so verses and draw a conclusion from a handful of those blocks, . . . . but that's not the literary whole, is it?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
I don't think Luke demonstrates the same awkward or less awkward tell-tale signs of piecing together different sources as source critics sometimes (often) argue is the way Mark wrote. That sort of analysis suggests a process of writing that I don't think anyone practised.
Have you read Goodacre's argument to the contrary ("Fatigue in the Synoptics")? He documents several examples of telltale awkwardness in Luke's editing of Mark and Matthew/Q.
Yes of course (as you know) I have read Goodacre's "Fatigue". But (also as you know) that is not the same thing you were using as clues to identify sources in Mark's early synagogue pericope.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
As a reminder of something I have said several times before, if you ever think you hear me arguing that Mark did something to hypothetical sources other than what Matthew and Luke did to Mark and either each other or Q, then you have probably misheard me. My whole method is to look at how Luke and Matthew treated Mark (or at how other ancient authors treated their sources), seeking telltale signs of editing, and upon finding them applying that knowledge to Mark to see whether he shows any of the same signs.
It is your assumption that the way Luke/Matthew used Mark that I am questioning. So I come back to asking what it is that you think I am arguing.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
[Luke] has various sources in front of him, has assimilated them well in his creative brain, and proceeds to make a new cake from all the ingredients. That's not uncommon for authors, not even for ancient ones.
Really? I would love some examples.
The one you provided. Luke 3:1-18/
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
Ken Olson, for instance, has made the following claim (in his Master's thesis):
From this brief survey, it appears that classical writers did indeed combine or “conflate” different written sources. Such conflation, however, was achieved by the interweaving of different episodes, what we may call “block-by-block” or “macro” conflation, rather than close conflation of different accounts of the same episode, which we may call “close” or “word-by-word” or “micro” conflation. The usual procedure of a classical author with more than one source was to choose one source as the basis for his account for any single episode.
And I have been saying (trying to, at least), exactly that.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
And I have found quite a few claims by other scholars confirming this same claim, including several claiming that Plutarch followed only one source at a time for each episode or topic. And I have found this to be the case for Josephus, as well, in his use of Chronicles and King(dom)s, at least so far. I have been largely unable to find ancient texts besides the gospels and the Diatessaron which seem to bounce back and forth between different sources in the same pericope/episode (as we find in Luke 3.1-18 and rather many other passages in the synoptics). So please let me know if you have viable examples from other ancient texts; I have been on the lookout for them.
No, I really do confess to some impatience here. You tell me what it is that you think I am arguing.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
(If you did not mean that you knew of examples of texts which used sources line by line like we find in Luke 3.1-18, then please just ignore this part.)
You are really pushing it now, Ben. Please tell me what it is that you think is my argument. I want to know what it is that you are boxing (or shadow-boxing) against.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5431
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:02 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
I don't think Luke demonstrates the same awkward or less awkward tell-tale signs of piecing together different sources as source critics sometimes (often) argue is the way Mark wrote. That sort of analysis suggests a process of writing that I don't think anyone practised.
Have you read Goodacre's argument to the contrary ("Fatigue in the Synoptics")? He documents several examples of telltale awkwardness in Luke's editing of Mark and Matthew/Q.
Yes of course (as you know) I have read Goodacre's "Fatigue". But (also as you know) that is not the same thing you were using as clues to identify sources in Mark's early synagogue pericope.
No, I did not know you had read it (if you and I have discussed it before, I apologize for forgetting), which is why I asked. Since you have read it, and are still committed to there not being awkward signs of using sources in Luke, then I have to suppose that you are arguing, not against those awkward signs in general, but rather against the ones that I am talking about specifically. That is probably what you meant all along, in retrospect, but it was not clear to me. And yes, of course I know that the ones I am talking about are not the same as Goodacre's fatigue; that is part of the point of this:
neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:02 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
But in other cases, yes. I gave an example of this earlier: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3616&p=77915#p77890 (Luke 5.12-16), and there are quite a few more. We can in no way expect seams like that to happen every time; that would be crazy. We are basically waiting patiently for the author to slip up, and s/he is not necessarily going to slip up every single time s/he writes a new pericope.

So, in Luke 3.1-18, if we did not have Mark and Matthew to hand, I would almost certainly not know (with the tools at my disposal so far) that Luke sourced most of that passage from other texts. It has been my intent for a while now, however, to find instances (like Luke 5.12-16) of certain kinds of seams which we can tell have resulted from source manipulation, and then see if we can find the same kinds of seams in Mark. I think we can, and I have made those arguments, moving from the known (seams in Luke or Matthew based on following Mark) to the unknown (seams in Mark based possibly on following somebody else). I do not expect you to agree with them, but that has been an interest of mine for some time.
That's fine. I have no problem with your interest. I'm also interested in it.
Just as Goodacre scanned the gospels for telltale signs of editorial fatigue, moving from "known" or at least "agreed upon" (Matthew and Luke used Mark) to "unknown" or "not necessarily agreed upon" (Luke used Matthew, not Q), so too I am scanning the gospels for other indications, including in this case weird syntax clues. I have outlined this procedure on this forum several times now, including at least twice for you personally. My point is that there are other kinds of awkwardness in the gospels which appear to derive from source manipulation, or at least may point in that direction.
neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:02 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
Ken Olson, for instance, has made the following claim (in his Master's thesis):
From this brief survey, it appears that classical writers did indeed combine or “conflate” different written sources. Such conflation, however, was achieved by the interweaving of different episodes, what we may call “block-by-block” or “macro” conflation, rather than close conflation of different accounts of the same episode, which we may call “close” or “word-by-word” or “micro” conflation. The usual procedure of a classical author with more than one source was to choose one source as the basis for his account for any single episode.
And I have been saying (trying to, at least), exactly that.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
And I have found quite a few claims by other scholars confirming this same claim, including several claiming that Plutarch followed only one source at a time for each episode or topic. And I have found this to be the case for Josephus, as well, in his use of Chronicles and King(dom)s, at least so far. I have been largely unable to find ancient texts besides the gospels and the Diatessaron which seem to bounce back and forth between different sources in the same pericope/episode (as we find in Luke 3.1-18 and rather many other passages in the synoptics). So please let me know if you have viable examples from other ancient texts; I have been on the lookout for them.
No, I really do confess to some impatience here. You tell me what it is that you think I am arguing.
I think you are arguing here that, because ancient authors in general followed only one source text at a time for individual episodes, therefore it is a priori likely that the evangelists did, too.

Ken Olson and I exchanged thoughts on this topic a while back, and he is very aware that there are parts of Luke which do not appear to be following only one source at a time. The goal is to figure out why the gospels (and the Diatessaron, for that matter) are different than ancient texts in this regard. The most recent thing I have heard from him on this point is that perhaps the evangelists followed one source at a time but brought in remembrances of other sources. I then asked him for examples of this phenomenon (bringing in remembrances) from other texts:
Ken Olson wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:05 pm
If I may be permitted a follow-up question, in your experience so far, have you found the other typical examples of "following one source at a time" (Josephus following Chronicles and Kings, for example) to show the same kind of influx of little details and remembrances from the "other" source (the one not currently being followed) like the ones I mentioned above?
Youch! Tough question. No, not that I recall. Pelling refers to this happening in "Plutarch's Method of Work" (p. 95), and so does Downing on Josephus, but they don't give examples. The closest thing IIRC is that Josephus once or twice has details brought in from a different location in the same work (Kings or Chronicles), but I don't recall specific cases of details brought in from the other work. Derrenbacker, like me, assumes this happens in the case of the synoptic gospels (239-25, 253), but I don't think he gave any examples of it in his more extensive review of ancient literature.
And that is where the matter stands for me. Examples are said to exist (if no misunderstanding is afoot) in Plutarch and in Josephus, but I do not know where. I have been looking in both. I even thought I found one in Josephus, but it is probably the result of Josephus having followed a manuscript of Chronicles which was closer to the Hebrew than to the LXX in one spot.

So, if you agree with the quotation I gave from Olson before (to the effect that authors in antiquity tend to follow one source at a time for each episode), then what do you make of the cold, hard fact that Luke (for example) seems to follow two or more sources at a time in some episodes? In Luke 3.1-9 alone, for instance, we have Luke-Matthew-Mark-Isaiah-Matthew. If that is just an illusion created by Luke following only one source (Matthew here?) but also bringing in remembered details from other sources (Mark and Isaiah), then do you have examples of that tendency in ancient texts? None of this is rhetorical. This is a genuine question. I am trying to figure out how the gospels created their texts, and so far there seem to be real differences between their procedure and the procedure we find in other ancient texts. Hence my search through other ancient texts to find analogies.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
(If you did not mean that you knew of examples of texts which used sources line by line like we find in Luke 3.1-18, then please just ignore this part.)
You are really pushing it now, Ben. Please tell me what it is that you think is my argument. I want to know what it is that you are boxing (or shadow-boxing) against.
The statement you are responding to was meant in the most congenial of ways. I am truly disappointed to find that you think I am "pushing it" by asking for concrete examples of a phenomenon that I have been seeking for a long time. I even allowed it to be possible I had misread your claim. I was responding to this:
neilgodfrey wrote:[Luke] has various sources in front of him, has assimilated them well in his creative brain, and proceeds to make a new cake from all the ingredients. That's not uncommon for authors, not even for ancient ones.
I read this as saying that what Luke did (in 3.1-18, for example) is not uncommon for ancient authors. Did I misread you there? So I thought you were saying that you knew of examples of ancient texts in which the author at least sometimes followed more than one source in a given episode, just as Luke does in the episode about John the baptist.

Honestly, Neil, this is getting exhausting. The sands keep shifting under my feet:
  1. I introduced Luke 3.1-18 as an example of an evangelist doing something that I do not think other ancient authors tend to do (id est, following more than one source in an episode), and you treated it like I am using that passage as an example of editorial fatigue or syntactic awkwardness. That was just a misunderstanding, to be sure, but the real issue was that, even after I tried to clear up the misunderstanding, you used Luke 3.1-18 as a "gotcha" ("so my point is valid?"). Yes, Neil, your point is valid that I can find no editorial seams in Luke 3.1-18 like I have found in other places. But what does that matter? That has nothing to do with why I introduced that passage in the first place.
  2. I asked why Luke 3.1-18 does not qualify as a patchwork text, and you gave me an exposition about the Lucan prologue. You apologized for this, so thank you.
  3. I asked whether you had read an article by Goodacre, and you responded as if I already knew you had before asking the question. Looking back over our post history, however, I do not find any instances of us ever having talked about that Goodacre article before. In that light, your response, "Yes of course (as you know)," sounds a bit... snarky or something, not to mention inaccurate, since I did not know.
  4. I expressed genuine interest, based (apparently) on a misunderstanding of your words, in ancient texts besides the gospels and the Diatessaron which might interweave more than one source into a single episode/pericope. I explicitly allowed that I might have misread you, asking you to please ignore the request if that was the case, and you got offended.
And these are just from the last handful of posts. I am not sure where to go from here without stepping in quicksand.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:48 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am
and are still committed to there not being awkward signs of using sources in Luke
I am not "still committed" to any such thing. I never was "committed" to any such thing. I think I am not arguing what you think I am arguing.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
My point is that there are other kinds of awkwardness in the gospels which appear to derive from source manipulation, or at least may point in that direction.
In our canonical versions of the gospels, yes. But please, please tell me what you believe it is I am arguing.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
I think you are arguing here that, because ancient authors in general followed only one source text at a time for individual episodes, therefore it is a priori likely that the evangelists did, too.
You are overlooking my point about authors assimilating a variety of sources. Please tell me what you believe to be the point of my argument.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
So, if you agree with the quotation I gave from Olson before (to the effect that authors in antiquity tend to follow one source at a time for each episode), then what do you make of the cold, hard fact that Luke (for example) seems to follow two or more sources at a time in some episodes? In Luke 3.1-9 alone, for instance, we have Luke-Matthew-Mark-Isaiah-Matthew. If that is just an illusion created by Luke following only one source (Matthew here?) but also bringing in remembered details from other sources (Mark and Isaiah), then do you have examples of that tendency in ancient texts? None of this is rhetorical. This is a genuine question. I am trying to figure out how the gospels created their texts, and so far there seem to be real differences between their procedure and the procedure we find in other ancient texts. Hence my search through other ancient texts to find analogies.
It seems you missed my earlier answer to that. It was the recent comment in which I offered you an apology.

When we are considering authorial processes of composition it is dangerous, as we are all aware, to rely upon our canonical versions. We know our canonical versions are not the same as the version that originally appeared after the first author quilled his final gar.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
neilgodfrey wrote:[Luke] has various sources in front of him, has assimilated them well in his creative brain, and proceeds to make a new cake from all the ingredients. That's not uncommon for authors, not even for ancient ones.
I read this as saying that what Luke did (in 3.1-18, for example) is not uncommon for ancient authors. Did I misread you there? So I thought you were saying that you knew of examples of ancient texts in which the author at least sometimes followed more than one source in a given episode, just as Luke does in the episode about John the baptist.
When you say Luke "followed" now one and then "followed" now another source, that to me implies a authorial process that I suspect is unnatural and unlikely. It seems to imply the author is working more like an editor or redactor rather than an author, laboriously selecting passages to cut and paste into a new work.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
Honestly, Neil, this is getting exhausting. The sands keep shifting under my feet:
I am very exhausted, too. Hence my earlier impatience. My point is that you seem to have avoided the central point of my argument. I think your interest is on something else that is incidental to my point, and I appreciate a forum like this because I have had the opportunity to see, through your questioning of that point, that I needed to tighten up my words that had initially indeed been wrong in their generalization.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm
Yes, Neil, your point is valid that I can find no editorial seams in Luke 3.1-18 like I have found in other places. But what does that matter? That has nothing to do with why I introduced that passage in the first place.
Hence our mutual exhaustion. I think you are focussed on something other than my central argument. You point on Luke 3:1-18 led me to rethink more carefully what it is I am trying to say, and to then revise what I initially wrote, and I do thank you for that.

(You listed a number of points of some frustration -- I really don't like spending a lot of time here and am not interested in going back and pulling out and listing points that you have said that I have found, let's say, "difficult" to some extent.)

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5431
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:51 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:34 pm
But please, please tell me what you believe it is I am arguing.

....

You are overlooking my point about authors assimilating a variety of sources. Please tell me what you believe to be the point of my argument.
I think you are saying that Luke has assimilated various sources in his mind (since you stated that outright somewhere), is following one source at a time (since you agreed with my quotation of Olson), but is also importing details from his memory or mental assimilation of those other sources (the ones he is not following during the episode in question) into the episode he is currently composing.

I will get to the rest when we get this one thing right.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:01 pm

Or perhaps, Ben, it is not so much about our different points of interest, as in ongoing confusion over the images of authors that lie behind what we have each said.

I think we need to be careful about conclusions we draw about authorial processes from finding different source material in a work. I find it difficult to imagine any author not using sources, even unconsciously.

Some of the variables that present difficulties in drawing conclusions about source material in gospels and authorial processes:

-- The gospels in their present canonical form are not the gospels that were originally composed.
-- There is a difference between an editor and an author, a compiler or harmonizer and an author, a scribal gloss and a primary work, a re-writer or reviser of existing material and an author.

I think it is a very big thing to suggest that the authors of our gospels, especially the first gospel, did not write in a way comparable to other authors of the Greco-Roman world.

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:11 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:51 pm
neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:34 pm
But please, please tell me what you believe it is I am arguing.

....

You are overlooking my point about authors assimilating a variety of sources. Please tell me what you believe to be the point of my argument.
I think you are saying that Luke has assimilated various sources in his mind (since you stated that outright somewhere), is following one source at a time (since you agreed with my quotation of Olson), but is also importing details from his memory or mental assimilation of those other sources (the ones he is not following during the episode in question) into the episode he is currently composing.

I will get to the rest when we get this one thing right.
I am a fly-by-nighter on this forum, Ben. I look at the recent comments when I come in and rarely go back to earlier comments. And writing in more than one thread may mean I have confused what I have originally said here. But I did not think what you said above was the point of my argument. I am not really interested in discussing whether or not any author used sources (of course they did) or in whether they followed one main one primarily, etc.

You will have to remind me why these questions are of particular importance or interest to you. What is their significance with respect to my argument?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5392
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:14 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am
I am trying to figure out how the gospels created their texts, and so far there seem to be real differences between their procedure and the procedure we find in other ancient texts.
and previously [in the same post] --
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am
... The goal is to figure out why the gospels (and the Diatessaron, for that matter) are different than ancient texts in this regard ... perhaps the evangelists followed one source at a time but brought in remembrances of other sources ...
So it seems the gospel writer used an ad hoc approach? Could that indicate a hurried approach? or discombobulation? or both? or similar?

Could they have used traditions whose texts no longer exist? (I have intended to go through the Corpus Hermeticum to see if there are any parallels there, but I haven't yet)

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5431
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:05 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:11 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:51 pm
neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:34 pm
But please, please tell me what you believe it is I am arguing.

....

You are overlooking my point about authors assimilating a variety of sources. Please tell me what you believe to be the point of my argument.
I think you are saying that Luke has assimilated various sources in his mind (since you stated that outright somewhere), is following one source at a time (since you agreed with my quotation of Olson), but is also importing details from his memory or mental assimilation of those other sources (the ones he is not following during the episode in question) into the episode he is currently composing.
I am a fly-by-nighter on this forum, Ben. I look at the recent comments when I come in and rarely go back to earlier comments. And writing in more than one thread may mean I have confused what I have originally said here.
Well, that would certainly explain why it felt to me like at least one of us was having his memory erased between each pair of posts.
But I did not think what you said above was the point of my argument.
I cannot read your mind. I have only your words on my screen.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5431
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:08 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:14 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am
I am trying to figure out how the gospels created their texts, and so far there seem to be real differences between their procedure and the procedure we find in other ancient texts.
and previously [in the same post] --
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am
... The goal is to figure out why the gospels (and the Diatessaron, for that matter) are different than ancient texts in this regard ... perhaps the evangelists followed one source at a time but brought in remembrances of other sources ...
So it seems the gospel writer used an ad hoc approach? Could that indicate a hurried approach? or discombobulation? or both? or similar?
I am not sure. Hence my hunt for parallels. One option I have mentioned before is that scribal harmonization may have been in full effect very early on, with many of those "remembered details from the other souce(s)" actually owing their existence to scribes conforming Mark to Matthew (which was extremely common) or to Luke (which was less common but did still happen).
Could they have used traditions whose texts no longer exist? (I have intended to go through the Corpus Hermeticum to see if there are any parallels there, but I haven't yet)
That would be great, actually.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5431
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:58 pm

spin wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:02 pm
Sorry, Steven, the Greek idiom εν οικω is quite clear, = "at home", note no "his" (see 1 Cor 11:34). (When you comment on this sort of issue, you must look at the Greek.)
To illustrate what spin is talking about here....

Many if not most times the word οἶκος ("house") is used, the noun is modified in some way, letting us know whose house it is. For example:

Mark 8.3: 3 "...and if I send them away hungry to their home [εἰς οἶκον αὐτῶν], they will faint on the way; and some of them have come from a distance."

In such cases there is no ambiguity. The phrase "the house of the Lord" is used constantly in the historical books of the LXX, referring to the temple. But what happens if there is no modifier?

Mark 2.1: 1 And when He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home [ἐν οἴκῳ].

Mark 3.20: 20 And He comes home [ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον], and the multitude gathers again, to such an extent that they cannot even eat a meal.

Mark 7.17: 17 And when leaving the multitude He had come into the house [εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον], His disciples questioned Him about the parable.

Mark 9.28: 28 And when He had come into the house [εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον], His disciples began questioning Him privately, "Why could we not cast it out?"

Well, usually such a phrase is referring to the home of whoever is in focus at the time. Two of the translations above use "at home" to gloss the Greek phrase, while the two that do not use that translation probably refrain from doing so in order to capture the force of the prefixed εἰσ- before the participle in addition to the participle εἰς itself, and "into home" does not work in English.

Mark 2.1 uses the Greek phrase ἐν οἴκῳ. This is how that phrase fares in translations of other literature:

Deuteronomy 6.7: 7 "And you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house [בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ, "in your house," with the masculine second-person singular suffix; LXX ἐν οἴκῳ, "at home"] and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up."

Deuteronomy 11.19: 19 "And you shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house [בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ, "in your house," with the masculine second-person singular suffix; LXX ἐν οἴκῳ, "at home"] and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up."

1 Samuel 19.9: 9 Now there was an evil spirit from Yahweh on Saul as he was sitting in his house [בְּבֵית֣וֹ, "in his house," with the masculine third-person singular suffix; LXX ἐν οἴκῳ, "at home"] with his spear in his hand, and David was playing the harp with his hand.

Psalm 68.6 (67.7 LXX): 6 God makes a home for the lonely [ὁ θεὸς κατοικίζει μονοτρόπους ἐν οἴκῳ]; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity; only the rebellious dwell in a parched land (NASB). / God gives the desolate a home to dwell in [ὁ θεὸς κατοικίζει μονοτρόπους ἐν οἴκῳ]; he leads out the prisoners to prosperity; but the rebellious dwell in a parched land (RSV).

Psalms of Solomon 12.5 (translation by R. H. Charles): 5 May the Lord preserve the quiet soul that hateth the unrighteous; and may the Lord establish the man that followeth peace at home [ἐν οἴκῳ].

1 Corinthians 11.34: 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home [ἐν οἴκῳ], so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.

1 Corinthians 14.35: 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home [ἐν οἴκῳ]; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Strabo, Geography 13.1.38 (translation by H. C. Hamilton): 38 .... (It was at this time that the poet Alcaeus, as he himself says, when in danger in some battle, threw away his arms and fled. He charged a messenger with injunctions to inform those at home [τοῖς ἐν οἴκῳ] that Alcaeus was safe, but that he did not bring away his arms. These were dedicated by the Athenians as an offering in the temple of Minerva Glaucopis.)

Especially instructive are those examples in which the Hebrew expressly uses a pronominal suffix ("your" or "his") but the Old Greek translates using the simple, unmodified phrase ἐν οἴκῳ, assuming that the noun would be understood as the person's home.

Mark 3.20 uses the Greek phrase εἰς οἶκον. This is how that phrase fares in translations of other literature (I have included one instance of the similar ἐπ᾽ οἴκου, as well):

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4.2.1 (translation by Charles Henry Oldfather): 1 The Greek account of Dionysus runs like this: Cadmus, the son of Agenor, was sent forth from Phoenicia by the king to seek out Europê, under orders either to bring him the maiden or never to come back to Phoenicia. After Cadmus had traversed a wide territory without being able to find her, he despaired of ever returning to his home [εἰς οἶκον]; and when he had arrived in Boeotia, in obedience to the oracle which he had received he founded the city of Thebes. Here he made his home and marrying Harmonia, the daughter of Aphroditê, he begat by her Semelê, Ino, Autonoê, Agavê, and Polydorus.

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War 1.87.5 (translation by Thomas Hobbes): This done, their confederates went home [ἀπεχώρησαν ἐπ᾽ οἴκου]; and so did also afterwards the Athenians when they had dispatched the business they came about. [Benjamin Jowett has it that "the allies returned home." Richard Crawley has it that "the delegates returned home."]

Sophocles, Philoctetes, lines 239-240a (Neoptolemus speaking, translation by Sir Richard Jebb): 239 My birthplace is the island 240a Scyros, and I am sailing homeward [ἐς οἶκον].

Aeschylus, Eumenides, lines 454-461 (Orestes speaking, translation by Herbert Weir Smyth): 454 As to my family, you will soon learn. 455 I am an Argive; my father — you rightly inquire about him — 456 was Agamemnon, the commander of the naval forces; 457 along with him, you made Troy, the city of Ilion, 458 to be no city. He did not die nobly, 459 after he came home [μολὼν εἰς οἶκον]; but my black-hearted 460 mother killed him after she covered him in 461 a crafty snare that still remains to witness his murder in the bath.

1 Samuel 6.7: 7 "Now therefore take and prepare a new cart and two milch cows on which there has never been a yoke; and hitch the cows to the cart and take their calves home [εἰς οἶκον], away from them."

1 Samuel 6.10: 10 Then the men did so, and took two milch cows and hitched them to the cart, and shut up their calves at home [εἰς οἶκον].

1 Kings 13.7: 7 Then the king said to the man of God, "Come home [εἰς οἶκον] with me and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward."

Susanna 1.13: 13 They said to each other, "Let us go home [εἰς οἶκον], for it is mealtime (RSV)."

Once again, the assumption is in play that, if the expression is not modified, the house is actually the home for whoever is in focus.

When the noun for "house" is modified by so much as a direct article, this idiom may no longer apply. The article may be there to refer the reader back to a domicile previously mentioned or assumed.

The sibling noun οἰκία does not always seem to have the same homey "feel" to it:

Mark 6.10: 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house [εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν], stay there until you leave town."

Mark 7.24: 24 And from there He arose and went away to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house [εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν], He wanted no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice.

Neither the hypothetical house in 6.10 nor the actual house in 7.24 can be Jesus' home in Capernaum.

But phrases with an unmodified οἶκος are pretty clear, I think. There may be exceptions, but the usual meaning is that the noun refers to the home of the character in focus.

ETA: Just for reference, here is every instance of οἶκος and of οἰκία in the standard critical text of the gospel of Mark:

οἶκος

Mark 2.1: 1 Καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ δι᾽ ἡμερῶν ἠκούσθη ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν.

Mark 2.11: 11 σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.

Mark 2.26: 26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;

Mark 3.20: 20 Καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον· καὶ συνέρχεται πάλιν [ὁ] ὄχλος, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς μηδὲ ἄρτον φαγεῖν.

Mark 5.19: 19 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς σοὺς καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε.

Mark 5.38: 38 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, καὶ θεωρεῖ θόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας πολλά....

Mark 7.17: 17 Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν.

Mark 7.30: 30 καὶ ἀπελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς εὗρεν τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐξεληλυθός.

Mark 8.3: 3 καὶ ἐὰν ἀπολύσω αὐτοὺς νήστεις εἰς οἶκον αὐτῶν, ἐκλυθήσονται ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ· καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν.

Mark 8.26: 26 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ λέγων· μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς.

Mark 9.28: 28 Καὶ εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν· ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό;

Mark 11.17: 17 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.

οἰκία

Mark 1.29: 29 Καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος καὶ Ἀνδρέου μετὰ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωάννου.

Mark 2.15: 15 Καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ.

Mark 3.25: 25 καὶ ἐὰν οἰκία ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δυνήσεται ἡ οἰκία ἐκείνη σταθῆναι.

Mark 3.27: 27 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δύναται οὐδεὶς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ εἰσελθὼν τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ διαρπάσαι, ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον τὸν ἰσχυρὸν δήσῃ, καὶ τότε τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διαρπάσει.

Mark 6.4: 4 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

Mark 6.10: 10 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖ μένετε ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε ἐκεῖθεν.

Mark 7.24: 24 Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν·

Mark 9.33: 33 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναούμ. Καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς· τί ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ διελογίζεσθε;

Mark 10.10: 10 Καὶ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν πάλιν οἱ μαθηταὶ περὶ τούτου ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν.

Mark 10.29-30: 29 ἔφη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδείς ἐστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν οἰκίαν ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ μητέρα ἢ πατέρα ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγροὺς ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 30 ἐὰν μὴ λάβῃ ἑκατονταπλασίονα νῦν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ οἰκίας καὶ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ μητέρας καὶ τέκνα καὶ ἀγροὺς μετὰ διωγμῶν, καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Mark 12.40: 40 οἱ κατεσθίοντες τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσευχόμενοι· οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρίμα.

Mark 13.15: 15 ὁ [δὲ] ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος μὴ καταβάτω μηδὲ εἰσελθάτω ἆραί τι ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ....

Mark 13.34-35: 34 Ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀπόδημος ἀφεὶς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ δοὺς τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἑκάστῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ θυρωρῷ ἐνετείλατο ἵνα γρηγορῇ. 35 γρηγορεῖτε οὖν· οὐκ οἴδατε γὰρ πότε ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας ἔρχεται, ἢ ὀψὲ ἢ μεσονύκτιον ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἢ πρωΐ....

Mark 14.3: 3 Καὶ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου αὐτοῦ ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς, συντρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβαστρον κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply