neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:35 pmWhen we think of our author piecing together in various ways (inclusios, modified echoes, doublets) material that he is pondering before him, trying to see how to fit it together to make a new story out of the disparate bits and pieces -- how many authors, ancient or modern or anywhere in between, wrote/write like that? More like editors or pastiche artists?
I am not sure what you are imagining my vision of Mark's possible procedure to be, so let me just cut right into it: I am imagining that Mark may be
just like the other gospel authors (assuming Marcan priority), that maybe he was working with previous materials just like Matthew or Luke was. You ask how many authors wrote "like that" — and I am going to take "like that" to mean no more and no less than what I am proposing — so my answer is: pretty much all of the authors most important for comparison with Mark: to wit, the evangelists (the writers of gospels). I doubt you would characterize Matthew and Luke, for example, as mere pastiche artists, but I also doubt you would stand against the idea that they manipulated sources, and
that is all I am claiming Mark may have done in the case, for instance, of the feedings, which is the example at hand.
My question was why you default to the position that Mark created the pair on his own rather than inheriting them from two different sources. So, basically, I am asking you why Mark may not be just like Matthew or Luke (again, assuming Marcan priority),
who did that very kind of thing at various points, inheriting two similar passages from two other texts and including both, creating a doublet.
For example, assume (as most do) that Luke postdates both Mark and Matthew. Here is a Lucan doublet:
Luke 9.26-27: 26 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."
Luke 12.8-9: 8 "And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God."
If Mark and/or Matthew were lost to history, and if we were to press your assumptions about authorship, we would have to conclude that Luke was "playing with a theme" (to borrow your phrase for it), would we not?
neilgodfrey wrote:Would not Occam be on the side of suggesting that the similarities and differences in the two stories are more simply explained by an author playing with a theme than suggesting that other authors or tradents produced texts that our Marcan author has struggled to incorporate?
But in this case, no, it does appear that Luke got his doublet from two different sources:
1. Luke 9.26-27: 26 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."
Matthew 16.27-28: 27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Mark 8.38-9.1: 8.38 "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." 9.1 And He was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
2. Luke 12.8-9: 8 "And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God."
Matthew 10.32-33: 32 "Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 "But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven."
The first saying (in Luke 9.26-27) has wording in common with Mark against Matthew, and the second saying (in Luke 12.8-9) parallels Matthew alone to the exclusion of Mark. So the two sayings came from two different sources (no matter how you cut them, even including Q and such in the mix).
Here is another example which assumes Lucan posteriority:
Luke 9.23: 23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Luke 14.25-27: 25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."
Is this just a matter of Luke playing with a theme? Or did he have two different sources for the two different yet very similar sayings?
1. Luke 9.23: 23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Matthew 16.24: 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."
Mark 8.34: 34 And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."
2. Luke 14.25-27: 25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."
Matthew 10.37-38: 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."
Thomas also bears this doublet (Thomas 55 and 101).
We find something somewhat similar in Luke 9.1-6, which parallels both Matthew 10.5-16 and Mark 6.7-13, and Luke 10.1-12, which parallels Matthew 9.37-38 and 10.5-16 alone (except for only two words in common with Mark).
And what if we assume that Matthew postdates both Mark and Luke? Well, we find this doublet, for example:
1. Matthew 12.38-42: 38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here."
Luke 11.29-32: 29 And as the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah. 30 "For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."
2. Matthew 16.1-4: 1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 But He answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' 3 And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them, and went away.
Mark 8.11-12: 11 And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 And sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
Matthew 16.1-4 and Mark 8.11-12 are parallel in sequence (both occurring after the feeding of the 4000 and before the bit about the leaven of the
Pharisees), while Matthew 12.38-42 and Luke 11.29-32 are too similar in wording not to be connected somehow. On Matthean posteriority, Matthew appears to have two different sayings about Jesus' opponents seeking a sign from him, not (merely) because he is playing with a theme, but (also) because he has two different sources to draw from.
And there are the sayings on divorce in Matthew 5.31-32 and 19.3-12. Was he just riffing on a theme? Or did he get the former from Luke 16.18 and the latter from Mark 10.2-12?
There is even an example which would work with Matthean
or with Lucan posteriority (Matthew 10.39; 16.25-26 = Mark 8.35-37 = Luke 9.24-25; 17.33). Either Luke has drawn similar sayings from both Matthew and Mark or Matthew has drawn similar sayings from both Luke and Mark.
Back to the feedings. Why is it more likely that Mark was "playing with a theme" all on his own than that he drew the feedings from two different sources, thus creating a doublet? My argument here is
not that all doublets prove double sourcing (I personally doubt that the triple passion predictions do, for example), but rather that they
can result from double sourcing, and they can do so in precisely the kind of literature that most begs for comparison: other gospels.
Another way of asking the same question: what makes Mark so different from the other evangelists that in his case alone is it safe to assume that he is not manipulating previous gospel sources?