Question: Is Markan Priority wrong?FB wrote:But lets look at the kind of thinking that leads to Markan Priority to test just how firm it really is and give you an idea of the kind of thing I am on about. Here is an argument given in favour of Markan priority I plucked from wikiSeems logical and it supports the notion of the less elaborate Mark came first. OK as I write this I admit my ignorance and dont actually know how much of Mark is in Matt and how much is in Luke. But play along with me for a moment. What would be needed to make it plausible Mark was editing Matt and Luke? Lets assume the author of Mark has Luke and Matt in front of him. He samples some of each but not all. If Mark is using them as sources and they are largely his only source then it is guaranteed most of Mark will be found in Matt or Luke. We need no additional assumptions like Q and we get most of Mark in Matt and Luke without further effort. This scenario is logically simpler than a scenario that has to invent Q. Now go the next step. What if most of Mark is found in Matt and the most of Mark found in Luke. If that were true it would mean Mark was trying to form a synthesis of the two and note all the common elements. That is the only additional assumption you need. Moreover it has a compelling motivation. Mark was trying to find out what he could with confidence say was most likely true given his two sources. That is not much of an assumption.
- 1/ the shortness of Mark and way it omits content that is in Matt and Luke. So Matt and Luke include stuff Mark leaves out which some argue is unlikely.
2/ Most of Mark is found in Matthew or Luke. If mark was editing Matt and Luke he adds little.
3/ What little Mark adds seems strange and ripe for editing out if Matt and Luke were editing Mark.
Now go back to Markan priority. If Matt and Luke are editing Mark, to get most of Mark across both Matt and Luke they would have to have colluded to ensure the coverage or this is accidental, or far more likely one had access to the other. Say it is Luke that had had access to Matthew as you suggested earlier, then Luke edited Mark and Matthew, and Matthew edited Mark. If Q is on his desk as well that is another additional complication to the story. But it means for some reason Luke was less impressed with Matt or less willing to use Matt as a source as he was keen to use Mark. We have no clear motivation for this, and still the logically simplest solution is let Mark edit Matt and Luke
Is Markan Priority Wrong?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Is Markan Priority Wrong?
Post #1In forming a reply to ThatGirlAgain I took a look at Markan Priority and the accepted idea that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to Mark. I am beginning to convince myself it was the author of Mark that had access to Matthew and Luke. Here is one argument I gave ThattheGirl
-
james.hoggatt
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 3:26 pm
- Location: Milwaukee, WI
Post #81
An example of a casual contradiction:Furrowed Brow wrote:Yep makes sense. But if Matthew and Luke theological agree against Mark this does not- as I would read it - tell us who has priority. Republicans George H W Bush and George "Dubya" Bush may agree to disagree with the democratic politics of Bill Clinton but that does not mean Bill Clinton was President first. So I don't think we can retrieve priority by an analysis of agreement and disagrement of theology. I do think the minutia will end up being important.james.hoggatt wrote:The contradiction there is a casual contradiction and not a contradiction that effects the aspects of the story, divinity, nature, or sequence of events within the mythology. Calling a particular area a different name could have the same effect, as they have different educational backgrounds. Also, one may disagree on minor details, but on all major theological grounds they stand against Mark.Furrowed Brow wrote:Matthew (Matt) vs Levi (Mark & Luke) is a direct contradiction isn't it?James.hoggatt wrote:I'm speaking in terms of contradictions and not mere language differences
Make sense?
when Mark and Matthew share 94% material I don't think there can be a casual contradiction. Especially seeing how much of the section is actually duplicated between Matthew and Mark. Whoever contradicts who it is quite deliberate and not casually done. In terms of theology you are right nothing changes. But it still takes a deliberate action, and if this is theological not important why make the change? Unless someone thinks the other is getting the detail wrong I don't see how we can answer that unless we just put it down to a casual or arbitrary change. ButI don't think that scans.
Person 1: The sun set at 5:35 PM
Person 2: The sun set at 5:42 PM
An example of a non-casual contradiction:
Person 1: Jeremy murdered Kate.
Person 2: Jeremy married Kate.
The act does not have to be deliberate. Most likely Matt and Luke looked at Mark and made corrections on what they believe was true and what fit their audience.
I don't think you are arguing that Matt and Luke came first b/c there isn't a historical chance that actually occurred. The timelines are far too strained for that to reasonably be true. I assume you are holding the conventional Matt--Mark--Luke order. If that is the case, then we should see Luke having many of the qualities that Mark put in his works at odds with Matthew, however; we only see unity in what Matt and Luke agree upon. To argue that order, means that you are saying the Luke never saw any of Mark yet has a lot of Mark only information. It makes much more sense if Mark was first, Matthew edited it and Luke used both Matt and Mark, with Matthew's edits being used as their writing style and relationship was similar. Luke as the 3rd in the order, would use whichever was the most correct interpretation, which means if Mark made edits, why did Luke ignore the edits for corrections. However, if Matthew made the edits then there is consistency.
Make sense?
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #82
james.joggatt wrote:]An example of a casual contradiction:
Person 1: The sun set at 5:35 PM
Person 2: The sun set at 5:42 PM
An example of a non-casual contradiction:
Person 1: Jeremy murdered Kate.
Person 2: Jeremy married Kate.
Ok. And on that spectrum between casual and non-casual does this next example lie?
- Person 1: Jeremy married Jane.
Person 2: Jeremy married Kate
Sure, it does not have to be deliberate but clearly there is strong interdependence. Look again at the red text. It kind of looks like either Matthew or Mark has stripped out the others claim and inserted their own.The act does not have to be deliberate.
[center]
True, but it is hard to see why the name Matthew fits Matthew's audience better than Levi.Most likely Matt and Luke looked at Mark and made corrections on what they believe was true and what fit their audience.
In this thread I started with Mark writing last but moved on to work on the idea that of Matthew then Mark and Luke accessing both.I don't think you are arguing that Matt and Luke came first b/c there isn't a historical chance that actually occurred. ]The timelines are far too strained for that to reasonably be true. I assume you are holding the conventional Matt--Mark--Luke order.
I dont think we need to expect complete unity. And if we expect Luke to follow Matthew more closely and also think Mark wrote first, then surely that same logic applies to Matthew and Mark with Matthew following Mark more closely. I think we just have to look at each example in a bit more detail to get a sense of what is going on. Clearly on the table above Luke sides with Mark, and besides from clear signs of interdependence the simplest answer is that Mark corrects Matthew, rather than giving Matthew some extra motivation for making the change. You may be right and Markan Priority is the best answer overall as evidence mounts up but in this example I just don't think we can say that.If that is the case, then we should see Luke having many of the qualities that Mark put in his works at odds with Matthew, however; we only see unity in what Matt and Luke agree upon. To argue that order, means that you are saying the Luke never saw any of Mark yet has a lot of Mark only information.
Well yes that would be Markan Priority which Ive been looking at now in some detail for several weeks and what I am finding is things are far less assured and far more opinion based and more strained than many commentators seems to be letting on.It makes much more sense if Mark was first, Matthew edited it and Luke used both Matt and Mark with Matthew's edits being used as their writing style and relationship was similar. Luke as the 3rd in the order, would use whichever was the most correct interpretation, which means if Mark made edits, why did Luke ignore the edits for corrections. However, if Matthew made the edits then there is consistency.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #83
I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise taken a closer look at this.Studentpost33 wrote:For example, at Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed [-] from my youth.
Mark uses the wrong form of the verb, the aorist middle. Both Matthew and Luke recognise the error and use the correct form, the aorist active []. This isnt a matter of style, interpretation or individual choice but simply the correct application of grammar.
[center]
I am just not equipped to make any informed comment on correct or incorrect Greek grammar so Ill take it as read that Marks grammar is incorrect. However I do wonder why Mark thought it necessary to add -- to the end of . I wonder whther -- is maybe an attempt at first person singular and follows from the way Mark has the rich man addressing Jesus as (teacher/master) on row 3, and maybe more so his use of (of me) on row 6. Ok Ill stop trying to comment on stuff of which I have zero expertise and please if there is anyone here with a meaningful level of Greek please trample over this notion.
The Red text in Mark and Luke shows they are closer to each other than Matthew. Luke is using the same template as Mark and it looks like he has just simply abridged Mark and chosen the correct grammar at row 5. Id like to underline the point that if Luke writes last his version is the most clipped.
It is worth noting Matthew has the rich man as (a young man) and he makes a changes at row 6. He as the rich man asking the question what does he lack? If Mark writes first we then have Luke making a simple reduction but Matthew is rewriting the verse. Matthew and Luke are clearly not doing the same thing. Though it does make sense that they would both correct Marks poor grammar and Markan Priority will suggest it makes less sense for Mark to add a grammatically incorrect ending to a verb if his copying or following Matthew. But I think my initial answer still stands. We know Mark is prone to error and vulgar grammar. We lack a base line i.e. some document written by Mark (one which he is not copying someone else) in order to measure his usual error rate. Now Ive looked at this more closely Id also say that Matthew and Mark have a different grammatical structure. At row 3 describes the rich man whilst Marks use of at row 3 is how the rich man addresses Jesus. Each has constructed a verse with different grammatical structure. The Markan argument goes " if Mark was following Matthew he would follow the Matthews better grammar. But Matthew and Mark are writing two distinct verses with distinct grammars and if Mark follows Matthew his mistake is to think the structure of the verse he is writing requires a different verb ending. Given he is writing a verse with a different structure I dont think the Markan complaint holds much weight if Mark is only following Matthew. On this view Mark rewrites Matthew and he makes a grammatical error in line with his competency at Greek which informs what verb ending he would use given the sentence structure he has formed.
-
james.hoggatt
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 3:26 pm
- Location: Milwaukee, WI
Post #84
Your example can be either, if the intended message was merely to affirm Jeremy married someone, then the name of the woman is a casual contradiction. If it is important that Jeremy married a specific person, then it is non-casual. So to answer: It depends on the context. If the nature of the story changes with the name, then it is non-casual. I don't see how that is true in the example of Matt to Levi.Furrowed Brow wrote:james.joggatt wrote:]An example of a casual contradiction:
Person 1: The sun set at 5:35 PM
Person 2: The sun set at 5:42 PM
An example of a non-casual contradiction:
Person 1: Jeremy murdered Kate.
Person 2: Jeremy married Kate.
Ok. And on that spectrum between casual and non-casual does this next example lie?And where does it lie if Person 1 speaks first and Person 2 knows what they have said but insists Jeremy married Kate.
- Person 1: Jeremy married Jane.
Person 2: Jeremy married Kate
Sure, it does not have to be deliberate but clearly there is strong interdependence. Look again at the red text. It kind of looks like either Matthew or Mark has stripped out the others claim and inserted their own.The act does not have to be deliberate.
[center][/center][mrow][mcol]Matthew 9:9[mcol]Mark 2:14[mcol]Luke 5:27[row]1[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col] - [row]2[col] - [col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col] - [row]3[col][color=darkred][/color][col][color=darkred][/color] [color=blue][/color] [col] [color=blue][/color] [row]4[col][col] [color=red][/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color] [row]5[col][color=red]-[/color][col][color=red]-[/color][col] [color=red]-[/color] [row]6[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color] [row]7[col][color=green][/color] [col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color] [row]8[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color] [row]9[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][row]9[col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color][row]10[col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col] [row]10[col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color] [col][color=red][/color] [row]11[col][color=red]-- [/color][col][color=red]-- [/color][col][color=red]- [/color]
True, but it is hard to see why the name Matthew fits Matthew's audience better than Levi.Most likely Matt and Luke looked at Mark and made corrections on what they believe was true and what fit their audience.
In this thread I started with Mark writing last but moved on to work on the idea that of Matthew then Mark and Luke accessing both.I don't think you are arguing that Matt and Luke came first b/c there isn't a historical chance that actually occurred. ]The timelines are far too strained for that to reasonably be true. I assume you are holding the conventional Matt--Mark--Luke order.
I dont think we need to expect complete unity. And if we expect Luke to follow Matthew more closely and also think Mark wrote first, then surely that same logic applies to Matthew and Mark with Matthew following Mark more closely. I think we just have to look at each example in a bit more detail to get a sense of what is going on. Clearly on the table above Luke sides with Mark, and besides from clear signs of interdependence the simplest answer is that Mark corrects Matthew, rather than giving Matthew some extra motivation for making the change. You may be right and Markan Priority is the best answer overall as evidence mounts up but in this example I just don't think we can say that.If that is the case, then we should see Luke having many of the qualities that Mark put in his works at odds with Matthew, however; we only see unity in what Matt and Luke agree upon. To argue that order, means that you are saying the Luke never saw any of Mark yet has a lot of Mark only information.
Well yes that would be Markan Priority which Ive been looking at now in some detail for several weeks and what I am finding is things are far less assured and far more opinion based and more strained than many commentators seems to be letting on.It makes much more sense if Mark was first, Matthew edited it and Luke used both Matt and Mark with Matthew's edits being used as their writing style and relationship was similar. Luke as the 3rd in the order, would use whichever was the most correct interpretation, which means if Mark made edits, why did Luke ignore the edits for corrections. However, if Matthew made the edits then there is consistency.
I think you are going about this in the wrong way. In linguistics, we put things in tiers. The first tier in determining origination and collaboration includes things like, content, context, social references, cultural modifiers, and titles. The next tier down includes things like grammatical similarity and style. The first tier holds more weight than the lower tiers.
-
Student
- Sage
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:10 pm
- Location: UK - currently dusting shelves 220 - 229, in the John Rylands Library
Post #85
As a general observation, the verse divisions found in the New Testament are entirely a 16th century innovation. They are an artificial construct never part of the original text. As such it is more appropriate to compare complete pericopes [stories] rather than one or two verses.Furrowed Brow wrote:This might seem odd as I am involved in another thread airing my doubts as to whether we can really trace back to the 1st century the use of language and grammar we see on the surviving 2nd and 3rd and even 4th century papyrus and codex. Anyhow Grammar Warning!!! " I know no Greek. So please bear this in mind.
Given the above warning I still wanted to compare Matthew, Mark and Luke. I may repeat this exercise and encourage others to introduce their own passage. Otherwise please jump in and rip this apart. For my first attempt I chose the passage where Jesus heals a sick man and tells him to take up his bed and go home. I have split the verse up as you will see on the table below. I have done this with no respect to Greek grammar or meaning. For the Greek text I am using Wescott/Hort which is available here
*[mrow][mcol]Matthew 9:6[mcol]Mark 2:10-11[mcol]Luke 5:24[row]1[col][color=red] - [/color][col][color=red] - [/color][col][color=red] - [/color][row]2[col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] [/color][col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] [/color][col][color=blue] [/color][color=darkred] [/color][row]3[col][color=blue] - - [/color][color=darkred] [/color][col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] - -[/color][col][color=blue] - - [/color][color=darkred] [/color][row]4[col] [color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=darkred] [/color][row]5[col][color=darkred] [/color] [col][color=blue] [/color] [color=darkred] [/color] [col][color=blue] [/color][color=darkred][/color] [row]6[col]- -[col] [col] [row]7[col][color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=blue][/color] [color=darkred] [/color][col][color=blue][/color] [row]8[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color]
On row 6 all three use a different word for bed.Lukes use of is unique to Luke and I think this is the one time he uses it, Matthews uses - (the healed man can carry this bed) just once and this is used by Mark in two other places Mark 4:21(things go under this bed) and Mark 7:2. The variant - is used by Matthew 9:2 (the bed is brought) and by Luke at 5:18 (the bed is brought) and 8:16 (you can put things under this bed) and Luke 17:34. Marks uses variants of at Mark 6:55 (), Mark 2:4, 2:9, 2:11, 2:12 (). Clearly Mark has a predisposition to using variants of though we can see him using -. The subject of beds seems to crop up a lot less in Matt and Luke.
- Matthew refers to a small bed - klin"n "
Luke refers to a couch " klinidion
Mark refers to a pallet or camp bed or mat krabatton
Luke seems to use - inconsistently if a bed is portable it is not the kind of bed raised off the floor, whilst Matthew uses two variants of a word with the same intent that the bed is portable. However every time Mark uses a variant of he intends the bed to be portable like a mat, and the two times he uses - the bed is clearly not a mat or there no need to think of the bed as a portable mat. We can detect Mark is self consistent in his use of and -. This is not true of Lukes use of - and it poses a question as to why he would prefer to use at Luke 5:24. This could refer to a sick chair or stretcher that can be carried with poles (litter). Maybe Luke means to impress by showing the healed man can lift something of weight by himself. That might fit Jesus commanding the healed man " so Lukes healing is more showy and Marks account feels more personal. There is a problem with Matthew if we allow Mark is using terminology consistently. Mark clearly thinks you can put things under a -. If Mark wrote first using the less equivocal leaving less room for misunderstanding then why is Matthew " the fellah with the more polished Greek " more equivocal? If Mark writes first then that does not fit with Matthew polishing or correcting Mark; he would be introducing a vagary. If Matthew writes first that fits Mark correcting the nuts and bolts of the story and keeping things in line with how the story was told to him.
Rows 1 and 8 are identical for all three gospels, and rows 2 and 3 are near identical except for a switch in word order. These rows clearly demonstrate interdependence. From rows 1,2,3,6 and 8 I dont think it is possible to form an opinion as to who has priority as the similarities and dissimilarities we see on these rows look about equal between across all three.
For rows 4, and 7 Matthew and Mark are more similar in respect to word choice. However Marks use of you which we see as on line 5 and on row 6 follows Luke. On row 4 Mark avoids Matthew's more verbose and less personal for at that time but prefers Jesus saying as opposed to Lukes more authoritative command . Yet both Mark and Lukes use of make the account more personal and live, and around row 5 they come closer together. Though Lukes use of make it seem more like Jesus is personally empowering the sick man to rise up. Throughout Matthews account is more distant. However if we were to use that observation as a measure of Matthew being written later then we would also have Matthew following Luke. More likely it is indicative of Matthews lack of proximity to an eyewitness. If Luke writes last it would mean whilst he is introducing a more empowered Jesus he his is still following Marks more personal grammatical structure. The only reason that Matthew did not do the same is that he wrote first, that or he was less comfortable with placing his text closer to a witness than Mark. On this evidence more likely he wrote first.
*Table pagination and colour improved by McCulloch.
More specifically, there are a number of errors in Furrowed Brow's post e.g.:
-- means bed or couch.[A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; Third Edition; BDAG]
- is the diminutive of --; it means small bed.[BDAG]
is a loan word found also in rabbinical literature, but of uncertain origin and late in appearing. It has the primary meaning of a pallet but it was also used colloquially for bed.[BDAG]
- is not unique to Luke. It is a common Greek word found in Dionysius Halicarnassenis On Thucydides; in the writings of Artemidorus, Plutarch Moralia and in Josephus Antiquities etc. [BDAG]
-- is not a variant reading. It is the genitive form of --
is not a variant reading. It is the dative plural of . [ is the accusative]
The word equivocal means of double or doubtful meaning; ambiguous; of uncertain nature.[OED]
is not a Greek word. It is a loan word meaning pallet. However it had a double meaning in that it was a colloquial or slang expression for the poor mans bed. To an audience outside of Palestine its meaning might have been ambiguous. Consequently the authors of Matthew and Luke replaced the ambiguous with words more familiar to their Greek audiences.
Therefore, it is Marks choice of word that is equivocal, and not Matthews, which, by Furrowed Brows reasoning means that Mark must have written first.
is a adverb of time meaning then. How it is more verbose or less personal is hard to discern. There is no such connotation of impersonality in the . Matthew obviously liked the word as he uses it 90 times. Mark and Luke like it less using it only 6 times and 15 times respectively.
In Greek the aorist tense describes an action that normally occurs in the past.
Somewhat like the English past tense, Greek has two different ways of forming the aorist tense. The Greek tense parallel to the English irregular form is called the second aorist.
In the active voice, a second aorist will always have a different stem from the present. This sometimes involves a drastic change, such as when the verb uses a different root to form its tense stems e.g. the verb [to say] becomes .
is the second aorist, active indicative, 3rd person singular form of , and is translated as he said.
is the present active indicative 3rd person singular form of , and is translated as I say, or I am saying.
and are therefore different tenses of the same verb, to say, so to claim that can be considered to be more authoritative than is patently untrue.
Finally, Furrowed Brow says that Lukes use of make it seem more like Jesus is personally empowering the sick man to rise up. This is also incorrect. The expression and lifting is an instruction to the paralytic to lift up his bed. " is the instruction to the erstwhile paralytic to rise up.
-
Student
- Sage
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:10 pm
- Location: UK - currently dusting shelves 220 - 229, in the John Rylands Library
Post #86
The only problem with Furrowed Brows hypothesis is that [ephulaxa], as found in Matthew, is already first person singular. Its aorist active indicative first person singular form of the verb [phulass " to guard/observe]Furrowed Brow wrote: However I do wonder why Mark thought it necessary to add -- to the end of . I wonder whther -- is maybe an attempt at first person singular and follows from the way Mark has the rich man addressing Jesus as (teacher/master) on row 3, and maybe more so his use of (of me) on row 6.
So Mark wouldnt need to make any changes to achieve the result Furrowed Brow proposes.
Mark uses - [ephulaxamen] which is the aorist middle indicative first person singular " which is in the wrong voice!
So why would Mark copy Matthews correct form , to the more difficult and incorrect - ?
It is easier to understand Mark writing first, with no exemplar to work from, gets wrong form of the verb. Subsequently Matthew and Luke correct what they find in Mark.
Last edited by Student on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #87
Yes. For the purposes of this thread it would be time consuming to put a complete periscope on a three column comparison table like the ones I have attempted. But in principle I guess it could be done.Student wrote:]As a general observation, the verse divisions found in the New Testament are entirely a 16th century innovation. They are an artificial construct never part of the original text. As such it is more appropriate to compare complete pericopes [stories] rather than one or two verses.
Sorry I should have been clearer. I was talking only about the use of language within the three Synoptic Gospels.- is not unique to Luke. It is a common Greek word found in Dionysius Halicarnassenis On Thucydides; in the writings of Artemidorus, Plutarch Moralia and in Josephus Antiquities etc. [BDAG]
Thank you for that clarification. Maybe there is a technical meaning for variant that escaped me, but I was trying to refer different forms or variations in the form of the word.-- is not a variant reading. It is the genitive form of --
is not a variant reading. It is the dative plural of . [ is the accusative]
Yes. In Matthew and Luke a bed can be portable or it can have things put underneath it i.e. solid and not portable. It is two different meanings that Mark distinguishes and make a difference to the mental picture of what is carried. As I said Mark is consistent when he refers to pallet and when he refers to bed. When he refers to pallet it is used in the context of someone being brought. It is probably worth quoting these sections.The word equivocal means of double or doubtful meaning; ambiguous; of uncertain nature.[OED]
Lets compare this to first Matthew and Luke. In these verses the -/ - is portable
Yes I accept that makes sense. However I have trouble with the dogmatic logic that has things one way. If as you say is not a word Matthew of Luke would introduce into their Gospels then if they wrote first they would not use it, and if they wrote second they would not use it......yes.....can we agree that logic? If correct then insisting Matthew and Luke revised Mark comes down to an opinion.is not a Greek word. It is a loan word meaning pallet. However it had a double meaning in that it was a colloquial or slang expression for the poor mans bed. To an audience outside of Palestine its meaning might have been ambiguous. Consequently the authors of Matthew and Luke replaced the ambiguous with words more familiar to their Greek audiences.
If Mark wrote second (or at least followed Matthew) then he is not just introducing slang, he is being systematic in his choice of phrasing. If there was a potential to read as a poor mans bed this might have been Marks intent in as far as the story refers to a poor man, or allowing the story to have that possible alternative meaning is not incongruent i.e. Mark does not talk about a rick sick man being brought to Jesus on a poor mans bed. Mark turns to a slang word likely because that reflects his Greek and it allows him to make a clear semantic distinction that fits the logic of the narrative he is trying to convey. Sure he could do this if we wrote first (yes that makes sense), but he is just as likely to do this if he writes second given that he as a predilection for distinguishing in a narrative beds that can be carried.
Thank you for that. I was using Strongs concordance which has the orginal word " as tell, bid or command. So I let this lead me into thinking Lukes was making Jesus sound more authoritative. Clearly there is a mismatch. I surrender to your better Greek.In Greek the aorist tense describes an action that normally occurs in the past.
Somewhat like the English past tense, Greek has two different ways of forming the aorist tense. The Greek tense parallel to the English irregular form is called the second aorist.
In the active voice, a second aorist will always have a different stem from the present. This sometimes involves a drastic change, such as when the verb uses a different root to form its tense stems e.g. the verb [to say] becomes .
is the second aorist, active indicative, 3rd person singular form of , and is translated as he said.
is the present active indicative 3rd person singular form of , and is translated as I say, or I am saying.
and are therefore different tenses of the same verb, to say, so to claim that can be considered to be more authoritative than is patently untrue.
Again. Thank you for the clarification and correction.Finally, Furrowed Brow says that Lukes use of make it seem more like Jesus is personally empowering the sick man to rise up. This is also incorrect. The expression and lifting is an instruction to the paralytic to lift up his bed. " is the instruction to the erstwhile paralytic to rise up.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #88
Well yes. But clearly Mark then struggles with Greek grammar. This would be explained if he wrote first. The Markan Priority theory has it that if Mark wrote second this should alleviate his problem with grammar and he would be more likely to follow the better grammar of Matthew. But the point I raised was that the two verses have a different construction. Once Matthew decided on his construction he was already not following Matthew and he then applied the verb ending he thought appropriate.Student wrote:The only problem with Furrowed Brows hypothesis is that [ephulaxa], as found in Matthew, is already first person singular. Its aorist active indicative first person singular form of the verb [phulass " to guard/observe]FB wrote: However I do wonder why Mark thought it necessary to add -- to the end of . I wonder whther -- is maybe an attempt at first person singular and follows from the way Mark has the rich man addressing Jesus as (teacher/master) on row 3, and maybe more so his use of (of me) on row 6.
So Mark wouldnt need to make any changes to achieve the result Furrowed Brow proposes.
Yes. He got it wrong.Mark uses - [ephulaxamen] which is the aorist middle indicative first person singular " which is in the wrong voice!
So why would Mark copy Matthews correct form , to the more difficult and incorrect - ?
Because he has a different sentence construction.
[center]
As I pointed out row 3 has Matt referring to the rich man as a young man but Mark has a different construction and he has the rich man referring to Jesus as teacher/master. Marks level of competence in Greek means he applies what he thinks is the right word ending given his sentence construction. Sure he gets it wrong. But if he writes first he would have made this mistake and if he writes second he is clearly not following Matthews construction and therefore he is no more or less likely to follow his own grammar. Your point would carry weight if Mark had written
[center] - [/center]
If there are examples like that then Matthew and Luke correcting Marks poor grammar makes more sense. But when and where Mark is attempting a different sentence construction it is meaningless observation.
-
Student
- Sage
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:10 pm
- Location: UK - currently dusting shelves 220 - 229, in the John Rylands Library
Post #89
I appreciate why you would want it to be so. Unfortunately it is wishful thinking on your part. The Greek word -- [klin"] can be found in a wide range of contexts [Biblical and non-biblical] which include the concept of being portable [much as can the English word bed]. I suggest you look up the various meanings of the word -- [klin"] in a reputable lexicon.Furrowed Brow wrote:Mark is being systematic and clearly not equivocal in this sense. He uses when the context requires the bed be portable and he uses - otherwise.
Alas I am bound by the reality that is Koin" Greek. I cannot make it up as I go along simply to conform to your hypothesis. Your line of reasoning is unreasonable, your argument is false.Furrowed Brow wrote:Can we agree that?
Such agreement is impossible as it would require me to agree to something patently untrue.Furrowed Brow wrote:Can we agree that Luke does not shift terminology to distinguish portable beds/pallets/mats from the more solid kind of non portable beds found in houses and which things can be put underneath. Can we also agree that because Matthew and Luke use a more generic term they fail to distinguish a nuance in the narrative as effectively as Mark.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #90
If you want we can pretend Mark is not using [font=Georgia][/font] only at times when he means to indicate the bed is portable. But it is diffcult to sustain that in face of the data that points otherwise.Student wrote:I appreciate why you would want it to be so. Unfortunately it is wishful thinking on your part.Furrowed Brow wrote:Mark is being systematic and clearly not equivocal in this sense. He uses when the context requires the bed be portable and he uses - otherwise.
I don't think I have contrary other than to say Mark is being systematic in his use of when he means a portable bed. You got a contray example to refute that observation, or do you accept the data as a fact.he Greek word -- [klin"] can be found in a wide range of contexts [Biblical and non-biblical] which include the concept of being portable [much as can the English word bed]. I suggest you look up the various meanings of the word -- [klin"] in a reputable lexicon.
I concede to your Greek. But I'm not sure why you are ignoring the data. Mark uses -- when th bed is not portable and he uses when it is portable. What exactly is false about that observation? That is looking like a fact unless you have a counter example.Alas I am bound by the reality that is Koin" Greek. I cannot make it up as I go along simply to conform to your hypothesis. Your line of reasoning is unreasonable, your argument is false.Furrowed Brow wrote:Can we agree that?
Well I've given the examples verses to support the point. I can't do much more if the evidence is waved away or ignored.Such agreement is impossible as it would require me to agree to something patently untrue.Furrowed Brow wrote:Can we agree that Luke does not shift terminology to distinguish portable beds/pallets/mats from the more solid kind of non portable beds found in houses and which things can be put underneath. Can we also agree that because Matthew and Luke use a more generic term they fail to distinguish a nuance in the narrative as effectively as Mark.
