Is Markan Priority Wrong?

[Furrowed Brow]

In 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

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 wiki

• 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.

Seems 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.

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

Question: Is Markan Priority wrong?

[james.hoggatt]

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 appreciate why you would want it to be so. Unfortunately it is wishful thinking on your part.

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.

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 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.

Can we agree that?

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.

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.

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.

Such agreement is impossible as it would require me to agree to something patently untrue.

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.

So I'm just going to go ahead and say it. As a person who studies language and source texts for a living, this argument lacks sufficiency and necessity.

I've gone back through all of your arguments and I can't find a single one that references anything more than casual contradictions of verbage or homonym based nouns.

I guess what I need in order to see any time of solvency in your claim is for an example where your theory remains consistent in regards to a non-casual contradiction of doctrine, story, or theology. I can only seem to find evidence that Matthew and Luke agree on everything and Mark is different. If Mark wrote second your theory kind of falls apart if there is more consistency with Matthew and Luke than with Mark and Luke. You posit that the 2nd author, whoever it may be, makes alterations and corrections that should be evident in the 3rd. I fail to see that. Everything that you have presented thus far can be explained by simply assuming that portions of the texts are paraphrased from each other. This is extremely common in writing with sources.

So essentially are you holding that Mark and Luke are more similar than Matthew and Luke? If so, why would you posit Mark in the middle, when Luke requires Mark for some of his information, but yet would seemingly reject the corrections Mark made to Matthew.

Wouldn't it be more logical that Mark wrote first, Matthew corrected sections, Luke adopted those sections that Matthew corrected, and with what Matthew did not include in his gospel, Luke decided what else to take from Mark with his own corrections and alterations. This would explain Mark's poor grammar in places, it would explain why Matthew and Luke are similar in the important forms.

[Furrowed Brow]

So I'm just going to go ahead and say it. As a person who studies language and source texts for a living, this argument lacks sufficiency and necessity.

Lets be clear as to what the argument is and what I have be trying to achieve. I have drifted into arguing for an anti Markan Priority position after observing multiple instances of biased and sloppy logic and a tendency to rationalise evidence in light of the Priority rather than use evidence in a scientific way. I am not arguing Markan Priority does not make sense as a rationalisation that interprets the evidence in its own way. I am arguing that the reasoning is flawed... at least as far as how its basic tenets are usually presented by the various resources found on the internet and as far as the arguments so far presented in this thread. So I am saying that as a result of its flawed logic the Markan Priority is no better than an opinion. I'd shy away from giving it the honor of calling it a theory unless it can lay down some meaningful conditions by which it would be falsified.

I've gone back through all of your arguments and I can't find a single one that references anything more than casual contradictions of verbage or homonym based nouns.

Lets be clearly as to my skill base. I have no Greek and I do not study language and I dont know much about the gospels. My approach favours exposing the flaws in the logic of a position. For example, the point that started this debate was the way Markan Priority used the fact that most of the material in Mark is used by Matthew and Luke as an argument for Priority. This logic is just not valid. 94% of Mark appearing in Matthew and Luke is actually an argument that supports Mark following Matt and Luke.

The generic arguments that support Markan Priority also support an opposing position like the Griesbach hypothesis, and lends itself just as well if not better to the Augustinian hypothesis. And if that is the case the logic is flawed.

I guess what I need in order to see any time of solvency in your claim is for an example where your theory remains consistent in regards to a non-casual contradiction of doctrine, story, or theology. I can only seem to find evidence that Matthew and Luke agree on everything and Mark is different.

OK but the problem is that the stance folk take on the differences in doctrine and theology are based on the lens trough which they are reading the text. Im seeing a lot of folk confirming their own bias.

To really try and tease out who has priority I think the minutia is more important than theme. As my example of the Presidents tries to illuminate general agreement in doctrine does not help us discern priority. If you are continuing to allow differences in doctrine, story and theology guide how you analyse priority then Id suggest you are using the weakest kind of evidence.

What you are calling casual contradictions are not so causal. Im not sure why you might think Jerermy marrying Kate as opposed to him marrying Jane is a casual contradiction.

If Mark wrote second your theory kind of falls apart if there is more consistency with Matthew and Luke than with Mark and Luke.

Ok just to be clear my position has drifted in this thread and since around post 30 I have been favouring something like the Augustinian Hypothesis. But no your point does not hold " at least not as a general observation. If it did then Bill Clinton would have been the 41st President of the United states by that logic.

[center]

[mrow][mcol]Matthew[mcol]Mark[mcol]Luke [row][col]7:28-8:15 [col] 1:21-45 [col] 4:31-5:16 [row][col]9:1-17 [col] 2:1-22 [col] 5:17-39 [row][col]12:1-16 [col] 2:23-3:12 [col] 6:1-6:11, 17-19 [row][col]10:1-4 [col] 3:13-19 [col] 6:12-16 [row][col]12:22-37 [col] 3:13-19 [col] 6:43-45 [row][col]13:1-34 [col] 4:1-34 [col] 8:4-18 [row][col]8:18-34 [col] 4:35-5:20 [col] 8:22-39 [row][col]9:18-26 [col] 5:21-43 [col] 8:40-56

[/center]
Source
How to analyse this data? If Mark writes first followed by Matthew then Matthew rewrites Mark, and vice versa. Either way Luke is following Mark basic structure. Maybe this data suggests Matthew and Luke write independently if they followed Mark. But Im not sure we can even say that. We could also say that Matthews running order follows an established tradition that Mark and Luke subvert, this seems more likely than Matthew writing last and subverting the order of Mark and Luke. The point is that here is a clear example of consistency not really telling us very much.
.

You posit that the 2nd author, whoever it may be, makes alterations and corrections that should be evident in the 3rd. I fail to see that. Everything that you have presented thus far can be explained by simply assuming that portions of the texts are paraphrased from each other. This is extremely common in writing with sources.

Well I guess that is what is implied. But none of my criticism hangs on this. As you say it is common. The question is how to tease out who has priority.

So essentially are you holding that Mark and Luke are more similar than Matthew and Luke?

No. I think this line of argument " at least when generalised " does not tell us very much at all. To tell what is going on we have to look at each passage and pericope and dig into the details of how they are constructed.

If so, why would you posit Mark in the middle, when Luke requires Mark for some of his information, but yet would seemingly reject the corrections Mark made to Matthew.

Lets look at an example of Luke following Matthew and ignoring Mark. Do you have one in mind?

Wouldn't it be more logical that Mark wrote first, Matthew corrected sections, Luke adopted those sections that Matthew corrected, and with what Matthew did not include in his gospel, Luke decided what else to take from Mark with his own corrections and alterations.

On the evidence that has appeared in this thread Id say absolutely not - it is clearly not more logical. But maybe there are some really good examples that give overwhelming support to this view that has not yet appeared, or even there may be some arguments that on balance push us towards Markan Priority. But so far the data and the logic do not get us there.

This would explain Mark's poor grammar in places, it would explain why Matthew and Luke are similar in the important forms.

Yes it would explain that. And as I have said it does make sense. But as I have pointed out a number of times to other contributors to make that priority stick we have to move beyond a position of rationalising the data in light of one theory or other. If we cant do that then it is all a matter of opinion. Whilst you point out the line I have been taken lacks sufficient and necessity, my counter is that is exactly the problem for Markan Priority. I have largely taken a line that is anti Markan Priority as a reaction to its poor logic and generalisations. I mean stuff like ignoring the need for a another text from Mark to provide a base line to be able to measure the grammatical error rate in Mark, and allows us to judge the kinds of errors and vulgarities he uses there. If Mark writing on his own is found littered with grammatical problems and this is reduced when he copies someone else then that would show he was copying.....no? Or if the error base line looks like that which appears in Mark then that would show he wrote first... yes? How can anyone begin to fathom Marks error rate without that I am not sure. Maybe I cant set out a better idea, but given the evidence discussed so far in this thread it is no worse.

I suspect much hangs on the poor grammar argument. I have given Student a clear indication of the kind of example ofMark's grammatical errors that would carry weight. But if Mark writes second this implies that the majority if not all of the examples of poor grammar arrive in the context when he has used a different sentence construction to Matthew. If there is not enough data either way then it all comes down to just opinion.

[Mithrae]

I haven't completely read this linguistics discussion yet, and it's beyond my knowledge in any case. However a few question arise.

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.

Assuming the same author, doesn't Luke use that word in Acts 9:33 and contrast it with - (from --) in 5:15?

More intriguingly, from what I've read I gather that John writes in rather fluent Greek, yet it seems that his choice of wording is along the same lines as Mark in that story (source). Does this indicate a similarity in oral tradition more relevant than Matt/Luke/Mark's literary relation, a similarity in linguistic tradition (Palestinian, loan-words), or something else?

The word equivocal means of double or doubtful meaning; ambiguous; of uncertain nature.[OED]

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.

[mrow][mcol]Westcott/Hort[mcol]King James [row]Mark 2:4[col] - - - - [color=blue][b][/b][/color] [col] Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they [b]let down the pallet[/b] on which the paralytic was lying. [row]Mark 2:9[col] - [] [color=blue][b][/b][/color] [/b][/color] [col] Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and [b]take up thy bed[/b], and walk? [row]Mark 2:11[col] [color=blue][b][/b][/color] [col] I say unto thee, Arise, and [b]take up thy bed[/b], and go thy way into thine house. [row]Mark 6:55[col] - - - - [color=blue][b][/b][/color] - [col] And ran through that whole region round about, and began to [b]carry about in beds[/b] those that were sick, where they heard he was.

And in these examples Mark refers to a bed in a house or raised from the floor. The context is not such that we should think the bed portable.

[mrow][mcol]Westcott/Hort[mcol]King James [row]Mark 4:21[col] - - - - [color=darkred][b]-[/b] [/color] - - [col] And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or [b]under a bed[/b]? and not to be set on a candlestick? [row]Mark 7:30[col] - - - [color=darkred][b]-[/b][/color] - [col] And when she was come [b]to her house[/b], she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid [b]upon the bed[/b].

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. Can we agree that?

From what I can see, it does seem that Mark with his poor grammar does use the two terms in distinct contexts. Whether that sufficiently supports a theory is another question (and certainly the uses in Matthew and Luke are insufficient).



On something entirely off-topic I came across in looking some stuff up here, a question for Student: Not sure about uses in other Greek literature, but since the other three NT occurrences seem to be sexual in nature (and the root for our word coitus?), is Luke 11:7 ("my children are with me in bed") referring to scandal and blackmail or is it all on the level?

If there's nothing sus about the verse, this could perhaps serve as an illustration for drawing conclusions on the basis on insufficient foreign-language knowledge and a concordance

[Furrowed Brow]

More intriguingly, from what I've read I gather that John writes in rather fluent Greek, yet it seems that his choice of wording is along the same lines as Mark in that story (source). Does this indicate a similarity in oral tradition more relevant than Matt/Luke/Mark's literary relation, a similarity in linguistic tradition (Palestinian, loan-words), or something else?

Here is John.
[center]

[mrow][mcol]Westcott/Hort[mcol]King James [row]John 5:8[col] - [color=blue][b][/b][/color] [col] Jesus saith unto him, Rise, [b]take up thy bed, and walk[/b] [row]John 5:9[col] - - [color=blue][b][/b] [/color] - - - - [col] And immediately the man was made whole, and [b]took up his bed, and walked[/b]: and on the same day was the sabbath. [row]John 5:10[col] [color=blue][b][/b][/color] [col] The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to [b]carry thy bed[/b] [row]John 5:11[col] - - - [color=blue][b][/b][/color] [col] He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, [b]Take up thy bed, and walk[/b]

[/center]
I dont think John uses - or - at all. If as you indicate John is accepted as being fluent in Greek and he is happy to use , and so long as there is evidence Mark is being consistent I dont think the Markan Priority argument that says Mark would be more likely to follow Matthews and Lukes wording if he wrote second holds.

Assuming the same author, doesn't Luke use that word in Acts 9:33 and contrast it with - (from --) in 5:15?

Here are the verses
[center]

[mrow][mcol]Westcott/Hort[mcol]King James [row]Acts 5:15[col] [color=darkred][b][/b] [/color] [color=blue][b][/b][/color] - [col] Insomuch that [b]they brought forth the sick into the streets[/b], and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. [row]Acts 9:33[col] [color=blue][b][/b][/color] - [col] And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy

[/center] Being 8 years in his bed makes Aeneas bed sound less portable, yet in 5:15 both and are brought into the street. So long as Mark is not the author of Acts this is not a problem for accepting he his systematic in his use of "bed" terminology.

From what I can see, it does seem that Mark with his poor grammar does use the two terms in distinct contexts. Whether that sufficiently supports a theory is another question (and certainly the uses in Matthew and Luke are insufficient).

I dont think it needs to support a theory. It only needs to undo the Markan Priority interpretation that Mark would have been less vulgar and more inclined to follow Matthew and Lukes wording if he accesses them. As I say if Matthew and Luke write first or second they would have worded this passage as they do. We cant tell if they are correcting Mark or writing first. And we cant tell if Mark is writing first or second by his use of .

Remember it is the Markan Priorists who raise the disitinction as evidence Mark writes first. I think there is enough here to recognise that their criticism falls short.

[james.hoggatt]

So I'm just going to go ahead and say it. As a person who studies language and source texts for a living, this argument lacks sufficiency and necessity.

Lets be clear as to what the argument is and what I have be trying to achieve. I have drifted into arguing for an anti Markan Priority position after observing multiple instances of biased and sloppy logic and a tendency to rationalise evidence in light of the Priority rather than use evidence in a scientific way. I am not arguing Markan Priority does not make sense as a rationalisation that interprets the evidence in its own way. I am arguing that the reasoning is flawed... at least as far as how its basic tenets are usually presented by the various resources found on the internet and as far as the arguments so far presented in this thread. So I am saying that as a result of its flawed logic the Markan Priority is no better than an opinion. I'd shy away from giving it the honor of calling it a theory unless it can lay down some meaningful conditions by which it would be falsified.

I've gone back through all of your arguments and I can't find a single one that references anything more than casual contradictions of verbage or homonym based nouns.

Lets be clearly as to my skill base. I have no Greek and I do not study language and I dont know much about the gospels. My approach favours exposing the flaws in the logic of a position. For example, the point that started this debate was the way Markan Priority used the fact that most of the material in Mark is used by Matthew and Luke as an argument for Priority. This logic is just not valid. 94% of Mark appearing in Matthew and Luke is actually an argument that supports Mark following Matt and Luke.

The generic arguments that support Markan Priority also support an opposing position like the Griesbach hypothesis, and lends itself just as well if not better to the Augustinian hypothesis. And if that is the case the logic is flawed.

I guess what I need in order to see any time of solvency in your claim is for an example where your theory remains consistent in regards to a non-casual contradiction of doctrine, story, or theology. I can only seem to find evidence that Matthew and Luke agree on everything and Mark is different.

OK but the problem is that the stance folk take on the differences in doctrine and theology are based on the lens trough which they are reading the text. Im seeing a lot of folk confirming their own bias.

To really try and tease out who has priority I think the minutia is more important than theme. As my example of the Presidents tries to illuminate general agreement in doctrine does not help us discern priority. If you are continuing to allow differences in doctrine, story and theology guide how you analyse priority then Id suggest you are using the weakest kind of evidence.

What you are calling casual contradictions are not so causal. Im not sure why you might think Jerermy marrying Kate as opposed to him marrying Jane is a casual contradiction.

If Mark wrote second your theory kind of falls apart if there is more consistency with Matthew and Luke than with Mark and Luke.

Ok just to be clear my position has drifted in this thread and since around post 30 I have been favouring something like the Augustinian Hypothesis. But no your point does not hold " at least not as a general observation. If it did then Bill Clinton would have been the 41st President of the United states by that logic.

[center]

[mrow][mcol]Matthew[mcol]Mark[mcol]Luke [row][col]7:28-8:15 [col] 1:21-45 [col] 4:31-5:16 [row][col]9:1-17 [col] 2:1-22 [col] 5:17-39 [row][col]12:1-16 [col] 2:23-3:12 [col] 6:1-6:11, 17-19 [row][col]10:1-4 [col] 3:13-19 [col] 6:12-16 [row][col]12:22-37 [col] 3:13-19 [col] 6:43-45 [row][col]13:1-34 [col] 4:1-34 [col] 8:4-18 [row][col]8:18-34 [col] 4:35-5:20 [col] 8:22-39 [row][col]9:18-26 [col] 5:21-43 [col] 8:40-56

[/center]
Source
How to analyse this data? If Mark writes first followed by Matthew then Matthew rewrites Mark, and vice versa. Either way Luke is following Mark basic structure. Maybe this data suggests Matthew and Luke write independently if they followed Mark. But Im not sure we can even say that. We could also say that Matthews running order follows an established tradition that Mark and Luke subvert, this seems more likely than Matthew writing last and subverting the order of Mark and Luke. The point is that here is a clear example of consistency not really telling us very much.
.

You posit that the 2nd author, whoever it may be, makes alterations and corrections that should be evident in the 3rd. I fail to see that. Everything that you have presented thus far can be explained by simply assuming that portions of the texts are paraphrased from each other. This is extremely common in writing with sources.

Well I guess that is what is implied. But none of my criticism hangs on this. As you say it is common. The question is how to tease out who has priority.

So essentially are you holding that Mark and Luke are more similar than Matthew and Luke?

No. I think this line of argument " at least when generalised " does not tell us very much at all. To tell what is going on we have to look at each passage and pericope and dig into the details of how they are constructed.

If so, why would you posit Mark in the middle, when Luke requires Mark for some of his information, but yet would seemingly reject the corrections Mark made to Matthew.

Lets look at an example of Luke following Matthew and ignoring Mark. Do you have one in mind?

Wouldn't it be more logical that Mark wrote first, Matthew corrected sections, Luke adopted those sections that Matthew corrected, and with what Matthew did not include in his gospel, Luke decided what else to take from Mark with his own corrections and alterations.

On the evidence that has appeared in this thread Id say absolutely not - it is clearly not more logical. But maybe there are some really good examples that give overwhelming support to this view that has not yet appeared, or even there may be some arguments that on balance push us towards Markan Priority. But so far the data and the logic do not get us there.

This would explain Mark's poor grammar in places, it would explain why Matthew and Luke are similar in the important forms.

Yes it would explain that. And as I have said it does make sense. But as I have pointed out a number of times to other contributors to make that priority stick we have to move beyond a position of rationalising the data in light of one theory or other. If we cant do that then it is all a matter of opinion. Whilst you point out the line I have been taken lacks sufficient and necessity, my counter is that is exactly the problem for Markan Priority. I have largely taken a line that is anti Markan Priority as a reaction to its poor logic and generalisations. I mean stuff like ignoring the need for a another text from Mark to provide a base line to be able to measure the grammatical error rate in Mark, and allows us to judge the kinds of errors and vulgarities he uses there. If Mark writing on his own is found littered with grammatical problems and this is reduced when he copies someone else then that would show he was copying.....no? Or if the error base line looks like that which appears in Mark then that would show he wrote first... yes? How can anyone begin to fathom Marks error rate without that I am not sure. Maybe I cant set out a better idea, but given the evidence discussed so far in this thread it is no worse.

I suspect much hangs on the poor grammar argument. I have given Student a clear indication of the kind of example ofMark's grammatical errors that would carry weight. But if Mark writes second this implies that the majority if not all of the examples of poor grammar arrive in the context when he has used a different sentence construction to Matthew. If there is not enough data either way then it all comes down to just opinion.

Your presidents argument is a fallacy. It is non sequitur to the argument I'm making. The presidents function independently and are not trying to convey the same story or message. The presidents are independent people that do not have a united cause in their writing. The gospels, if they are true, are united in telling what should be the same story, with based on the author. Similarity in texts in my situation is important all three has the same goal, which is a descriptive goal. Goals of a presidency are not prescriptive but prescriptive goals. I would agree with you if we were talking about prescriptive doctrine, however; we are not. The gospels are an example of descriptive doctrine.

Your argument however stands for priority in regards to prescriptive texts of philosophy of church fathers such as Philo, Aquinas, etc. because they seek to prescribe solutions and not describe events or sayings.

Hopefully that makes sense. Its simply a logical fallacy.

Onto the Griesbach hypothesis, I haven't seen a decent argument for this interpretation, so I'd love to hear one. It is a Matthew-Luke-Mark example which is nonsensical in my opinion due to dates and textual changes. I mean, are you positing that Matthew was Saint Matthew? Because as most Jewish scholars note, the virgin birth concept is a mistranslation from Isaiah and Saint Matthew or Luke wouldn't have made this mistake. It is overwhelmingly likely that Matthew was a gentile writing later than Mark. This is why you see Mark not including the virgin birth. Mark includes miracles, do you really believe he would omit the virgin birth had it been true and a part of matthew's gospel? Or is it more likely that he wrote first and didn't include it because it wasn't a part of the true story, and then later gentiles looking to correlate prophecy with fact mistranslated Isaiah and that is why the next two gospels add it?

In linguistics, casual means non essential to core message. If you are only informing someone that Jeremy got married and that the key point of your message is just that he got married then it is casual who he wed. If your point is to express who he married, then it is non-casual. It depends on the surrounding context.

If you are listing off people who got married from your senior class to express that it seems everyone is getting hitched around you, then the change is casual. If you are talking about how the girl he married is a former prostitute then it does matter.

Luke certainly writes independently, he has the most original information at 35%. Matthew has 20% unique, and Mark has 3% unique. That is the premise. He writes with Mark and Matthew as guides.

Ah, so you aren't actually positing the other theory, you are just questioning Markan priority. Oh. Easy enough, Matthew and Luke are written around 75 CE by Gentiles, Mark is written earlier and by a Jew.

[Student]

Assuming the same author, doesn't Luke use that word in Acts 9:33 and contrast it with - (from --) in 5:15?

Yes the author of Luke/Acts does use the word [genitive plural of , of pallets] in conjunction with - [genitive plural, variant reading of --, of small beds]

- , on small beds and pallets. Clearly the author of Luke/Acts knows the two words and uses them in conjunction, not contraposition which would require or. The conjunction tends to indicate that of the articles in question are of a similar class or nature.

Intriguingly we see the infirm are carried out and placed on both the beds and pallets. Should we therefore assume that as they arent carried out on the pallets that Lukes pallets are not as portable as Marks? Perhaps Lukes small beds dont have legs?

The only distinction I have been able to discover between Marks use of and -- is the suggestion [passing reference in Robertson WPNT; also Dictionnaire etymologique langue grecque] that Mark uses the word -- in the context of a dining couch " it was common practice to recline at the dinner table. However there are no references to the lack of portability or otherwise of --.

More intriguingly, from what I've read I gather that John writes in rather fluent Greek, yet it seems that his choice of wording is along the same lines as Mark in that story (source). Does this indicate a similarity in oral tradition more relevant than Matt/Luke/Mark's literary relation, a similarity in linguistic tradition (Palestinian, loan-words), or something else?

I think it clearly shows that the author of John was not unaware of Mark. As for Johns Greek, according to Wallace [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament; p.30], the range of literary levels of the NT authors is as follows:
Most semitic / vulgar : Revelation, Mark, John, 1-3 John, 2 Peter

Conversational : Paul, Matthew

Literary Kione : Hebrews, Luke " Acts, James Pastorals 1 Peter Jude

Mark was marginally more semitic / vulgar than John, although John was much less prone to grammatical errors.

For a detailed discussion see Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp.46 " 52.

On something entirely off-topic I came across in looking some stuff up here, a question for Student: Not sure about uses in other Greek literature, but since the other three NT occurrences seem to be sexual in nature (and the root for our word coitus?), is Luke 11:7 ("my children are with me in bed") referring to scandal and blackmail or is it all on the level?

If there's nothing sus about the verse, this could perhaps serve as an illustration for drawing conclusions on the basis on insufficient foreign-language knowledge and a concordance

The primary meaning of -- is a place to lie down i.e. a bed. It is also used of the marriage bed and hence it is used euphemistically of sexual acts both licit and illicit. This is rather like the use of the verb to bed in the British tabloid press, as in Football Star beds teenage girl.

However, it would be quite wrong to imply anything sexual in Luke 11:7. For poorer families it was common practice for all members of the family to share the only bed in the household.

[Student]

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 appreciate why you would want it to be so. Unfortunately it is wishful thinking on your part.

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.

I think the only one pretending is you.

We have already established that you have no expertise in Greek. Therefore any observations you make regarding the Greek text are simply an expression of your opinion. Unless you support your claims, for example with citations from any standard grammar or lexicon, your opinion will remain just that, an opinion.

Or must we accept everything you say simply on the strength of your say-so?

Take for example your observations on Marks use of -- [klin"] and [krabattos]. You say that Mark uses when he means a portable bed and -- when he means a fixed or immovable bed. There is nothing in the context of either Mk 4:21 or Mk 7:30 that can possibly justify the conclusion that -- is an immoveable object. It is just conjecture on your part contrived to fit in with your hypothesis.

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 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.

As you are making the assertion regarding you have to provide the supporting evidence.

What other texts indicate that can only refer to a portable bed.

Can you provide any supportive citations from scholars of Greek?

I am unaware of any reputable scholar of Greek making the distinction. As such you are on your own.

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.

The counter is simple. It is only your opinion that the beds/couches in Mk 4:21 & 7:30 are immovable.

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.

Im sorry if you think that Ive ignored your evidence. If I have given the impression that Im waving away your evidence, I apologise. However, all I can see is that you are expressing an opinion without the benefit of providing independent evidence to support for your claims.

[Furrowed Brow]

We have already established that you have no expertise in Greek.

Yes. I have no expertise in Greek. However I am able to observe the data.

Therefore any observations you make regarding the Greek text are simply an expression of your opinion.

Any observation regarding Greek grammar on my part is very probably poorly informed opinion.

Or must we accept everything you say simply on the strength of your say-so?

Data is data and not an opinion. Unless there is missing data the facts are on the above tables. Whilst I dont know much about Greek I can still observe patterns in the data. If you are saying the pattern is meaningless that is your opinion. If you provide counter examples (new data) or an argument to say why the pattern is meaningless then you begin to offer a defence of the Markan Priority interpretation of the data.

Take for example your observations on Marks use of -- [klin"] and [krabattos]. You say that Mark uses when he means a portable bed and -- when he means a fixed or immovable bed.

This is the gist of it in my own words.

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.

Mark clearly thinks you can put things under a -.

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.

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.

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...

Ok I think my comment at post 87 where I indicate - can be solid and not portable explains why you shift terminology to fixed and immoveable. But I have said enough elsewhere to clarify the point which is that Mark uses to indicate a mat or pallet or some kind of bed that can be brought or carried, and he does not use this term in other contexts when the context does not demand us to think of the bed being portable. At such times he uses - as a generic alternative. No one in this thread needs to be conversant in Greek to notice that. It is just the fact of the matter. However the value of the observation and how much we should read into that is open for discussion.

There is nothing in the context of either Mk 4:21 or Mk 7:30 that can possibly justify the conclusion that -- is an immoveable object.

The counter is simple. It is only your opinion that the beds/couches in Mk 4:21 & 7:30 are immovable.

You are in danger of drifitng towards a straw man fallacy. But to clear up the confusion: Matthew and Luke use - generically, Mark uses when the context requires the bed be brought or carried, otherwise he does not.

It is just conjecture on your part contrived to fit in with your hypothesis.

There is no conjecture here. The data is the data and unless you can provide a counter example then it seems you will just have to say the data provides no meaningful information as to how Mark uses the two terms.

And you are reading another way your fit your hypothesis.

Yes I am using the data to fit an alternative hypothesis.

As you are making the assertion regarding you have to provide the supporting evidence.

The evidence is the data that sits on the tables above. However lets be clear as to why this example arises. I am testing something you said to see how it plays out in the detail.

However, Matthew and Luke dont always correct Mark in exactly the same way, for example they dont always use the same word or words, but they do improve the general quality of Marks grammar as well as improving the literary quality of the text by removing many of his colloquialisms.

But if we compare in particular the linguistic usage of Matthew and Luke with that of Mark, we see Matthew and Luke often change, in similar or different manner, the folk and Semitically coloured text of Mark to better Greek, or also that only Matthew or Luke undertakes such a change. [W.G. Kmmel; Introduction to the New Testament; p48]

I m testing your basic claim with the example of and I have tested it by looking at exactly how Mark uses the term. The form of the argument goes: if Matthew and Luke wrote first they would have not used , and if they wrote second they would have not used . If Mark writes first then he would have used . The notion that Matthew and Luke edited Mark is only made meaningful if Mark would have more likely followed their phrasing than stick with his own colloquialisms. I don't think any argument has been provided to exaplain why Mark would drop his colloquialisms other than it is assumed that is what would happen. However, so long as Mark is being systematic in his choice of words he is then less motivated to follow Matthew and Lukes generic phrasing. The data that we have gives evidence that Mark is using terminology just like someone who is being systematic. Therefore in this example of a colloquialism we cannot say it is more likely that Matthew and Luke edited Mark.

What other texts indicate that can only refer to a portable bed.

is a mat or pallet. By definition it is more portable than a more solid bed. The issue is Marks use of the term and whether he is being systematic. Mithrae noted Johns use of and at post 94 I gave examples from John. Acts 9:33 is an example where the context does not lend itself to thinking of the bed is portable. Though as you point out the other meaning of is a poor mans bed, and I dont think anyone is claiming Mark wrote Acts.

Can you provide any supportive citations from scholars of Greek?

No.

I am unaware of any reputable scholar of Greek making the distinction. As such you are on your own.

Maybe so.

Im sorry if you think that Ive ignored your evidence. If I have given the impression that Im waving away your evidence, I apologise. However, all I can see is that you are expressing an opinion without the benefit of providing independent evidence to support for your claims.

The claim is that the data shows Mark uses in specific contexts that require a bed be carried or brought. At other times he does not use this word. On this point independent adjudication is not needed. It is a fact. To be able to maintain Markan Priority and the idea that Matthew and Luke remove Marks colloquialism requires ignoring the split in the data and treating it as meaningless. This is also a fact. Maybe there are good reasons for this but we have not seen them in this thread.
============

Intriguingly we see the infirm are carried out and placed on both the beds and pallets. Should we therefore assume that as they arent carried out on the pallets that Lukes pallets are not as portable as Marks? Perhaps Lukes small beds dont have legs?

I think we can each form our mental picture, but clearly the author of Acts means both are sufficiently portable to bring the sick into the streets.

The only distinction I have been able to discover between Marks use of and -- is the suggestion [passing reference in Robertson WPNT; also Dictionnaire etymologique langue grecque] that Mark uses the word -- in the context of a dining couch " it was common practice to recline at the dinner table. However there are no references to the lack of portability or otherwise of --.

If -- is used generically then we do not have to attribute that it means a non portable bed, it is a more generic word. However is clearly a bed that can be brought and carried.

[Furrowed Brow]

]Your presidents argument is a fallacy. It is non sequitur to the argument I'm making. The presidents function independently and are not trying to convey the same story or message. The presidents are independent people that do not have a united cause in their writing.

The George Senior and Junior are both Republicans and are united in as far as they share a conservative world view. Both went to Andover, Yale, both had flying military services, and both had an interest in Texas oil fields. Both took the US to war against Iraq, both made appointments that gave the supreme court a conservative edge. I think this makes them sufficiently similar in their political ideology. Bill Clinton on the other hand being a Democratic is sufficiently different in his political ideology. Cleary it is fallacious to drawn on similarities and dissimilarities in policy and motivations as indicator of Priorty.

The gospels, if they are true, are united in telling what should be the same story, with based on the author. Similarity in texts in my situation is important all three has the same goal, which is a descriptive goal. Goals of a presidency are not prescriptive but prescriptive goals. I would agree with you if we were talking about prescriptive doctrine, however; we are not. The gospels are an example of descriptive doctrine.

Even so it is still fallacious to draw on doctrinal similarities and dissimilarities to measure priority unless that can be firmly tied to something concrete.

Hopefully that makes sense. Its simply a logical fallacy.

I think you are saying it is a false analogy. By noting the difference of prescriptive Vs descriptive you have marked out a possible important difference why the analogy might be false. However President speeches and Gospels are written in situ to promote their diverging objectives. I'd say Presidents prescribe and describe as well. Every time they cite research or statistics or quote someone they are describing...no? I'm not sure the distinction carries. We need to look at a specific passage to see if your reasoning holds.

Onto the Griesbach hypothesis, I haven't seen a decent argument for this interpretation, so I'd love to hear one.

My point was that the argument that nearly all of Mark is found in Matthew is an argument commonly put forward to support Markan Priority, but this data actually better supports Mark writing last. That is it. There may be other good reasons to favour Markan Priority but this is not one of them, yet it is consistently cited in support of the Priority. At best it says nothing about property, or if we can read anything into it suggests Mark came later.

It is a Matthew-Luke-Mark example which is nonsensical in my opinion due to dates and textual changes. I mean, are you positing that Matthew was Saint Matthew?

No. He is either unknown or maybe the Matthew mentioned by Papias. I have flirted heavily with this second option.

Because as most Jewish scholars note, the virgin birth concept is a mistranslation from Isaiah and Saint Matthew or Luke wouldn't have made this mistake. It is overwhelmingly likely that Matthew was a gentile writing later than Mark. This is why you see Mark not including the virgin birth. Mark includes miracles, do you really believe he would omit the virgin birth had it been true and a part of Matthew's gospel?

Yes I do. All we have to assume to reach that conclusion is that Mark is closer to an eyewitness than Matthew, and Marks eyewitness never spoke about a virgin birth. It is basically the same set of assumptions used by Markan Priority except if Mark writes after Matthew the content of Mark is strengthened and found to be closer to the core story that was taught by a disciple; and additional material included by Matthew is correspondingly weakened because the author of Mark is only including material he can vouch for. This Mark would be someone very much like Papias Mark.

Or is it more likely that he wrote first and didn't include it because it wasn't a part of the true story,

Sure that makes sense.

...and then later gentiles looking to correlate prophecy with fact mistranslated Isaiah and that is why the next two gospels add it?

I think both positions make it more likely Matthew and Luke have added nativity and genealogy etc.

In linguistics, casual means non essential to core message. If you are only informing someone that Jeremy got married and that the key point of your message is just that he got married then it is casual who he wed. If your point is to express who he married, then it is non-casual. It depends on the surrounding context.

Well exactly. If we read it your way we read the text in the context makes the change casual. But that arrives from reading the text through the lens of Markan Priority. If Mark is providing a corrective to Matthew in this passage then the change may only provide a causal change in meaning (as per linguistics) but it is not done casually.

If you are listing off people who got married from your senior class to express that it seems everyone is getting hitched around you, then the change is casual. If you are talking about how the girl he married is a former prostitute then it does matter.

Well that would indeed be noteworthy. But what we have is akin to someone saying Jeremy married Jane and someone else saying he married Kate. And one is changing the others answer. If someone has privileged knowledge and knows the other has got their facts wrong then that is sufficient to motivate the change.

Luke certainly writes independently, he has the most original information at 35%. Matthew has 20% unique, and Mark has 3% unique. That is the premise. He writes with Mark and Matthew as guides.

OK, and Im assuming that too.

Ah, so you aren't actually positing the other theory, you are just questioning Markan priority.

Ive arrived at it because there have been requests for me to provide an alternative. I am presently thinking of Mark as Papias Mark or someone like him. And that this makes just as much sense if not more sense than anything else I have come across. I think I have been mostly motivated by abuses of logic and bias interpretation of data put forward on behalf of Markan Priority that has lead me to be sniffy about it.

Oh. Easy enough, Matthew and Luke are written around 75 CE by Gentiles, Mark is written earlier and by a Jew.

Possibly. What data you got to support that position?

[james.hoggatt]

]Your presidents argument is a fallacy. It is non sequitur to the argument I'm making. The presidents function independently and are not trying to convey the same story or message. The presidents are independent people that do not have a united cause in their writing.

The George Senior and Junior are both Republicans and are united in as far as they share a conservative world view. Both went to Andover, Yale, both had flying military services, and both had an interest in Texas oil fields. Both took the US to war against Iraq, both made appointments that gave the supreme court a conservative edge. I think this makes them sufficiently similar in their political ideology. Bill Clinton on the other hand being a Democratic is sufficiently different in his political ideology. Cleary it is fallacious to drawn on similarities and dissimilarities in policy and motivations as indicator of Priorty.

The gospels, if they are true, are united in telling what should be the same story, with based on the author. Similarity in texts in my situation is important all three has the same goal, which is a descriptive goal. Goals of a presidency are not prescriptive but prescriptive goals. I would agree with you if we were talking about prescriptive doctrine, however; we are not. The gospels are an example of descriptive doctrine.

Even so it is still fallacious to draw on doctrinal similarities and dissimilarities to measure priority unless that can be firmly tied to something concrete.

Hopefully that makes sense. Its simply a logical fallacy.

I think you are saying it is a false analogy. By noting the difference of prescriptive Vs descriptive you have marked out a possible important difference why the analogy might be false. However President speeches and Gospels are written in situ to promote their diverging objectives. I'd say Presidents prescribe and describe as well. Every time they cite research or statistics or quote someone they are describing...no? I'm not sure the distinction carries. We need to look at a specific passage to see if your reasoning holds.

Onto the Griesbach hypothesis, I haven't seen a decent argument for this interpretation, so I'd love to hear one.

My point was that the argument that nearly all of Mark is found in Matthew is an argument commonly put forward to support Markan Priority, but this data actually better supports Mark writing last. That is it. There may be other good reasons to favour Markan Priority but this is not one of them, yet it is consistently cited in support of the Priority. At best it says nothing about property, or if we can read anything into it suggests Mark came later.

It is a Matthew-Luke-Mark example which is nonsensical in my opinion due to dates and textual changes. I mean, are you positing that Matthew was Saint Matthew?

No. He is either unknown or maybe the Matthew mentioned by Papias. I have flirted heavily with this second option.

Because as most Jewish scholars note, the virgin birth concept is a mistranslation from Isaiah and Saint Matthew or Luke wouldn't have made this mistake. It is overwhelmingly likely that Matthew was a gentile writing later than Mark. This is why you see Mark not including the virgin birth. Mark includes miracles, do you really believe he would omit the virgin birth had it been true and a part of Matthew's gospel?

Yes I do. All we have to assume to reach that conclusion is that Mark is closer to an eyewitness than Matthew, and Marks eyewitness never spoke about a virgin birth. It is basically the same set of assumptions used by Markan Priority except if Mark writes after Matthew the content of Mark is strengthened and found to be closer to the core story that was taught by a disciple; and additional material included by Matthew is correspondingly weakened because the author of Mark is only including material he can vouch for. This Mark would be someone very much like Papias Mark.

Or is it more likely that he wrote first and didn't include it because it wasn't a part of the true story,

Sure that makes sense.

...and then later gentiles looking to correlate prophecy with fact mistranslated Isaiah and that is why the next two gospels add it?

I think both positions make it more likely Matthew and Luke have added nativity and genealogy etc.

In linguistics, casual means non essential to core message. If you are only informing someone that Jeremy got married and that the key point of your message is just that he got married then it is casual who he wed. If your point is to express who he married, then it is non-casual. It depends on the surrounding context.

Well exactly. If we read it your way we read the text in the context makes the change casual. But that arrives from reading the text through the lens of Markan Priority. If Mark is providing a corrective to Matthew in this passage then the change may only provide a causal change in meaning (as per linguistics) but it is not done casually.

If you are listing off people who got married from your senior class to express that it seems everyone is getting hitched around you, then the change is casual. If you are talking about how the girl he married is a former prostitute then it does matter.

Well that would indeed be noteworthy. But what we have is akin to someone saying Jeremy married Jane and someone else saying he married Kate. And one is changing the others answer. If someone has privileged knowledge and knows the other has got their facts wrong then that is sufficient to motivate the change.

Luke certainly writes independently, he has the most original information at 35%. Matthew has 20% unique, and Mark has 3% unique. That is the premise. He writes with Mark and Matthew as guides.

OK, and Im assuming that too.

Ah, so you aren't actually positing the other theory, you are just questioning Markan priority.

Ive arrived at it because there have been requests for me to provide an alternative. I am presently thinking of Mark as Papias Mark or someone like him. And that this makes just as much sense if not more sense than anything else I have come across. I think I have been mostly motivated by abuses of logic and bias interpretation of data put forward on behalf of Markan Priority that has lead me to be sniffy about it.

Oh. Easy enough, Matthew and Luke are written around 75 CE by Gentiles, Mark is written earlier and by a Jew.

Possibly. What data you got to support that position?

The fact they are both Republicans fails to take into account that they are not acting as if they are describing the same story. You keep ignoring that fact that unified intent to be descriptive is different than agree on prescriptive ideas.

The republican presidents were not acting to describe the same thing, they experienced different things, and were acting to bring reality into line with their worldview. If we are to believe the story of Jesus, then the disciples were trying to be descriptive, and thus they were describing something that historically happened, unlike presidents who are acting in the present to be consistent with an ideology. You are still arguing a non sequitur.

It isn't fallacious to draw on doctrinal concepts, as we can determine order based on influence or rejection of something, its one of the key methodologies linguistics uses to determine origin and date. The way in which people describe substantial non-casual concepts is what determines date. For instance, if you give me a document and ask me to tell you if it comes before or after Westphalia, I can make fairly good assertions based on several important things, the most important being how the text deals with the concept of sovereignty. In much the same way, it is how the gospels deal with the story of Jesus and what they include that gives us insight into their use and order.

Your clarification on the distinction is a false one at best. The 'descriptive' parts of a speech made by Bush Sr. hopefully wouldn't have the same 'descriptive' parts of W. Bush. If the descriptive parts are stats they would be ever changing. The gospels are writing a history, the presidents are making a call to action and arguing a point. They are vastly different concepts. It remains a logical fallacy of being non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the actual argument I made.

Ok, now I'm super confused. If I'm super confused. If Mark wrote last or second like you claim, he would have had Matthew's gospel which goes out of its way to explain the Virgin birth. Are you seriously positing that not only did his eyewitness not know about the virgin birth (who was Paul I believe), but that he read Matthew and rejected the virgin birth story? Is that seriously the logical basis for your claim. This goes so far out of the way that it seems bizarre at best. However, it seems to be the only alternative you've provided that jives.

Salomon Reinach actually writes about this, he explains that Jews were constantly pointing out the mistranslation to Greek Christians. In fact, Saint Jerome confesses to it when he says,

"I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah"

Alfred Kolatch also writes extensively on the subject, and how when a revised bible was released in the mid 1900's the fundamentalist christians went mad over it.

Papias talks about a Matthew putting together a list of sayings which has little to do with the gospel itself it would seem. However, it could be possible that these saying are in the original Q document. This would seem to merge your biggest objection into Markian priority. If Matthew's quotes were included in Q but the Gospel wasn't written until after Mark (by a different person), it would satisfy your questions on language, while still answering the overwhelming questions on Mark's omissions and the inclusion of 97% of what Mark says in the other two gospels. Remember Matthew was part of a group of Christians who stressed the divinity heavily, which is why he probably why the Virgin issue happened. Luke says he knows of the other gospels, so he is obviously last.