Does Luke edit Mark with more primitive data?

[Michael BG]

Thank you Ben C. Smith for your examples. There is an idea that says that the text that doesn’t run smoothly is likely to be the more primitive and this is likely to be Mk 5:6-13 rather than Luke who has smoothed out the surprising comment out of the blue that the man is now clothed as well as being in his right mind.

The woman and the anointing is not so easy to determine which is the more primitive. I am interested in hearing views on why Luke would change it from having Jesus say it was better to anoint him than use the money for the poor, to one about love and forgiving a person a lot, or Mark changing it the other way because Kuchinsky does not address this fundamental issue.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thank you Ben C. Smith for your examples. There is an idea that says that the text that doesn’t run smoothly is likely to be the more primitive and this is likely to be Mk 5:6-13 rather than Luke who has smoothed out the surprising comment out of the blue that the man is now clothed as well as being in his right mind.

That often depends, IMHO, on what one means by "running smoothly."

But I would agree that a case of omitting a detail which would have explained or at least paved the way for a later detail is a weak form of fatigue, if it is fatigue at all. People can sometimes omit details from the stories they have already fully formed in their heads. (People who are poor storytellers naturally do this early and often, good storytellers less frequently.)

The woman and the anointing is not so easy to determine which is the more primitive. I am interested in hearing views on why Luke would change it from having Jesus say it was better to anoint him than use the money for the poor, to one about love and forgiving a person a lot, or Mark changing it the other way because Kuchinsky does not address this fundamental issue.

I think that, overall, it is not very easy to find clear, strong instances of Luke claiming priority to Mark.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

It probably does not count for the purposes of this thread, but Mark 9.14-27 recounts the exorcism of a spirit from a boy in a rather ungainly way (making the spirit both "deaf and mute" even though the main affliction seems to be all about convulsions; and the "deaf and mute" spirit even leaves with a shriek), whereas both Matthew 17.14-18 and Luke 9.37-42 recount in a much more compact, streamlined manner. Helmut Köster, for one, considers the Marcan account to be an expansion of a previous version closer to what Matthew and Luke have. (Thus both Matthew and Luke would claim priority over Mark here, for this pericope at least.)

[Adam]

C'mon, any reasonable person without a bias to support like Koester does, would favor Mark as more preserving the original that underlies all three.

[outhouse]

Mark has Jesus taking bread, then the wine, while Luke has Jesus taking the wine cup and then the bread. This is the order which we would expect if the meal was a Passover meal and so it might be seen as more primitive.

Neither will give you any insight to an 0lder possible tradition.

Its possible Lukes community had very old traditions that they added, but any level of certainty is guessing.

the childhood and birth is fiction, much he just redacted by erasing some of mark to soften its stance up a bit.


I personally feel if there was anything luke added that was early it would be on a very short list.

[Ben C. Smith]

C'mon, any reasonable person without a bias to support like Koester does, would favor Mark as more preserving the original that underlies all three.

What bias are you referring to? Köster holds to Marcan priority overall; in this case he argues for Marcan posteriority. He complicates, in other words, simple Marcan priority with a deutero-Mark hypothesis.

[Adam]

Busted!

[Michael BG]

It probably does not count for the purposes of this thread, but Mark 9.14-27 recounts the exorcism of a spirit from a boy in a rather ungainly way (making the spirit both "deaf and mute" even though the main affliction seems to be all about convulsions; and the "deaf and mute" spirit even leaves with a shriek), whereas both Matthew 17.14-18 and Luke 9.37-42 recount in a much more compact, streamlined manner. Helmut Köster, for one, considers the Marcan account to be an expansion of a previous version closer to what Matthew and Luke have. (Thus both Matthew and Luke would claim priority over Mark here, for this pericope at least.)

I was not aware of this. Did Koster convince you?

I have not done a comparison of Matthew and Luke to try to discover what the source text would have been if Koster is correct. However when I did my underlining (years ago) there is done of the colour I used for agreement between Matthew and Luke not in Mark. I did notice that Matthew has “σεληνιαζεται” – moon-struck or lunatic, which is a general term and I consider is a summary which is likely to be later than Mark’s longer descriptions (Mk 9:18, 22). I think Luke has added “μονογενης” - “only-begotten” (9:38). I think Luke is the only synoptic gospel to use the word – (7:12, 8.42 - an addition). Also Mark has the inconsistency that both Matthew and Luke have removed - "deaf and mute spirit” which Jesus speaks to and who then cries-out, which I consider evidence for Matthew and Luke both being later.

[Ben C. Smith]

It probably does not count for the purposes of this thread, but Mark 9.14-27 recounts the exorcism of a spirit from a boy in a rather ungainly way (making the spirit both "deaf and mute" even though the main affliction seems to be all about convulsions; and the "deaf and mute" spirit even leaves with a shriek), whereas both Matthew 17.14-18 and Luke 9.37-42 recount in a much more compact, streamlined manner. Helmut Köster, for one, considers the Marcan account to be an expansion of a previous version closer to what Matthew and Luke have. (Thus both Matthew and Luke would claim priority over Mark here, for this pericope at least.)

I was not aware of this. Did Koster convince you?

I cannot say that he has convinced me of his particular hypothesis, but the observation itself probably indicates something; I am not sure what yet.

I have not done a comparison of Matthew and Luke to try to discover what the source text would have been if Koster is correct. However when I did my underlining (years ago) there is done of the colour I used for agreement between Matthew and Luke not in Mark. I did notice that Matthew has “σεληνιαζεται” – moon-struck or lunatic, which is a general term and I consider is a summary which is likely to be later than Mark’s longer descriptions (Mk 9:18, 22). I think Luke has added “μονογενης” - “only-begotten” (9:38). I think Luke is the only synoptic gospel to use the word – (7:12, 8.42 - an addition). Also Mark has the inconsistency that both Matthew and Luke have removed - "deaf and mute spirit” which Jesus speaks to and who then cries-out, which I consider evidence for Matthew and Luke both being later.

Matthew and Luke agree by omission here; you would have to look for broad swaths of whatever color you used for Mark-only material in the Mark column of the synopsis.

Ben.

[Adam]

I have not done a comparison of Matthew and Luke to try to discover what the source text would have been if Koster is correct. However when I did my underlining (years ago) there is done of the colour I used for agreement between Matthew and Luke not in Mark.

The BOLD above seems to be a typo--for "none" or what? No Q at all? No "minor agreements?