A matter of style (for Kunigunde).
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:06 am
Subject: Mark's Sources -- a question
As an example, chosen more or less at random, consider the healing of a leper:
There are elements of Matthean style all over the Matthean version of this pericope, are there not?
So my question (and it is a serious one, not merely rhetorical) is this: what arguments from style would you make in favor of Mark not using sources which would not simultaneously suggest that Matthew, too, did not use sources?
Ben.
I, too, think it is possible to find Marcan style all over the gospel of Mark. But I also think that it is possible to find Matthean style all over the gospel of Matthew. Where Matthew has used Mark, Matthew has also usually changed Mark to match his own style. For example, Matthew often changes καί to δέ (especially at the beginning of a pericope) or gets rid of the καί by using a participle instead of a finite verb; sometimes changes an historic present to a past tense; often enough sprinkles in words or phrases of his own preference in addition to the words found in Mark; and tends to get rid of double expressions in favor of a simpler, more streamlined approach.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:54 amThere was a discussion with Michael BG on the "Pre-Marcan Passion Narrative" and I think it's easy to identify typical characteristics of Mark's style in all parts of the text.
imho the same applies to Bultmann's famous case on Mark 2:1-12I would claim that it would be easy for me to show that the story in Mark 2:5b-10 has the same typical characteristics of style as the story in Mark 2:1-5a+11-12 and in the rest of GMark.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:24 am This thematic duplication reminds me of another pericope I have argued to be a composite:
Mark 2.1-12: 1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."
It is a duplication ("says to the paralytic") that gets the pericope back to its original state, after the business about sin and blasphemy has been inserted, but the duplication makes mince of the grammar. We can tell that the use of sources is one very plausible way to account for this kind of grammatical stumble between narration and direct dialogue from how Luke treats Mark here:
On the contrary, imho in GLuke (partially also in GMatthew) one could observe on the one hand the typical enigmatic synoptical stories and on the other hand Luke's own stories, in which the logic of the action is well explained.
As an example, chosen more or less at random, consider the healing of a leper:
Matthew 8.1-4: 1 Καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί. 2 καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων· κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. 3 καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. 4 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅρα μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκον τὸ δῶρον ὃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.
Mark 1.40-45: 40 Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν [καὶ γονυπετῶν] καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. 41 καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· 42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. 43 καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν 44 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. 45 ὁ δὲ ἐξελθὼν ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλὰ καὶ διαφημίζειν τὸν λόγον, ὥστε μηκέτι αὐτὸν δύνασθαι φανερῶς εἰς πόλιν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω ἐπ᾽ ἐρήμοις τόποις ἦν· καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντοθεν.
Mark 1.40-45: 40 Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν [καὶ γονυπετῶν] καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. 41 καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· 42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. 43 καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν 44 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. 45 ὁ δὲ ἐξελθὼν ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλὰ καὶ διαφημίζειν τὸν λόγον, ὥστε μηκέτι αὐτὸν δύνασθαι φανερῶς εἰς πόλιν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω ἐπ᾽ ἐρήμοις τόποις ἦν· καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντοθεν.
There are elements of Matthean style all over the Matthean version of this pericope, are there not?
- Matthew starts the pericope with δέ rather than with καί, as is typical.
- Matthew writes of ὄχλοι πολλοί (not paralleled here in Mark), just as he does elsewhere (4.25; 12.15; 13.2; 15.30; 19.2). In fact, he uses the plural of ὄχλος some 30 times in his gospel (whereas Mark, just by way of comparison, uses it only once, at 10.1).
- Matthew uses the term εὐθέως instead of Mark's εὐθύς (though perhaps all such changes must be subjected to textual considerations).
- Matthew introduces the main action with an ἰδού (not paralleled here in Mark); this word is a favorite of his, and he uses it dozens of times throughout the rest of his gospel.
- Matthew uses the participle προσελθών where Mark has ἔρχεται πρός, in keeping with his preference (compared to Mark) for subordinating phrases rather than joining independent verbs. Similarly, he uses λέγων instead of καὶ λέγει a bit further down.
- Matthew has the leper bow down to or worship (προσκυνέω) Jesus (not paralleled here in Mark), just as he has people do throughout the rest of his gospel (2.2, 8, 11; 9.18; 14.33; 15.25; 20.20; 28.9, 17). Mark has this happen only once (at 5.6; the instance in 15.19 is in mockery).
- Matthew has the leper address Jesus with the vocative κύριε (not paralleled here in Mark), a rather common feature of this gospel but very rare in Mark (occurring only at 7.28, I think).
- Matthew uses the verb καθαρίζω here in conjunction with leprosy, just as he does a couple of times elsewhere (10.8; 11.5), but this is the only pericope in which Mark uses the verb in conjunction with leprosy.
- Matthew uses the phrase ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, which appears in Mark only here, in parallel with Matthew, but thrice elsewhere in Matthew (12.49; 14.31; 26.51).
- Matthew uses the word δῶρον (not paralleled here in Mark), which appears only once in Mark (at 7.11) but multiple times in Matthew (2.11; 5.23-24; 15.5; 23.18-19). In three of those other instances the verb προσφέρω is used in conjunction with δῶρον, just as here in this pericope.
- Matthew has Jesus command the leper to show his cleansing to the priests as a testimony to them, which seems quite fitting given the setting of this pericope immediately after the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus comes off as a new Moses. There is no such Mosaic context for this pericope in Mark.
So my question (and it is a serious one, not merely rhetorical) is this: what arguments from style would you make in favor of Mark not using sources which would not simultaneously suggest that Matthew, too, did not use sources?
Ben.