JoeWallack

JW:
This is where we agree.


JW:
Yes, this would deprive me of so much useful information. My point (again) is that you've identified the negative agreement of "Matthew"/"Luke" as ReMarkable in establishing Priority yet failed to identify the Positive agreement here between "Mark"/"Luke" (demons tongues) as ReMarkable in establishing Priority. I'm not asking if you've done this, I'm telling you. Therefore, I don't require any response from you. Another consideration for you to ignore is that "Mark's" use of "many" here is needed to stylishly Contrast with the Ironic return at 6.1 and the use of "few". So which do you think Vork would find more likely, "Mark" wrote an original with ironic contrasting style or "Mark" edited a straight narrative into one with ironic contrasting style?

That was mean of me though to make any Type of comparison between you and Liars for Jesus and I do sincerely apologise for that. In addition I would also pray that your conclusions become as sensitive to criticism as your feelings but we both know that believing prayer is capable of accomplishing anything is superstitous nonsense. Instead I'll merely hope that my posts here have the same delayed reaction on you that the Harlequin's actions had on the Ticktockman in Ellison's classic, Repent Harlequin! Said The Ticktockman.


Best Wishes, Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Whatever you did to deserve all this, Yuri, it must have been pretty bad.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, if we accept the validity of Jeremias' argument, then what this means is that there's no "aggrandizing" here either in Mt or in Lk! (Using Bruce Brooks' term.) And so, it is only Mk that's "aggrandizing" in this pericope.

In other words, this whole thing then becomes an argument against Markan priority!

Regards,

Yuri.

PS. In regard to Ben's question (if we disregard Jeremias' argument), I've actually answered it already. This is what I said, in part,

"After all, according to the traditional Christian doctrine, one really needs to _believe_ to be saved. And since, from Mk's general perspective, those folks around Jesus didn't really believe in him, it stands to reason that not all of them were healed."

Yuri Kuchinsky

I have no idea what I did, Ben...

"Look out kid,
it's something you did
God knows when
but you're doing it again"

One thing is clear, there are a number of folks here at IIDB that don't seem to like me all that much...

But, in any case, most of them are already on my Ignore List, so the problem is solved AFAIAC.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

Yuri, I had forgotten already about your Christian doctrine explanation. Thanks for the reminder.

I have a few questions for you on Lucan priority in general and on the Bezae version of our Marcan passage in particular, but they will have to wait a day or two; my schedule is temporarily pressed.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, you apologised, so I'll reply now, but I still don't get the point of what you're saying.

I don't understand this.

I don't see the relevance of Mk 6:1.

You'll have to ask Vork about it.

Apology accepted.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Ben,

I examine all these issues in my articles that I referenced. So you can reopen these threads now, and reply to my previous arguments directly right there in these threads.

Well, that's good to know...

So it is quite obvious that the Hebrew Matthew is yet another of these Jewish-Christian gospels.

Well, it's not really so much of an exception, you know...

Because, on the one hand, we also have some very early fragments of classical literature, as well... And, on the other, we have many valuable later manuscripts of the gospels.

For example, take a look at the listing of the Old Latin manuscripts in any of the Aland editions of NT. What you'll find there is a whole bunch of OL MSS that range all the way into the 12th and 13th centuries... So here are a bunch of *medieval gospel manuscripts* that are widely considered to be very valuable in reconstructing the text of the NT!

Thus, there's no reason to dismiss Hebrew Matthew because it's preserved in medieval manuscripts.

Well, the simple answer to this is that "recentiores non deteriores".

And some of the younger MSS (such as the OT Wirceburgensis) are likewise an historical gift, and we also ought to use them.

Scepticism is all good AFAIAC, when it's properly applied...

"Eastern text"?

That's a new one to me...

As you are aware, the nomenclature in this area of TC is incredibly muddled. For at least a 100 years, there's been a lot of talk that "Western Text" is an obvious misnomer, and yet everyone still continues to use this malapropism.

And now there's also "the Eastern text"?

That's why I suggest that 'Western/Peripheral' is a much better term.

Well, all this is music to my ears, Ben.

Yes, now I see that we're basically on the same page...

Cheers,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

:rolling:

Well, I got that from somewhere (I forget where); it is not original to me. I would like to find a better way of referring to these text types and families than the usual Western, Alexandrian, Caesarean, Byzantine, and so forth.

Well, in the same chapter anyway. Lucan priority still seems quite odd to me.

This conversation has caused me to rethink the merits of manuscript age, and that is good. Yes, there may be times when the late manuscript trumps all the early ones. I certainly do not wish to give the impression of being hard and fast; it is not as if I am the most widely studied student of the text out there. There is much yet to learn.

Some questions for you on Lucan priority:

1. Is your view in any way related to the Jerusalem School hypothesis (beyond the bare fact of Lucan priority)?
2. Do you see the canonical gospel of Luke itself as prior, or just some proto-gospel that looks more like Luke than like Matthew or Mark?
3. In what way, if any, would you use the external evidence for the gospel origins (especially Papias and Justin)?

One more question, this time about the Bezae version of Mark 1.32-34: I can easily see your point that the scribe writing up Bezae probably had a certain version (call it A) of verse 34 in front of him, to which he was adding what we now know as the canonical version (call it B). However, how would we know from Bezae alone that A preceded B historically? Just because the scribe of Bezae knew A before B does not necessarily mean that A existed before B, does it?

Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

BTW, it looks like I can get the Howard text of Shem Tov here within a week or two via interlibrary loan. That will be interesting.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Ben,

This seems to be older terminology that isn't used much nowadays.

I don't think "Caesarean" is a real text-type. This just seems to be a mixture of various other text-types.

The most obvious argument for Lucan priority is the Great Omission in Luke. This is what persuaded me, originally.

When you examine the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, then you'll be able to appreciate the value of my argument re: its many Lukan features. (I see that you've already ordered Howard's HMt. I hope you'll enjoy reading both the gospel and Howard's analysis of it.)

There is much out there for all of us to learn...

The original Jerusalem School hypothesis, as formulated by Lindsey and Lockton, has a lot to recommend itself. See here for Carlson's charts,

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

But the recent research by the Jerusalem School scholars seems rather problematic to me. Unfortunately, they seem to proceed as if they've never even heard about textual criticism. They just take the Nestle/Aland text, and base all of their research on this.

Such complete disregard of textual criticism is of course very common among NT scholars today. And it's a great shame.

The latter.

Here's a simple chart of these developments, as I see them.

----------L--------------
--------/----\-----------
-------M-----\----------
------/--\-----\----------
-----/----\-----\---------
----Mk---Mt---Luke-----

More details here,

Evolutionary View of the Gospels
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=53550

In every way!

The external evidence, such as the patristic evidence, is EXTREMELY important.

Yes, that's my position.

Well, this would be rather difficult to know from Bezae alone... But the other Old Latin gospels certainly help. Because they provide some other versions of Mark 1.32-34, which tend to support Bezae part A, at least to some extent.

In order to understand these things fully, one certainly needs to consider more than just this passage alone IMHO.

You're welcome.

Yuri.