From: Stephen Carlson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Dec 15 1995 - 11:42:37 EST
For convenience' sake, I present the verses under discussion synoptically:
Mt9:16 OUDEIS DE EPIBALLEI EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS AGNAFOU
Mk2:21 OUDEIS EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS AGNAFOU EPIRAPTEI
Lk5:36 ... OUDEIS EPIBLHMA APO hIMATIOU KAINOU SXISAS EPIBALLEI
Mt9 EPI hIMATION PALAION: AIREI GAR TO PLHRWMA AUTOU APO hIMATION
Mk2 EPI hIMATION PALAION: EI DE MH AIREI TO PLHRWMA AP' AUTOU
Lk5 EPI hIMATION PALAION: EI DE MH GE
Mt9 KAI XEIRON SXISMA GINETAI
Mk2 TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU KAI XEIRON SXISMA GINETAI
Lk5 KAI TO KAINON SXISEI KAI TWi PALAIWi OU SUMFWNETAI TO E. TO APO TOU KAINOU
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I want to continue the discussion of Marcan Greek that is at best
> substandard (in comparison, certainly to Matthean and Lucan Greek) and at
> worst barbarous.
> While I don't really want to make a big issue of source criticism here, I
> will comment in passing, as I cite the versions of the three synoptics,
> that I cannot imagine the Marcan text ever having been written as an
> improvement upon or a conceivable condensation of either the Matthean or
> Lucan form of the text.
I don't want to make a big issue of it either, but Mark's Greek here
presents little difficulty for the Matthean priority, because Matthew's
Greek gives a similar problem for the subject/object of AIREI. Griesbach
advocates would say that this is a clear case of a conflation of Matthew
> 21a is unproblematic, but although the meaning of 21b is clear enough, the
> syntax is scarcely decipherable. What is the subject of AIREI? Is it TO
> PLHRWMA as a synonym for EPIBLHMA? the patch, the fill-in? "The patch pulls
> from it the new (from) the old ..." Or is TO PLHRWMA the object of AIREI,
> and the subject must then be TO KAINON? "It pulls the patch away from
> it--the new (cloth) does--from the old (cloth) ..." This is what I think is
> more likely, but I am far from happy with it, and I can't help but wonder:
> couldn't Mark have expressed himself just a little bit more clearly?
To me, it looks like TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU is just one of many
examples of Mark's dualism (a salient stylistic trait of his text).
Perhaps anticipating the new wine in old wineskins of Mk2:22 =
Mt9:17, Mark identifies TO KAINON with TO PLHRWMA = EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS
AGNAFOU; similarly TOU PALAIOU is to be identified with AUTOU =
hIMATION PALAION. Thus, TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU forms a separate
clause, sharing the previous verb by ellipsis. Once AIREI TO PLHRWMA
AP' AUTOU is understood as a separate clause, its grammatical
analysis can proceed in the same manner as the Matthean parallel.
> Here there's none of this "new and old" (the Greek phrase for the first of
> the month) in the second clause. But again there's the question: is TO
> PLHRWMA the subject or the object of AIREI? And if it's the object, then
> what is the subject? "For the patch pulls away from the garment and the rip
> gets worse." Or is it "For it pulls the patch-cloth away from the garment
> ..." What pulls? At any rate, this is a good deal clearer than Mark's
> version, from which it certainly appears to be derived. Let's look at Luke.
The real problem in both Matthew and Mark is that the two appear to
be using AIRW absolutely, without an expressed object (perhaps it
should have been a middle or passive?). I was able to find at least
one example of AIRW in the active used absolutely, but it could be a
technical expression (Ac27:13 ARANTES ASSON PARELEGONTO THN KRHTHN,
presumably AGKURAN, anchor, is implied). In this situation (Mt9:16),
it would be understood as the patch pulling at garment. Since both
Evangelists have the same construct, I can't see any source critical
inference can be drawn.
> This is the only altogether clear version of the saying. "Shreds" of KAINON
> and PALAION from the patchwork of Mark survive sufficiently, it appears, to
> indicate that this is indeed a reformulation of the Marcan text.
Or, to keep our options open, it may an extensive reworking of the
Matthean text, again perhaps in anticipation of the very next saying.
Such reworking is not entirely out of the question, because Lk5:36c
is also quite different from its Matthean (and Markan) parallel.
My only point with my source critical comments is to highlight the
fact that there is often a credible explanation for the redactional
activity of the synoptic Evangelists under all three major theories.
We are just so used to looking at it only from the standpoint of
Markan priority. The evidence from this parallel, as in many other
places, is simply inconclusive.
-- Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr. (703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT