Tue Apr 9 15:01:08 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr  9 15:01:08 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00505; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:01:08 +0500
Message-Id: <9604091857.AA32016@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" 
In-Reply-To: <31693077.6B42@ucr.campus.mci.net> from "Don Wilkins" at Apr 8, 96 03:27:51 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1821      
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Don Wilkins wrote:
>Stephen C Carlson wrote:
>> I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any
>> particular reading.  Does anyone have an example?
>
>I did a quick-and-dirty browse of Metzger's commentary and came 
>up with POLLA in Matt 9.14, which is absent from the Markan 
>parallel (2.18). The question was whether POLLA was added by 
>Matthew or by subsequent copyists, and the committee preferred 
>the first option, while granting that POLLA does not occur  in Aleph 
>(original hand) or B. Without the assumption of Markan priority, it 
>would appear that the committee would have selected the second 
>option.

Thanks for the example.  Upon reading this over, I just don't understand
how Markan priority fits into this.  The issue, it seems, that Aleph
and B are alone in lacking POLLA against the witness of the Byzantine,
Italic, Syriac, etc.  In order words, it looks like one of those places
where the joint testimony of Aleph and B could be wrong.  What I can't get
is how the assumption of Markan priority helps to confirm this over the
other option that everyone else is incorrect.

Furthermore, I noticed that Lk5:33 has a synonym, PUKNA.  What about the
possibility that it could be some kind of a harmonization to the meaning
of Luke?  If POLLA is original to Matthew, then the presence of PUKNA in
the Lukan parallel would tend to undercut one of the foundational arguments
for Markan priority: that Matthew and Luke do not know each other in Triple
Tradition except through Mark.  POLLA // PUKNA could be a counter-example.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

Back