Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

To Listers:

This post is a lengthy essay in response to a reply by Leonard Maluf on the
Synoptic_L list to my essay-post, "Sleeping Disciples: Apostasy in
Gethsemane,"  which I also posted to XTalk and Kata Markon on 6/12 and 6/13.
I share my reply to Leonard here as well as Synoptic_L and XTalk because it
may be of interest to other listers.   In this present essay I respond
to Leonard by arguing that analysis of the use of the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE, and related correlative constructions, in
the Synoptic Tradition, contra Leonard, provides evidence that significantly
supports the theory of Markan priority, as well as the theory of Matthean
and Lukan dependency on Mark.  I have divided my essay into four sections:
I. Correlative Conjunctions and  Stylistic Habits of Gospel Writers; II.
Adversative, Correlative Conjunctions among Synoptic Parallels; III.
Observations; IV. Conclusion.

Any feedback by any of  you to this essay or to my earlier essay, "Sleeping
Disciples: Apostasy in Gethsemane," would be of immense help to me in
refining and improving upon my interpretation of Mark, as I work toward
publication.   I apologize for the length of the essay, but I could not make
my case otherwise.  I respect the fact that some of you may not want to plow
through the extensive and comprehensive character of my argument.   But
those of you who will take the time to do so, I would greatly benefit from
your critique.  Thank you.

Ted Weeden

In a post of June 14, 2001 at 6:17 PM on Synoptic_L, Leonard Maluf produced
this snippet from my post-essay, "Sleeping Disciples: Apostasy in
Gethsemane:"

<< Fourth, these three terms or concepts [PEIRASMOS, PNEUMA, SARX] appear
nowhere else in close proximity to each other in the NT except in Mt. 26:41,
in which case Matthew renders Mk.14:38 almost verbatim (substituting only
EISELQHTE for Mark's ELQHTE). So the evidence is quite convincing that Mark
has drawn upon the LXX: Ps. 77:39-41 for constructing Jesus' admonition to
the disciples in 14:38. >>

To this Leonard responded:

<Only, of course, if you think Mark wrote before Matthew.  The second part
of Matt 26:41 contains what could be described as a Mattheanism in Mark.
Mark never has a MEN ... DE construction on his own (without a clear
parallel in Matthew), and he even leaves off the DE in a couple of these
constructions which he (partially) borrows from Matthew (cf. 4:4 and 9:12).
On the other hand, the construction is used repeatedly by Matthew, even in
special Matthew material, and always with the complete, balanced
construction MEN ... DE  (which Mark picks up a few times).>

And now my response:

Leonard, you are correct in stating that the MEN ... DE "construction is
used repeatedly by Matthew."   It is that repetitive use by Matthew, along
with Mark, Luke and John's use of that adversative, correlative
construction, as well as other correlative constructions, that I wish to
address in response to your post.   For your post has forced me, for which I
am indebted, to look more carefully at how Matthew and the other Synoptic
authors, as well as John, use such adversative, conjunctive constructions.
As a result of taking such a careful look, I have discovered that an
analysis of the use of adversative, correlative conjunctions in the Synoptic
Tradition and John sheds significant light on both the issue of priority and
the issue of dependency within the Synoptic Tradition, issues which we each
account for differently.    I maintain Markan priority and that Matthew and
Luke were dependent upon Mark, along with Q.   As I understand it, from your
other posts, you maintain Matthean priority, with Mark and Luke dependent
upon Mark, and you reject the existence of Q.    My suggestion is that
understanding how adversative, correlative conjunctions, and related
constructions, are used, not used, or infrequently used by respective
authors in the Synoptic Tradition and John offers insight with respect to
which Gospel is prior to which, as well as whom is dependent upon whom
within the Synoptic Tradition.   To explain what I mean by this, I share now
my analysis of the ways in which the various canonical authors use the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE and related constructions.   I
begin with an examination of their stylistic habits with respect to such
constructions.

I. Correlative Conjunctions and  Stylistic Habits of Gospel Writers

With respect to Matthew's stylistic habits,  Matthew uses the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE twenty times in his Gospel.    That is more
than twice as many times as the construction occurs in within the entire
Synoptic Tradition and John, where the construction occurs a total of
thirty-five times.    The breakdown of the distribution of the use of the
MEN...DE construction within the Synoptic Tradition and John is as follows:
Matthew (20); Mark (3), Luke (7), John (5).    It is important to note at
this point, as F. Blass and A. Debrunner state  (_The Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_, trans. R. Funk, 447:2),
that "the correlative use of MEN and DE," although "greatly reduced in the
NT" is "so basically characteristic of classical style."   Matthew, who, I
submit, seems to follow this classical style in using the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE, never uses any other adversative,
correlative conjunction in his Gospel, although, as we shall see, the other
Synoptic authors do use alternative adversative, correlative conjunctions.
Moreover,  Matthew never uses MEN except in a correlative relationship with
DE, although, as Blass and Debrunner also point out (447:4), the use of the
particle MEN without DE can also be an indicator of "good classical usage."
Other New Testament writers, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, for example, use MEN
without DE.   Nor does Matthew use the resumptive construction MEN OUN...DE
(see Blass and Debrunner, 447:3; 451:1), as does Luke (see below), John
(e.g. 20:30f.) and Paul (e.g., Phil. 2:23).

With respect to Mark's stylistic habits, Mark only uses the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE three times (12:5; 14:21, 38).   Unlike
Matthew, he uses the particle MEN without its correlative DE once (4:4).
In one instance Mark uses another adversative, correlative conjunction,
MEN...ALLA (9:12).    Blass and Debrunner (447:6) make a point of noting
that in the New Testamen the particle MEN is also correlated with the
adversatives ALLA and PLHN to create other, but far less  prevalent, forms
of an adversative, correlative conjunctions.

Mark never uses the resumptive, correlative conjunction MEN OUN...DE (though
the so-called "Longer Ending of Mark" does: 16:19).   With regard to the
Johannine stylistic habits (I consider John to be dependent upon Mark for
some of his material, and thus John's stylistic habits are relevant to the
issue before us), John uses the adversative, correlative construction
MEN...DE five times (7:12; 10:41; 16:9f., 22; 19:32).   He uses the
resumptive, correlative construction MEN OUN...DE twice (19:24f.; 20:30f.).
John, like Mark, uses the particle MEN without the correlative DE once
(11:6).   None of these Johannine uses of the constructions are in texts
that have parallels to Synoptic texts.

Luke's stylistic habits with respect to the MEN...DE construction are rather
unusual.    While in his Gospel Luke only uses the adversative, correlative
conjunction MEN...DE seven times (3:16; 10:2; 11:48; 13:9, 23:33, 41; 56f.),
in Acts, he uses it seventeen times (1:5; 3:13f., 22f.; 9:7; 11:16; 13:36f.;
14:4; 17:32; 18:14f.; 19:15; 21:39; 22:9; 23:8; 27:41, 44; 28:22f., 24).
One would have thought that he would have used the construction in
essentially equal amounts in both of his works.    Luke uses the particle
MEN once in his Gospel without the correlative DE (8:5).   But in Acts he
uses MEN four times without DE (1:1; 3:21; 4:16; 27:21), which, as was noted
above, can be considered good classical style, something we would expect
from Luke.   Luke also uses another adversative, correlative conjunction,
MEN...PLHN, once in his Gospel (22:22), but he never uses the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...ALLA, as Mark does.    Moreover, with respect
to the resumptive construction MEN OUN...DE, Luke uses it once in his Gospel
(3:18), but it occurs in Acts twenty-three times (1:6f.; 2:41f.; 5:41ff.
8:4f., 25f.; 9:31f.; 11:19f.; 12:5f.; 13:4ff.; 14:3f.; 15:3f., 30f.; 16:5f.;
17:12f., 17f., 30ff.; 19:32f., 38f.; 23:18f.,31f.; 25:4,11; 28:5f.), the
greatest usage of that construction by any New Testament writer.   Luke also
uses the resumptive conjunction MEN OUN  without DE four times in Acts
(1:18;  23:22; 26:4, 9), but never in his Gospel..

The upshot of this analysis of the stylistic habits of the four evangelists
is that Matthew, of all of them, is clearly the most liberal in the copious
use of  the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE throughout his
Gospel.   But Matthew is, on the other hand, the most conservative of all in
sticking strictly to the MEN...DE construction and not deviating to use any
other alternative adversative, correlative conjunction, as well as never
using the resumptive construction MEN OUN...DE, or ever permitting the
particle MEN to appear in his text without its correlative DE.   The other
striking phenomena revealed by this analysis are (1) Luke's very
conservative use of the MEN...DE construction in his Gospel, in contrast to
his copious use of it in Acts, and (2) Luke's rare use of the resumptive
construction MEN OUN...DE in his Gospel, in contrast to his copious use of
it in Acts. The significance of these Matthean and Lukan stylistic phenomena
is that, in my judgment, they help to shed light upon which way the vectors
of dependency flow with respect to the respective Synoptic Gospels.    I
shall return below to elucidate what I have in mind in making this claim.

With regard to the other evangelists, Mark and John, unlike Matthew and Luke
in Acts, do not seem to be wedded to using the MEN...DE construction, as is
characteristic of good classical Greek style.   This fact in itself is not
surprising since neither Gospel rises to the level of good classical Greek
rhetoric.

But before I draw upon the insights that emerge from this stylistic analysis
regarding the nature of dependency of one Synoptic Gospel on another, I need
to first turn to an examination of the parallel usage or lack of usage of
the MEN...DE construction and related  constructions among the Synoptic
writers to expose important clues both with regard to the issue of Synoptic
priority and the issue of Synoptic dependency.    The focus of such an
examination begins with the parallels shared in common by Matthew, Mark and
Luke, specifically parallels in which at least one of them--- and as it
turns out Matthew --- uses the MEN...DE and related constructions..

Since Matthew contains the greatest number of the adversative, correlative
conjunction MEN...DE to be found in the Synoptic Tradition and John, and
since you, Leonard, advocate Matthean priority, along with Markan and Lukan
dependency upon Matthew, I will use Matthew as the comparative base against
which the use or lack of use of the MEN...DE construction, and related
correlative, conjunctive constructions, in the rest of the Synoptic
Tradition and John will be analyzed.    The analysis will help to determine
which way the vector of dependency flows with respect to the respective
Gospels and where, as a result, priority with regard to the Synoptic
Tradition should be attributed.

In establishing this Matthean base of comparison, it should be noted at the
outset that of the twenty Matthean occurrences of the MEN...DE construction
(3:11; 9:37; 10:13; 13:4, 8, 23, 32; 16:3, 14; 17:11; 20:23; 21:35; 22:5, 8;
23:27, 28; 25:15, 33; 26:24, 41), seven (13:4, 8, 23, 32; 16:14; 21:35;
26:24) are found in Matthean passages which are parallel to or embedded in
contexts which are parallel to Markan and Lukan material (Mt. 13:4/Mk.
4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk. 4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk. 4:23/Lk. 8:15; Mt.
13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt. 16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19; Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3
(5)/Lk. 20:10; Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22).   There are eight Matthean
uses of the MEN...DE construction in Matthean passages (3:11; 9:37; 10:13;
16:3; 22:5, 8; 23:27; 25:15) which are parallel to or embedded in contexts
which are parallel to Lukan texts (3:16; 10:2, 6; 12:56; 14:18, 21; 11:44f.;
19:13, respectively).     There are three Matthean uses of the MEN...DE
construction in Matthean passages (17:11; 20:23; 26:41) which have parallels
in Mark (9:12; 10:39; 26:41, respectively) but not in Luke.   There is one
Matthean passage which contains the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE (23:28) for which there is no Lukan parallel, though the Matthean
passage is embedded in a larger Matthean context, some of which (23:23-36)
is  parallel to a corresponding Lukan context (11:42-51).     And there is
one Matthean passage which contains the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE (25:33) for which there is no parallel in either the Synoptic
Tradition or John.    That passage is found in the Matthean context of the
so-called "Parable of the Last Judgment" (Mt. 25:31-46).

II. Adversative, Correlative Conjunctions among Synoptic Parallels
  A. Matthean, Markan and Lukan Parallels

I turn to examine the seven Matthean passages, containing the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE  (13:4, 8, 23, 32; 16:14; 21:35; 26:24)
which have parallels or possible parallels in passages found in both Mark
and Luke (Mt. 13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk. 4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk.
4:20/Lk. 8:15; Mt. 13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt. 16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19;
Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3 (5)/Lk. 20:10).   In the case of five of these Markan and
Lukan parallels to Matthean passages (Mt. 13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk.
4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk. 4:20/Lk. 8:15; Mt. 13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt.
16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19; Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22), neither Mark nor
Luke uses the MEN...DE construction, in contrast to Matthew.   However, in
one (Mt. 13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5) of these five parallels, it should be noted,
Mark and Luke do use the particle MEN where Matthew uses it.   But they
agree together against Matthew in not using its correlative DE which is
found in the Matthean text.   I shall address the significance of this
Markan and Lukan agreement against Matthew in detail below.

In the case of one of the seven aforementioned parallels, Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3
(5)/Lk. 20:10, it is clear that Luke is not in agreement with the use of the
adversative, correlative conjunction in his parallel text (Lk. 20:10).
Whether Mark and Matthew are in actual agreement with each other in the use
of the MEN...DE construction is more difficult to determine.    At first
blush, it would appear that both Matthew and Mark do use the MEN...DE
construction but not exactly at the same point in the narrative of the
parallel texts.   The context, in which these Matthean and Markan texts with
MEN...DE construction appear, is the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt.
21:33-46/Mk. 12:1-12/Lk. 20:9-19), a parable which in itself creates all
kinds of knotty problems for assessing which of the Gospels' different'
versions is closest to the original way the parable was told.    Many
commentators have argued that the original parable can best be recovered
from Mark.   John Dominic Crossan (_In Parables_, 89-94) makes a strong case
for the version in the Gospel of Thomas (65) being closest to the original.
Still others have suggested that the Lukan version of the parable shows
signs of drawing upon a parabolic source independent of all its cousins (cf.
Brandon Scott, _Hear Then the Parable_, 237-253, for a discussion of the
multitude of hermeneutical problems facing any interpreter of the parable).

In the section of the parable which concerns us here, the section in which
Matthew and Mark both introduce the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE (Mt. 21:34-36/Mk. 12:2-5/Lk. 20:10-12), but position it differently
in the weave of the narrative (Mt. 21:35; Mk. 12:5), there is strong
evidence, in my judgment, that at this point of the parable Mark's version
is closer to the structure and much of the content of the original parable
than is Matthew's.    Mark describes three sendings of single servants
(12:2-5), who are respectively beaten, (12:3) wounded in the head (a Markan
redactional allusion to John the Baptist: see Crossan, _Parables_, 85),
treated shamefully (12:4), and killed.(12:5a).   Then Mark concludes this
section of the parable, about tenant mistreatment of three of the vineyard
owners' servants, with a general summary statement about mistreatment of
others, a summary statement in which Mark employs the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE (12:5b): KAI POLLOUS ALLOUS, OUS MEN
DEPONTES, OUS DE APOKTENNONTES ("And many others, some of whom they beat and
some they killed").

In the Matthean section (21:35f.), which is a counterpart to the Markan
passage, 12:3-5, Matthew states that the owner of the vineyard "sent
servants to the tenants to get his fruit."  Then Matthew follows with this
passage which contains the MEN...DE construction: KAI LABONTES hOI  GEWRGOI
TOUS  DOULOUS AUTOU ON MEN EDEIRAN, ON DE APEKTEINAN ON DE ELIQOBOLHSAN
("And the tenants seized his servants, one they beat and another they killed
and another they stoned").   In the Matthean version, rather than the three
separate sendings of three respective, individual servants, as is the case
in the Markan (12:3-5) and also Lukan (20:10-12) versions, Matthew offers
what might be regarded as a general summarry statement of the response of
the tenants toward particular servants sent to get the fruit.  Thus, unlike
Mark and Luke, Matthew does not narrate the tenants' response in three
discrete narrative units which describe the ill-fate suffered by three
individual servants at the hands of the tenants on three separate occasions.

Two factors suggest to me that the Matthean version is secondary to the
Markan.   First, as Brandon Scott reminds us, the sending of "a single
servant [at a time] is more realistic, and three sendings follow the
[folkloric] law of three common to parables" (cf. also Crossan,_In
Parables_, 91).   Luke  (Lk. 12:10-12) and Thomas (65:2-5) also use this
structural pattern, Scott speaks of, by narrating individual sequences of
single servants being sent to the vineyard multiple times.   Luke, like
Mark, adopts the folkloric pattern of threesome by narrating three separate
sendings of the servants.  Thomas also uses the same folkloric pattern of
three, but his threesome consists of sending single servants twice (65:2-5),
followed by the sending of the son in the parable's finale (65:6-7).   Thus,
as far as the elements of the parabolic structure and narrative episodes are
concerned, Mark, Luke and Thomas agree with each other more than any one of
them agrees with Matthew against another.   The evidence is very strong for
making the case that of the four versions of the parable, Matthew's version
appears to be secondary in its development when compared to the other three.
And, consequently, with respect to whom is dependent on whom, Mark on
Matthew or Matthew on Mark, Matthew clearly seems to be dependent upon Mark
in this case.

The second factor which suggests that Matthew's version is secondary to
Mark, and thus dependent upon Mark, is this: Matthew seems to have a
different agenda with respect to the hermeneutical spin being imposed on the
parable from that of Mark, a spin which, I suggest, led Matthew to reshape
and condense the Markan material.   As Crossan points out (_In Parables_,
86), Matthew's version--- in which the sending of  "servants" as a group in
the initial scene (vs. Mark's three scenes of three sendings of a different
single servant), is followed by a sending of another group of "servants" in
a second scene (21:35f.)--- represents Matthew's reorganization of the
sendings for his own allegorical purposes.   Namely, in Matthew's
allegorical construct "the first group of servants [represent] the early
prophets and the second group [represent] the later ones" (Crossan, _In
Parables_, 86).  Once again, Matthew's version appears secondary to the
Markan version as a result of Matthew having devised two separate groups of
servants from the Markan material in order to make his allegorical point.

Since Matthew's version is secondary to Mark, and consequently---- with
respect to the issue of dependency--- Matthew must be dependent upon Mark,
then Matthew must have been dependent upon Mark for the Markan MEN...DE
construction in Mk. 12:5.   I submit that Matthew adopted that MEN...DE
construction from Mark in Matthew's rewrite of the parable and included it
in the sending of the first group of prophets (21:35), rather than using the
MEN...DE construction in its original position in Mark, where it is found in
a summary description following the three sendings.    The MEN...DE
construction serves, in my judgment, a similar function in both Gospels.
The adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE  helps facilitate the
summation point being made by both Mark and Matthew, in the respective
contexts, with regard to the tenants' general treatment of the servants sent
by the vineyard owner.

Before leaving this matter regarding whom is dependent on whom for the use
of the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in the Parable of the
Wicked Husbandmen, the question remains to be addressed, namely: why did
Luke not also adopt the MEN...DE construction from, depending upon the Lukan
vector of dependency,  his Markan or Matthean source?   To answer this
question requires a closer look at what Luke is about in his parallel
version.   Luke, in his version of the third sending of a single servant,
supplies a different fate for that servant ("wounded and cast out," 12:12)
from that given by Mark to the third servant ("him they killed," 12:5).   In
this instance Luke appears to possess, perhaps, a different version of the
parable, or perhaps he has reworked the Markan parable to make the third
rather than the second servant's fate that of being wounded (Lk. 20:11-12
vis-a-vis Mk. 12:4-5).   In any case, Luke does not conclude this section of
his parable with a summation point, as does Mark (12:5b) or Matthew, earlier
on, for that matter (21:35).   Perhaps in the interest of economy of words
and terse, dramatic movement, Luke decided not to include the summary
statement about the tenants' general treatment of the vineyard owner's
servants, which Luke found in his Synoptic source.   Luke's decision against
using such a summary statement, which contained the MEN...DE construction in
both the Matthean and Markan versions, meant that Luke did not need to
incorporate the MEN...DE construction into his version of the parable.

To return now, to the examination of the seven Matthean passages containing
the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE, passages which have
parallels found in Mark and Luke, I give attention to the last of the seven
parallels.   The parallel, Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22, is a parallel in
which it is clear that Mark and Matthew agree together against Luke.   Or to
put it another way, a parallel in which it is clear that Luke disagrees with
Mark and Matthew.   And in this instance Luke's disagreement with them is
not just a case of deciding not to use the MEN...DE construction, as was the
case in the parallel I just examined.   No, in this case Luke, like Matthew
and Mark, does, in fact, use an adversative, correlative conjunction in his
parallel (22:22) to the Matthean and Markan passages, but it is not
MEN...DE.   The adversative, correlative conjunction Luke chooses to use at
this point is MEN...PLHN, which turns out to be a *hapax* construction not
only for Luke but also the entire the New Testament.

Luke's unusual departure from using the MEN... DE construction in Lk.
22:22--- as both Matthew and Mark do--- to choosing to use MEN...PLHN as an
adversative, correlative conjunction can, however, be easily explained.
First of all Luke's recourse to PLHN as the second term of the correlative
instead of DE is not a case of Luke forsaking the familiar particle DE for a
rare adversative.  On the contrary, PLHN is one of Luke's favorite
adversatives.   He uses it  fifteen times in his Gospel (6:24, 35; 10:11,
14, 20; 11:14; 12:31; 13:33; 17:1; 18:8; 19:27; 22:21, 22, 42; 23:8), only
four times less than the nineteen times he uses the adversative ALLA (1:60;
5:14, 31, 32, 38; 6:27; 7:7, 25, 26; 8:52; 11:42; 12:7; 16:21; 20:38; 22:36,
42; 24:6, 21, 22).   In comparison Matthew uses PLHN five times (11:22, 24;
18:7; 26:39, 64) vs. the twenty-five times he utilizes ALLA as an
adversative (5:17; 6:13, 18; 8:4, 8; 9:13, 17, 18, 24; 10:20, 34; 11:8, 9;
13:21; 15:11; 16:12, 23; 17:12; 18:22, 30; 19:6; 20:28; 21:21; 22:32;
27:24).   Mark uses PLHN only once (12:32) vs. the twenty-seven times he
employs ALLA as an adversative (1:44; 2:17, 22; 3:26, 29; 4:17; 5:19, 26,
39; 6:9; 7:5, 15; 8:33; 9:8, 13, 37; 10:8, 45; 11:23, 32; 12:27; 13:11, 20,
24; 14: 28, 36; 16:7).    Moreover, of the thirty-one uses of PLHN in the
New Testament (in addition to the twenty-five in Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts
cited here, six uses are found in I Cor. 11:11; Eph. 5:33; Phil. 1:18; 3:16;
4:14; Rev. 2:25) almost exactly half are found in Luke's Gospel and another
four (8:1; 15:28; 20:23; 27:22) are found in Acts.   Luke likes the
adversative PLHN.

Luke uses the adversative PLHN when he wants to create a very strong and
emphatic contrast.   That is why he uses PLHN in both Lk. 22:22, the verse
paralleling Mt. 26:24 and Mk. 14:21 (which are virtual textual twins), and
the preceding verse, Lk. 22:21.  As  Joseph Fitzmyer points out, (_The
Gospel of Luke X-XXIV_, 1409), Luke's use of PLHN twice at this point in his
narrative is intended to draw a sharp contrast between two episodes: (1) the
episode of Jesus administering the bread and cup of the last supper, and (2)
the episode of Jesus identifying his betrayer.  As the Lukan Jesus'
attention shifts from the administering the bread and cup to his betrayer,
Luke has Jesus express his condemnation of the betrayer in these excoriating
words (22:21f.): PLHN IDOU hH CEIR TOU PARADIDONTOS ME MET' EMOU EPI  THS
TRAPEZHS.   hOTI h UIOS  MEN TOU ANQPWPOU  KATA TO  hWRISMENON  POREUTEI,
PLHN OUAI  TW ANQRWPW EKEINW  DI' OU PARADIDOTAI ("But behold the hand of
him who betrays me is with me on the table.   For the Son of the Human goes
as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!").

Luke, I submit, at this point wanted to dramatize in the most emphatic way
the contrast between the sharing of the bread and cup, and its theological
meaning, with the gravity of the offense of the betrayer, and its
theological meaning.  The adversative, correlative conjunction with OUAI,
namely, MEN...OUAI  DE, in my judgment, was just too "wimpish" to achieve
the dramatic effect Luke wanted.   So he substituted his own construction
MEN...PLHN OUAI for the construction MEN...OUAI  DE which he found in his
source.   I refrain for a moment from identifying which was his source,
Matthew or Mark, until I have completed my analysis of the parallel
relationships among the three Gospels.

Not only was this Luke's rhetorical choice for dramatizing emphatic impact,
but also, in keeping with driving home the theological point regarding the
heinous crime of the betrayer, PLHN was precisely the adversative he needed
to introduce the woe against the betrayer.   For PLHN is precisely the
adversative that Luke uses elsewhere in his Gospel to drive home the
theological gravity of what is damnable.   Luke uses this same exclamatory
declaration PLHN OUAI  to introduce the damning woes against the rich, the
full, those who can laugh now, and those who have high public-opinion-poll
ratings (6:24f.) and the damning woes against those who are tempted ---
tempted, particularly, to sin against a fellow Christian (17:1-3)   So it is
that, in my judgment, Luke felt the woe against Judas could only be
sufficiently and emphatically stated, if when he appropriated the
adversative, correlative conjunction found in his source, it was altered by
substituting PLHN OUAI for the source's OUAI  DE.  And what again was Luke's
Synoptic source?   It is to the summation of this analysis of parallel texts
shared in common among the three Synoptics, in which the Matthean parallel
at least contained the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE, that I
turn now to answer that question.

In sum, this examination of the seven Synoptic parallels has, in effect,
shown that in five instances in which there is an MEN...DE construction in
Matthean passages which have parallels in Markan and Lukan texts (Mt.
13:4/Mk. 4:4/Lk. 8:5; Mt. 13:8/Mk. 4:8/Lk. 8:8; Mt. 13:23/Mk. 4:20/Lk. 8:15;
Mt. 13:32/Mk. 4:31/Lk. 13:19; Mt. 16:14/Mk. 8:28/Lk. 9:19), Mark and Luke
clearly agree against Matthew in Matthew's use of the adversative,
correlative conjunction.   In those instances, moreover, Luke gives every
appearance of manifesting a strong dependency upon Mark.   In those five
instances Luke shows no substantial evidence of dependency upon Matthew. .

In the two cases where Matthew and Mark appear to agree against Luke, I have
shown that in one (Mt. 21:35/Mk. 12:3 (5)/Lk. 20:10), at least, Matthew was
dependent upon Mark.   With regard to the other (Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk.
22:22), the vector of dependency could be read to flow either way, from
Matthew to Mark or Mark to Matthew.   But, in at least six out of the seven
parallels, the evidence points more strongly to a Matthean dependency upon
Mark than a Markan dependency on Matthew.   In my judgment the examination
of these parallels in "the triple tradition" makes a very strong case for
both Markan priority and Matthean and Lukan dependency on Mark.

If it is true that an analysis of the aforementioned parallels of "the
triple tradition," provide strong evidence for the support of the theory of
Markan priorty and for the theory of Matthean and Lukan dependency upon
Mark, then what about the parallels between Matthew and Luke with respect to
the use of the adversative correlative conjunctive MEN...DE in those
passages for which there are no Markan parallels?    What evidence do they
provide with respect to the issues of Synoptic priority and Synoptic
dependency?   It is to those passages that I now turn.

  B. Matthean and Lukan Parallels, sans Markan Parallels

There are eight Matthean uses of the MEN...DE construction in Matthean
passages (3:11; 9:37; 10:13; 16:3; 22:5, 8: 23:27; 25:15) which might have
possible parallels in Lukan texts (3:16; 10:2, 6; 12:56; 14:18, 21; 11:44;
19:13, respectively) but not in Markan texts.   In the case of two of these
Matthean texts, Mt. 3:11 and 9:37, there are clear Lukan parallels, Lk. 3:16
and 10:2, respectively, parallels in which Luke agrees with Matthew in the
use of the MEN...DE construction.   In the case of two other of these eight
Matthean texts, Mt, 10:13 and 16:3, again there are Lukan parallels, Lk.
10:6 and 12:56, respectively, but in those Lukan parallels Luke does not use
the MEN...DE construction, as Matthew does in his texts.

With respect to the four remaining Matthean texts,  can an argument be made
for there being possible parallels in Lukan texts according to the following
alignment of the Matthean texts and corresponding Lukan texts: namely, Mt.
22:5/Lk. 14:18; Mt. 22:8/Lk. 14:21; Mt. 25:15/Lk. 19:13; Mt.23:27/Lk. 11:44
?    In the case of two of the possible parallels, Mt. 22:5/Lk. 14:18 and
Mt. 22:8/Lk. 14:21, while the larger contexts are obviously two different
versions of the same parable, the Parable of the Great Banquet ( Mt.
22:2-14/Lk. 14:16-24), the particular segments of the parable represented by
Mt. 22:5/Lk. 14:18 and Mt. 22:8/Lk. 14:21 have such significant differences
in content that, in my judgment, the respective Matthean and Lukan texts are
not actually parallel to one another.   If it is argued that Luke is
dependent upon Matthew,, then Luke has performed a substantial rewrite of
these particular Matthean texts and in doing so did not include the Matthean
MEN...DE constructions in either text in his rewrite.

The same can be said for the proposed parallel, Mt. 25:15/Lk. 19:13.
Again, the specific Matthean and Lukan texts are found in the larger
contexts of two different versions of the same parable, the Parable of the
Entrusted Money (Mt. 25:14-30/Lk.19:12-27), but the texts of Mt. 25:15 and
Lk. 19:13 differ so radically in content that they are not themselves, in my
judgment, parallel to one another.    Once more, if Luke is dependent upon
Matthew, then Luke has engaged in a substantial rewrite of this particular
Matthean text, and in doing so did not include the Matthean MEN...DE
construction in his rewrite of the Matthean text.

As far as the possibility that Mt.23:27 may have a parallel in Lk. 11:44, it
is possible that the Matthean woe against the Pharisees (23:27), in which
the Pharisees are likened to "whitewashed tombs," is analogous and therefore
parallel to the Lukan woe against the Pharisees (11:44), in which the
Pharisees are likened to "graves which are not seen."   But I find it a
tremendous logical stretch to identify those two passages as parallel to one
another.    If it is argued that Luke has taken the woe from Matthew and
reworked its imagery, then Luke did so without any interest in including
Matthew's MEN...DE construction in his imagistic syntax.

Thus what has emerged from an analysis of possible Matthean and Lukan
parallels, sans Mark, in which the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE occurs in the Matthean text is this.   There are two clear Matthean
and Lukan parallels in which Luke agrees with Matthew in using the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE (Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16 and Mt.
9:37/Lk. 10:2).   In the case of six other possible parallels, there is
either no substantial evidence that actual parallels exist or if parallels
do exist, the Lukan parallel does not agree with the Matthean text in the
use of the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE.

As far as dependency is concerned, two of the cases where there is agreement
between Matthew and Luke with respect to the use of the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE (Mt. 3:11/Lk.3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2),
could be used as evidence that Luke is dependent upon Matthew.    Similarly,
it could be argued in yet two more cases, Mt.10:13/Lk. 10:6 and Mt. 16:3/Lk.
12:56, that parallels exists between the Matthean and Lukan texts, and,
therefore, that Luke is dependent upon Matthew in those instances.    But
then one would have to explain why it is that Luke did not follow suit with
Matthew and use the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in his
texts which are parallel to the Matthean texts.   In the case of four other
instances of possible parallels which were explored, since it was found that
there are no parallels existing between the respective Matthean and Lukan
texts, then those four instances way heavily against the cause for Lukan
dependency upon Matthew.    I will return below to offer an explanation for
why Matthew and Luke agree with each other in the use of the MEN...DE
conjunction in the case of the Matthean and Lukan parallels, Mt. 3:11/Lk.
3:16 and Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2, in contrast with their disagreement with its use
in other parallels..

  C. Matthean and Markan Parallels, sans Lukan Parallels

There are three Matthean uses of the MEN...DE construction in Matthean
passages (17:11; 20:23; 26:41) that have parallels in Mark (9:12; 10:39;
26:41, respectively) but not in Luke.   In only one of these Markan
parallels (14:38) does Mark agree with Matthew in using the MEN...DE
construction.   In one of the parallels Mark does use an adversative,
correlative conjunction, namely MEN...ALLA (9:12)--- a *hapax* in Mark and
the Gospels--- where the MEN...DE construction appears in Matthew (17:11).

  D. Other Stylistic Indicators

To complete this analysis, it should be noted (1) that Luke does use the
MEN...DE construction in four passages (13:9, 23: 33, 41) which have no
parallels in the Synoptic Tradition, (2) that John, as noted earlier, uses
the MEN...DE construction in five passages (7:12; 10:41; 16:9f., 22;
19:32f.) which have no parallels in the Synoptic Tradition, and (3) that
Luke uses the resumptive conjunction MEN OUN...DE, a favorite of his in
Acts, only once in his Gospel (3:18), its only occurrence in the entire
Synoptic Tradition----though John uses it twice (19:24; 20:30f.).

III. Observations

Now what observations can be drawn from this foregoing analysis?   I offer
the following:

(1) Given the fact that Luke so favors the use of the MEN...DE construction
in Acts, it is strange that he uses it so infrequently in his Gospel.   In
fact, in his Gospel he uses it over twice as much in his special material
(11:48; 13:9; 23:33, 41, 56-24:1) as he does in passages having Synoptic
parallels; and those parallels, two of them, are found only in Matthean
texts (Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2).    If it is argued that Luke
is dependent upon Matthew and not on Mark it is strange that Luke would not
have followed suit with Matthew and incorporated more of the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE  when he found it in his Matthean source.
However, if Luke was dependent upon Mark, the scarcity of MEN...DE
constructions in his Gospel can be explained by the fact that the Markan
texts Luke appropriated did not contain an adversative, correlative
conjunction for him to appropriate.   Moreover, for whatever the reasons,
three of the four Markan texts in which such a construction does appear (Mk.
9:12; 12:5; 14:38), Luke chose not to use in his Gospel.    In the case of
the one Markan text with the MEN...DE construction which Luke did
appropriate, Mk. 14:21, Luke chose to modify its adversative correlative
conjunctive to MEN...ALLA to suit his own purposes, as I have argued above
with respect to Lk. 22:22.

(2) Given this Lukan rhetorical pattern, and in view  of Luke's fondness for
the MEN...DE construction in Acts, it is easier to explain why he so seldom
uses the MEN...DE construction in his Gospel, as due to the fact that---- if
Luke was dependent upon Mark--- his Markan source did not contain the
construction when he appropriated from it, than it is to explain why --- if
Luke was dependent upon Matthew--- he would have chosen to incorporate the
MEN...DE construction on only two occasions he found it in his Matthean
texts (Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2) and passed up sixteen other
opportunities he had to appropriate the construction from Matthean passages
(Mt. 10:13/Lk. 10:6; Mt. 16:3/Lk. 12:56; Mt. 22:5/Lk. 14:18; Mt.
22:8/Lk.14:21; Mt. 23:27/Lk. 11:44; Mt. 25:15/Lk. 19:13).   In my judgment,
the two occasions in which Luke is in agreement with Matthew with respect to
using the MEN...DE construction is not because Luke is using Matthew as a
source.    But rather Luke is using Q as a source   Again in my judgment, Q
3:16 and Q 10:2 contained the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE
(see the IPQ reconstruction of Q, as set forth by James Robinson, Paul
Hoffman and John Kloppenborg, _The Critical Edition of Q_
[henceforth:_CEQ_], 14, 160).    When Luke copied those two Q texts, he
appropriated their adversative, correlative conjunctions.   Likewise,
Matthew, when he copied the Q texts, did the same.   That is why there is
agreement between Matthew and Luke with respect to their respective uses of
the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in the two passages in
which they do not share parallel material in common with Mark (Mt. 3:11/Lk.
3:16; Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2).   Parenthetically, the number of uses Q makes of
the adversative, correlative conjunction (2) approximates closely the number
of uses that Mark (3) and John (5) make of the same adversative
construction, particularly when consideration is given to the fact that the
Gospels of Mark and John are much larger documents than is the reconstructed
Q.

(3) It is clear that Luke is not reluctant to use the MEN...DE construction
in his Gospel (11:48; 13:9; 23:33, 41, 56-24:1), as well as the resumptive
construction MEN OUN...DE (3:18), both favorites of his in Acts, when
incorporating his own special material.   Yet,  despite Luke's penchant for
the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE and the resumptive,
correlative construction MEN OUN...DE in Acts, he appears to introduce them
in his Gospel only if his sources contained them in material he chose to
appropriate or when he introduces them on his own via his own special
material.  Thus, I submit, with respect to Luke's use of these constructions
in his Gospel, that Luke followed a pattern of only using the constructions
if his sources contained them in material he chose to appropriate or if he
was producing material unrelated to his sources.   This pattern leads me
further to conclude that Luke was not using Matthew as a source.   Rather, I
am convinced that Luke was dependent upon Mark and Q.

Consequently both this Lukan practice which I have just described and Luke's
dependency upon Mark, as well as Matthew's dependency upon Mark, are all
confirmed by an analysis of the use of the particle MEN without its
correlative DE by Mark and Luke in their respective versions of the Parable
of the Sower (Mk.4:4; Lk. 8:5) vis-a-vis Matthew's use of the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE twice in his version of that parable
(13:4f., 8).   Earlier, I drew attention to the fact that Mark's use of the
particle MEN without its correlative particle DE in this parabolic text is
the only occasion in which Mark uses the particle MEN without DE in his
Gospel.   I also noted that, in the case of the material parallels existing
among Matthew, Mark and Luke in Mt. 13:4f/Mk, 4:4/Lk. 8:5,  this was one of
those instances in which Luke clearly agrees with Mark against Matthew in
using the particle MEN without its correlative DE.   I noted also that it
was not unusual for Luke in Acts to use the particle MEN without DE.    So
the fact that Luke follows the Markan suit of using MEN without DE in this
particular passage in the Parable of the Sower should not lead one to the
judgment that this stylistic anomaly is                    "unLukan."

What is surprising, as I have also pointed out, is that--- if Luke was
dependent upon Matthew ---  he did not follow Matthew in appropriating the
Matthean MEN...DE construction when he found it in the parable in its two
Matthean textual locations (Mt. 13:4f., 8).    It is particularly
surprising ---  if again Luke was independent upon Matthew ---  that Luke in
8:15 would have chosen only to appropriate the particle MEN from Matthew,
rather than the entire Matthean adversative, correlative conjunction from
Mt. 13:8, given his preference for the MEN...DE construction in Acts, which
far exceeds, in number of occurrences, his use of the particle MEN without
DE (see above).

So a preliminary assessment of Lukan agreement with Mark over against
Matthew, with respect to the use of the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE in the Parable of the Sower, suggests that Luke is indeed dependent
upon Mark, at least in the case of this particular parable.   That
preliminary assessment is verified by the evidence that can be extrapolated
from an exploration of the history of the evolution of the different
versions of the Parable of the Sower as they are reflected in Matthew
(13:3-8), Mark (8:3-8), Luke (8:5-8) and the Gospel of Thomas (9).  Many
commentators consider the Markan version, when stripped of secondary
emendations, to be closest to the way in which Jesus told the parable
originally (I have provided an argument for a reconstruction of the parable
in its original form in my "Recovering the Parabolic Intent in the Parable
of the Sower," _JAAR_, 1979:97-106).   John Dominic Crossan has argued for
the Gospel of Thomas as having the version of the parable closest to its
original state, and Crossan offers a different reconstruction of the
original parable  (see _Cliffs of Fall_, 25-64).   Whether the Gospel of
Thomas or Mark hold the key to the original need not occupy attention here.

But it is clear from my analysis of the different Synoptic versions of the
parable, as well as Crossan's, that among the Synoptic versions, Mark is the
source for both the Matthean and Lukan versions.   It is not possible to
rehearse all the argument here for that conclusion.   But let me cite one
facet of that argument as it addresses the respective Matthean, Markan and
Lukan endings of the parable.   The productivity of the seeds sown on good
ground is variously stated by the three Synoptic evangelists.   Matthew
tells us, with the help of his adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE, that the seeds produced "some (hO MEN) a hundredfold, some (hO DE)
sixty, some thirty" (13:8). Luke tells us that the seeds "yielded a
hundredfold" (8:8), and Mark records that the seeds yielded "thirtyfold and
sixtyfold and a hundredfold" (4:8).

It is clear that, of the three versions of the parabolic ending, the Markan
version ends with the most dramatic, the most positive and the most
triumphal finale, a finale made even more dramatic in that it follows upon
three tragic defeats experienced in agricultural failure (4:4-7).   By
citing the increasing yield of the seed sown on good ground according to a
scale of ever-escalating, extraordinary abundance, an upward spiraling to
higher and higher quantities (30-60-100), Mark (better: the historical
Jesus) effectively and triumphantly reverses the defeat experienced in the
downward spiral of agricultural failure in the instances of sowing on the
path, rocky ground and among thorns (4:4-7).    By comparison, Luke's simple
conclusion that the seed "grew and yielded a hundredfold" (8:8) seems rather
prosaic and limp.    And Matthew's ending, which depicts the grain as
producing in an order of decreasing magnitude, namely, "one hundredfold,
sixtyfold and thirtyfold" (13:8), actually brings the parable to an end on a
downward spiral of diminishing returns, which in some ways leaves the hearer
in a "downer" rather than on an "upper," as Mark's ending does.   It is hard
to believe that Matthew's ending could ever have been the original end of
the parable.   Furthermore, the numerical sequence Matthew uses, thirty,
sixty, one hundred, which is the reverse of Mark's numerical sequencing, in
my judgment, could only have been appropriated from Mark's ending, which in
Matthew's hands, for some inexplicable reason, was turned on its head.

But that is not the most significant thing about the differences in the
sequential enumeration among the three versions of the parable's ending.
What is most significant is that Matthew and Luke's versions, in effect,
eliminate or seriously reduce, the parabolic jolt which is the signature of
Jesus' parabolic methodology.   Jesus incorporated into all his parables a
parabolic jolt whose purpose was  to shock his hearers into an existential
encounter with a parable's message.   Through the use of the parabolic jolt,
Jesus' hearers were forced to do a "double take" on the parable's message,
as that message challenged the conventional way of seeing or experiencing
life.   In the case of the Parable of the Sower the parabolic jolt which
produces the "double take" lies in the numerical sequencing of the yield of
the seed sown in good soil.

Mark's, and I would suggest the historical Jesus', numerical sequencing
creates an arithmetic and/or geometric dissonance which the mind tends to
both reject and at the same time, like Brer Rabbit with Tar Baby (Joel
Chandler Harris' Uncle Remus story), cannot let go of, at least until the
dissonance is resolved.    What I mean by this is that the mind, when it is
given a series of three numbers, as in the case with this parable, seeks for
a normative arithmetic or geometric pattern of sequencing that explains the
relationship which exists between the numbers and accounts for the logic of
their order.  Thus in the case of the numerical sequencing in Markan ending
of the Parable of the Sower, the sequence of the first two numbers, 30 and
60 in that order, would suggest normally that the arithmetic progression
that should define the proportionally increased value of the third number in
the sequence is the difference between the first and second number, namely
30.   So the logic of conventional arithmetic patterning would suggest that
the third number, which is the value of the second number (60) plus 30,
would be 90, and not 100, as the Markan parabolic ending stipulates.
(Parenthetically, a different logic would be employed if the cognitive
dissonance created by the numerical sequence were resolved geometrically, e.
g. 30-60-120, which is the direction that the Gospel of Thomas [9] partially
takes in its attempt to eliminate the dissonance of 30-60-100 in the
original ending of the parable.    The Gospel of Thomas' depiction of the
seeds' productivity is that they "yielded sixty per measure and one hundred
and twenty per measure.")

According to normative or conventional arithmetic patterning, then, the
numerical sequencing in the Markan parable, 30-60-100, does not "make
 sense."   So the mind is forced to wrestle with that sequencing to try to
make sense out of that which makes no sense.  By causing the mind to grapple
with the cognitive dissonance created by the arithmetic non-sequitur of
30-60-100, with respect to the seeds' production, the parabler hooks the
mind into doing a "double take" on the unconventional reality which the
parable itself espouses.    That in turn challenges the hearer to decide
whether he/she can accept the fact that there could be such a world, and, in
fact, *is* such a world as the domain of God, where the abundance of
goodness far exceeds the devastation of the tragic.

Thus, of the three endings of the Synoptic versions of the Parable of the
Sower, the Markan ending scores the point of the parable the best.   The
Lukan ending, which states only that the yield from the good ground was a
hundredfold, effectively robs the parable of the parabolic jolt embedded in
the nonsensical order of 30-60-100.    And the effect of Matthew reversing
the sequence in his ending to create 100-60-30 has the similar effect of at
least minimizing the jolt.   For while one could certainly argue that the
Matthean patterning also creates a jolt by virtue of its arithmetic
dissonance, what the reversal effectively does is put a damper on the
message of the parable.   It does so because the numerical sequencing
Matthew employs, which leaves the impression that productivity diminishes by
the order of 100 to 60 to 30, tends to cast the shadow of the old
paradigmatic schema of life's tragic reversals (the parable's agricultural
failures) upon the new paradigmatic vision of future good fortune (the
extraordinary productivity of seed sown on good ground).

In sum, if the effectiveness of the various versions of the Sower's
parabolic ending is measured (1) by how well a given ending achieves the
greatest dramatic impact and (2) by how well it generates a parabolic jolt
which will force the hearer to confront the new reality of the domain of
God, then, in my judgment, the Markan parabolic ending far exceeds the
Matthean, Lukan, and even the Thomistic, endings in achieving such parabolic
effectiveness on both accounts.
I am convinced, on the basis of this analysis of the effectiveness of the
Markan ending of the Parable of the Sower, (1) that the Markan version of
the ending is closest to the original ending of Jesus' parable, (2) that
Matthew and Luke were both dependent upon Mark for their versions of the
Parable of the Sower, and (3) that in their versions Matthew and Luke
altered the Markan ending, for whatever reason, and in doing so essentially
emasculated the original parable's parabolic impact.

Furthermore, I submit, that, in appropriating the Markan version of the
Parable of the Sower, Matthew, upon finding the particle MEN in Mk. 4:4,
linked it with DE to create his preferred  adversative, correlative
conjunction MEN...DE.   Moreover, I also contend that Matthew introduced yet
another MEN...DE construction into his conclusion to his Markan adopted
parable (13:8).    On  the other hand, Luke, who was also dependent upon
Mark for his version of the parable, chose to follow Mark's lead when he
came to the Markan MEN in Mk. 4:4, and unlike Matthew, adopted the Markan
MEN (8:5) without alteration.   In following suit with Mark at this point,
Luke pursued a practice that appears to be his whenever he appropriates a
source into his Gospel composition.    Luke treats the source's syntactical
use of adversative, correlative conjunction conservatively, and, if a
correlative conjunction, such as the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE or the resumptive conjunction MEN OUN...DE is not in his source, he
does not try to insert such a construction in his appropriation of the
source, even though he generally favors the use of such constructions when
it comes to the syntactical formulation of his own material in Luke and
Acts.

IV. Conclusion

Finally what conclusions can be drawn from this study of the use of the
adversative, correlative conjunction, and related conjunctive constructions,
in the Synoptic tradition and John.  First with respect to stylistic habits,
it is clear that Matthew has a strong preference for the use of the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE.  It is the only correlative
conjunction that he employs in his Gospel.   His copious use of it, more
than twice as much as all the uses of the construction among all the
canonical authors, is an almost indisputable sign of Matthean DNA, although
the use of the MEN...DE construction in the Synoptic Tradition does not
originate with Matthew.

In the case of Luke it is quite evident that when he is engaged in his own
creativity, as in Acts and his special material in his Gospel, Luke has a
strong penchant for the use of the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE and also the resumptive, correlative conjunction MEN OUN...DE.
Yet, when it comes to adopting material from his sources, Mark in
particular, Luke seems to have followed a conservative approach with respect
to the use of these correlative conjunctions.   If Luke did not find such
constructions in his source, he was not inclined to introduce the
constructions into his Gospel composition.   In the case of the stylistic
habits of John and Mark, they have minimal interest in using such
correlative conjunctions.    When John does use those constructions, he
restricts himself to the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE and
the resumptive, correlative conjunction MEN OUN...DE.    Mark never uses the
resumptive , correlative construction and while on occasion he does use the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE, he is not bound to it.   In
one instance at least he chose another adversative, correlative
construction, namely, MEN...ALLA (9:12).

Second with respect to the issue of Synoptic priority, the results of the
examination of the "triple tradition" parallels as well as other parallel
comparisons offer strong evidence for the theory of Markan priority and the
theory of Matthean and Lukan dependency upon Mark.

Third, with respect to the Synoptic material held in common by Matthew and
Luke but not by Mark, the examination conducted of the various possible
Matthean and Lukan parallels offers some supportive evidence --- based upon
the stylistic habits of Matthew and Luke, just addressed, as well as the
dependency of Matthew and Luke on Mark --- for the existence of Q as the
best explanation for the source of both Matthew and Luke when they manifest
material held in common and which is not found in Mark.   I have in mind,
among the texts which were investigated, Q 3:16 (Lk. 3:16/Mt. 3:11), Q10:2
(Lk. 10:2/Mt. 9:37); Q 10:6 (Lk. 10:6/Mt. 10:13) and Q 12:56 (Lk. 12:56/Mt.
16:13). (see _CEQ_, 14f., 160f., 168f., 390f.)   With respect to the other
possible parallels between Matthew and Luke (Mt. 22:5 vis-a-vis Lk. 14:8;
Mt. 22:8 vis-a-vis Lk. 14:21;  Mt. 23:27 vis-a-vis Lk. 11:44;   Mt. 25:15
vis-a-vis Lk. 19:13),   _CEQ_ argues that Lk. 11: 44; Lk.14:21 and Lk. 19:13
are, for the most part, Q 11:44; 14:21 and 19:13 , respectively.  But the
none of the content of the Matthean texts which we have looked at as
possible parallels to the Lukan texts--- with the exception to the reference
to the Pharisees in Mt. 23:27, the reference to the master's servant in Mt.
22:8 are Matthean terminology which has parallel in the Q texts--- including
Matthean content containing the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE, has any parallel in Q, according to _CEQ_ (see 160f., 168., 390f).
In every instance  _CEQ_ rejects the Matthean clauses in which the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE is found as in any way
Matthean representations of Q.   With respect to Mt. 22:5 vis-a-vis Lk. 14:8
as having been derived from Q,  _CEQ_ does not attribute either the Matthean
or Lukan text to Q (see 428-430).

Fourth, with respect to Q's use of the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE, given Luke's tendency not to introduce the MEN...DE construction
or any other adversative, correlative conjunction when his adopted source
Mark had not used such a construction, I surmise that Luke pursued the same
conservative approach in appropriating Q material as he did with
appropriating Markan material.  Consequently, if the Q material Luke adopted
had the adversative, correlative conjunction in it, Luke appropriated it
also.   If the Q material he adopted did not have adversative, correlative
conjunction within it, Luke did not insert it.   Thus in the two Q passages
Luke adopted in which Luke uses the adversative, correlative conjunction
MEN...DE in his text of those passages (Lk. 3:16 and Lk. 10:2), the
construction MEN...DE must have been in those Q passages to begin with.   In
fact, _CEQ_ does accept the adversative, correlative conjunction found in
the Matthean and Lukan parallels, Mt. 3:11/Lk. 3:16 and Mt. 9:37/Lk. 10:2,
as having been derived by both evangelists from the Q texts, Q 3:16 and
10:2, respectively (see _CEQ_, 14f., 160f.).   Conversely, in my view, in
material that Matthew and Luke have independently adopted from Q, in which
the Matthean version of the adopted Q text contains the adversative,
correlative conjunction MEN...DE and the same Q text which Luke has adopted
does not exhibit that conjunction in the Lukan text, then Matthew, I
conclude, has added the MEN...DE construction on his own in his
appropriating of Q.    The construction was not originally in the Q text.
As I noted above that is also the judgment of _CEQ_.

Fifth, given Matthew's dependency upon Mark and Q, and given the fact that
Matthew uses his favored adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in
his texts which are clearly dependent upon Mark and Q, when the originating
text did not have such a construction, Matthew is evidently responsible for
incorporating it into his adopted material.   Where Matthew's source
material did contain the MEN...DE construction, given Matthew's
predisposition to that construction, it is logical to assume that Matthew
just appropriated the MEN...DE construction from his source for use in his
own composition.

This, then, is how I would account for the presence of the twenty instances
of the adversative, correlative conjunction  MEN...DE in the Matthean
Gospel.   In the case of Markan material, Matthew found the MEN...DE
construction in Mk. 12:5, 14:21 and 38.  When Matthew adopted  those Markan
verses for his own use, he appropriated the Markan MEN...DE construction
into his own text in Mt. 21:35; 26:24, 41, respectively.   Matthew also
found the adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in Mk. 9:12, but
when he adopted that Markan text for his own purpose, he altered the Markan
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...ALLA to his preferred MEN...DE
construction (17:11).   Matthew also inserted his favored MEN...DE
conjunctive construction into certain other texts he appropriated from Mark,
namely Mk. 4:4 (linking the correlative DE with Mark's MEN, Mt. 13:4); Mk.
4:8 (Mt. 13:8); Mk. 4:20 (Mt.13:23); Mk. 4:31 (Mt. 13:32); Mk. 16:14 (Mt.
8:28); Mk. 10:39f (Mt. 20:23).

In the case of Q related material, Matthew found the MEN...DE construction
in Q 3:16 and 10:2  and incorporated it into his Gospel in 3:11 and 9:37.
However, having not found the construction in Q 10:6  and 12:56, Matthew
inserted his own MEN...DE into his incorporation of those Q texts in 10:13
and 16:3, respectively.   The other occurrences of the Matthean use of the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE (Mt. 22:5, 8; 23:27
[possibility Q], 28; 25:15, 33) can be accounted for in at least two
different ways.    The MEN...DE constructons are either (1), a part of his
own redaction  appended to and or inserted into material that he derived
from Q, as in the case of the woes against the Pharisees (Q 11:39-51: the
Matthean redaction including 23:28 and, perhaps, 23:27, if it is not Q) and
the parables of the Great Banquet (Mt. 22:2-10/Lk. 14:16-24: the Matthean
redaction including 22:5 and 8) and the Entrusted Money (Mt. 25:14-30/Lk.
19:12-27: the Matthean redaction including 25:15).    Or the MEN...DE
constructions are (2), a part of his own redactional work as he reformulated
or appended to other independent sources which he had access to, such as an
independent version of the parables of the Great Banquet (Mt. 22:2-10/Lk.
14:16-24: the Matthean redaction again including 22:5 and 8) and the
Entrusted Money (Mt. 25:14-30/Lk. 19:12-27: the Matthean redaction again
including 25:15).   It is clear, in the case of Matthew's use of the
adversative, correlative conjunction MEN...DE in 25:33, that Matthew either
found the MEN...DE construction already in the so-called "Parable of the
Last Judgment," which has no parallel among the canonical Gospels, or he
edited the story by inserting the MEN...DE construction into the narrative.