Kata Markon

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

To Listers,

Despite my efforts to proof read several times my essay, "MEN...DE and
Markan Priority, Matthean Dependency," before posting it, there are still
errors in it, for which I apologize.  Aside from pesky grammatical,
punctuation and spelling errors, there are three serious ones that need,
particularly, to be brought to your attention, and I correct them here.

(1) In the first paragraph under the heading, "II. Adversative, Correlative
Conjunctions among Synoptic Parallels", subheading: "A. Matthean, Markan and
Lukan Parallels," the second sentence reads:

"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."

Those of you who have counted will have noticed that there are actually six
parallels listed within the parentheses.    There should be only five.  The
last parallel listed within the parentheses, Mt. 26:24/Mk. 14:21/Lk. 22:22,
should be removed.   That parallel is an instance in which Matthew, Mark and
Luke all use an adversative, correlative junction, but disagree on the
specific one.   Matthew and Mark use MEN...DE and Luke uses MEN...PLHN, a
Lukan departure which I discuss later on in the text.   I had caught and
thought that I had corrected the error.   But gremlins must have been
working against me.

(2) In the second observation (2) under the heading, "III. Observations," in
the interminably long first sentence there is an obvious logical error,
along with errors in textual citations.   The sentence reads:

"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)."

The latter (later?) part of the sentence should be corrected to "--- 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 eighteen other opportunities he had to appropriate the
construction from Matthean passages (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).    How that
particular error got into the text and how I missed it in proofreading, I do
not know.   Matthew has twenty textual incidences in which he uses the
MEN...DE construction.  If it is argued that Luke was using Matthew and
incorporated two of the Matthean uses of the adversative, correlative
conjunction MEN...DE, then Luke must have passed up the opportunity to use
the other eighteen Matthean uses of the MEN...DE construction, as cited in
the corrected citations within the parentheses.

(3) The second sentence of the third paragraph of the third observation (3)
under the heading, "III. Observations," reads:

"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)."

There are errors in the textual citations.    With the textual citations
corrected, the sentence should read:

"It is particularly surprising ---  if again Luke was independent upon
Matthew ---  that Luke in 8:5 would have chosen only to appropriate the
particle MEN from Matthew, rather than the entire Matthean adversative,
correlative conjunction from Mt. 13:4f. 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)."

I apologize for these errors.   If any of you should find other errors,
particularly in textual citations, I would appreciate it if you would bring
them to my attention.   I tried to be very careful in double and sometimes
triple checking the textual citations in my essay over against the Nestle
text.    But after while, with so many texts listed consecutively, my eyes
apparently began to play tricks on me, and I missed errors that
unfortunately have crept into the essay, as in the case of the three serious
errors to which I have now drawn your attention.

Ted Weeden