To: Synoptic (GPG)
In Response To: Ron
On: Sayings Behind Mark
Ron's list of units in Mark which he sees as elaborations of a core saying
which Mark got from a previous sayings source is interesting, but in too
many ways to take up in one note. I here limit myself to a dissent from the
next to last (his #12), merely to get it out of the way. Ron lists that item
12. 10:28-30, based on 10:29-30 // Mt 19:28 // [Lk] 22:28-30
One problem I see is that there are two elements here, the compensation for
sufferings in this life, for believers in general, and the specific reward
waiting for the disciples (given the number, it is obviously only the latter
that involves twelve thrones, meaning that in this passage the "disciples"
are being understood to be the Twelve Apostles). For the general
compensation part, we have
Mk 10:29-30 || Mt 19:29-30 || Lk 18:29b-30,
with a parallel in Mk, andnd for the twelve thrones part, which has no
parallel in Mk, we have:
Mt 12:28 || Lk 22:28-30
Note that the Luke parallel is at a different point in the narrative. It
would now be interesting to take up the question: of these two Twelve
Thrones items, which one is intrinsically earlier, and (separate question)
which one better suits its immediate narrative context, in Mt and Lk?
Ron says of this passage: ) "Mark has replaced the twelve's reward of
sitting on 12 thrones with a reward suitable for Gentiles (Mk 10:30)."
I would say, clearly not so. Mark, if he came second to Matthew and/or Luke,
has simply omitted the Twelve Thrones part, and not replaced it with
anything. If Mark is first (as many have suspected), then Mt and/or Lk have
added that idea, for reasons yet to be determined.
The vice of this Q stuff, especially in its modern ("Mk/Q overlap") form,
can be seen here: it leads to results which contradict the manifest Mk >
Mt/Lk directionality of the extant texts, which, simply because those texts
are extant, probably deserves the higher credit.
To other aspects of Ron's list, which I repeat have various kinds of
interest from my point of view, I hope to return later.
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst