In a message dated 7/7/2000 6:40:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< At 09:46 AM 7/6/00 EDT, Maluflen@...
>I think so. I believe MacDonald is correct in his observation, but there is
>also another factor that is likewise consistent with (though of course not
>decisively probative of) a late Mark: because of a growing distance from
>time of the apostles, there would be a fading interest in them in Mk,
>compared with the other Synoptics, ...
What then would you make of the proliferation of the apocryphal acts
of various apostles?>>
Stephen, you didn't complete my original sentence: "...because of a growing
distance from the time of the apostles, there would be a fading interest in
them in Mk, compared with the other Synoptics, as historical leaders of
Christianity (the legitimation factor, prominent in Matt and Lk, is almost,
if not entirely lacking in Mark)..".
But you raise a good point: at the same time that we note a fading interest
in the apostles as historical leaders of Jewish Christianity, there is a
definite trend toward developing interest in them as legendary characters. A
neat progression can be noted in this regard that extends from Matt, through
Luke, through John and into the second century apocryphal writings (I will
note briefly at the end how Mark fits into this pattern):
1. In Matt, as a general rule (and with the exception of Judas) only Peter
speaks and acts in isolation from others of the twelve; exceptions to this
rule are Matt 20:22, where "the sons of Zebedee" are addressed by Jesus in
isolation from the ten, and respond (in unison) with the single word:
DUNAMEQA, and Matt 26:22, where a short saying: "is it I, Lord?" is
attributed to "each one" of the apostles separately.
2. In Luke, by comparison to Matt, places are multiplied where Peter
intervenes or speaks alone (5:5; 8:45; 12:41; [24:12]); others of the twelve
than Peter begin to speak alone (e.g., John alone in 9:49; James and John in
9:54); Peter appears in the narrative in conjunction with John (or James and
John) in places where the Matthean par. does not mention them (8:51; 22:8).
3. In John, the tendencies begun in Luke continue: Peter's role in the
narrative increases with respect to the Synoptic accounts (6:68; 13:8, 9;
13:24, 36; 18:10, etc.); others of the twelve than Peter also begin to take
on active roles in the narrative, and they are also the subject of direct
speech: Andrew, Philip, Thomas, etc.
In some respects, Mk fits in this trajectory between Lk and Jn (i.e., the
position it occupies according to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis): Mark introduces
apostles into the narrative in places where they are not present in the other
Synoptics, and at times their direct speech is even cited: Mk 1:29, 36-37;
10:35 (where James and John are mentioned by name, and initiate the action,
differently from their role in the Matthean par. Note that the dialogue
between Jesus and the two disciples here is also slightly expanded);
On the other hand, Mark omits some of the places in Matt where Peter alone
appears, and some of the additional places in Luke where Peter alone appears
(and one text in Luke where James and John alone appear: Lk 9:54). Also, the
reference to "two of his disciples" in Mk 14:13 would probably be judged
"earlier", by the canons of the above described trajectory, than the parallel
in Lk 22:8 ("and he sent Peter and John..").