Eric Eve wrote to Leonard :
> As you observed in a previous post, the theme
> of eschatological judgment is characteristically Matthean (one might add
> that it is not noticeably Markan), although the notion of baptism as a
> figure for future suffering can also be found in Mark (10.38). The different
> use of the saying at Mk 1.8 // Mt 3.11-12 accordingly reflects the different
> interests of the evangelists, but I'm not sure it shows which is later.
Since Mk 1.4 looks as deriving from Luke, we know that the primitive
state of the pericope is not in Mk, and since there is not such an
evidence for Matthew, the economy stress us to see Mark as later.
(For Mk 1.4 deriving from Luke, Leonard argued it in his first mail,
and nobody answered, so that I hope it is now widely accepted ;-)
> I accept than you can equally
> well argue that Mark has abbreviated Matthew and removed a theme of
> eschatological argument that doesn't suit him, but then it was remarkably
> convenient for Mark that Matthew should have included a somewhat awkward
> reference to 'holy wind' which Mark can redeploy as 'Holy Spirit' in the
> totally different sense of Christian baptismal theology.
This is the trouble with argument from theology : they are the
less incontrovertible arguments. And this is the reason that makes,
from my little point of view, vocabulary, stylistic and redactional
arguments generally much more convincing.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...