Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words

Expand Messages
  • stephanie fisher
    Dave: Crossley s work is an investigation of early Jewish law and how it affects Mark s gospel. He demonstrates that Mark takes for granted that Jesus fully
    Message 1 of 23 , May 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave:

      Crossley's work is an investigation of early Jewish law and how it affects Mark's gospel. He demonstrates that Mark takes for granted that Jesus fully observed biblical law and that Mark could only make such an assumption at a time when Christianity was largely law observant. This could not have been later than the mid-40s, from which time on certain Jewish and gentile Christians were no longer observing some biblical laws such as food laws and the Sabbath. He argues with justification that in all three Synoptic Gospels Jesus is portrayed as a Torah observant Jew in conflict with Jews dedicated to expanding and developing the Biblical laws and concludes that this must reflect the views of the historical Jesus. He claims that the early church would not have had so much internal controversy over the observance of the Biblical Torah if Jesus had deliberately challenged it or told others to challenge it. He also notes what is particularly significant: that both Matthew and Luke show clear signs that traditions concerning the Torah must not be interpreted as challenging it. This is not an issue that is not found in Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke were written up in the context of non-observant Christians. Crossley challenges the use of the external evidence (such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria) often used for dating Mark, relying instead on internal evidence from the gospel itself. Crossley also questions the view that Mark 13 reflects the Jewish war, arguing that there are other plausible historical settings. He also details the unfulfilled predictions in Mark. Here we have for example the prediction that James and John would "taste the cup" with him (Mark 10.38ff) with the cup being a metaphor for death so that James and John were to have died with Jesus, and the unfulfilled prediction in Mark 9.1 which anticipates the coming of the kingdom before the deaths of some alive now. The former passage is omitted by Luke and altered by Matthew and the latter respectively altered and toned down by Matthew and Luke, an indication that for Mark the coming of the kingdom will be a past event before "some standing here" die. There is a chapter on Mark 7 in which he demonstrates it's historicity as a conflict with the Pharisees over the issue of handwashing. There is also demonstration of Aramaic origin of the sources. I haven't got the book handy as it is on a ship. It is available in paperback for about 20 pounds I think but all good :-) libraries should have it now.

      I have just found Streeter's book on line so later I will try to find his evidence for the great omission. However so far I have only found a paragraph with the suggestion that Luke's copy lacked that chunk.

      Steph Fisher, Nottingham / Napier.







      I



      T


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dave Gentile
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





      Stephanie:

      Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk missing?

      Dave:

      I think there is good evidence of versions of Mark with chunks missing, yes. I think the text grew over time. I don't want to go into the evidence at this time, but Streeter at least provides some evidence in that direction, even if you disagree with the conclusion. What I found unlikely was the idea of a damaged copy of Mark, and Luke not being able to acquire a whole copy, when I can lay my hands on one and so could Matthew.

      Stephanie:

      Perhaps you have not come across James Crossley's explanation of the Jewish context of Mark 7 in "The Date of Mark".

      Dave: Nope. Is it easy to summarize?

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL






      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
      Checked by AVG.
      Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Gentile
      Stephanie, Thanks for this. It sounds like I could agree with a good deal of the details without necessarily adopting the conclusion. I think the gospel of
      Message 2 of 23 , May 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephanie,

        Thanks for this. It sounds like I could agree with a good deal of the details without necessarily adopting the conclusion. I think the gospel of Mark probably started quite early as well, but then evolved. So finding a number of indicators that Mark was early would not, for me at least, show that ALL of Mark was early.

        I won't comment on Ch. 7 specifically, because I'd have to see the specific arguments.

        In thinking about this, however, something that has always been in the back of my mind here became explicit. There are approximately 9 pericopes in the great omission. Luke retains most of Mark's pericopes. (Let's just say 90%, the exact number is not important). If we suppose that Luke goes through Mark, retaining most pericopes and rejecting those that displease him (10%), what are the chances that Mark would have placed 9 such pericopes in a row? Something on the order of 100,000,000 to 1. Again the exact number is not important, but just by order of magnitude calculations this is not a random event. Even if we can argue that all 9 displeased Luke, why were they all together like this in Mark? Combined with other observations, like those by Streeter, and my own observations that lead me to think that much of this insertion is about extending the message of Jesus to include not only Jews, but also Gentiles, I am left very convinced that this text (or at least much of it) was inserted into an earlier version of Mark.

        Changing topics a bit, I thought I'd add a bit about the other place where I think an insertion in Mark's text is most obvious. Mark 3:22-30. Here the text interrupts text related to the family of Jesus. One might argue such sandwich techniques are Mark's style, but I would argue that Mark is just full of insertions, as it appears.

        Bruce has also argued that "Holy Spirit" is a later development, and all instances of this seem rather un-secure in the text of Mark.

        Then we have Luke's behavior. Luke follows Matthew's text here. There is no connection to the text of Mark at all, as if he never saw it. Also, Luke does not locate this in the same position Mark does, rather he places it in his travel narrative, one of his two large sections where he places things he got from Matthew. These actions need not be connected. That is - Luke could have used Mark's text, but relocated it. Or he could have used Matthew's text, but kept it in Mark's location. Thus the fact that he does neither amounts to two separate indications that Luke has not seen this part of Mark, which combined with the break in the text of Mark itself, makes me near certain that this is a late insertion, absent in Luke's text of Mark (or at least Luke's favorite text of Mark).

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, IL
      • stephanie fisher
        Dave, Regarding Mark 3.22 ff, I disagree that it is later and agree that this points to historical Aramaic tradition. Can I recommend the chapter on The
        Message 3 of 23 , May 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Dave,

          Regarding Mark 3.22 ff, I disagree that it is later and agree that this points to historical Aramaic tradition. Can I recommend the chapter on The Beelzebul Controversy in Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. He reconstructs it, describes the historical context and tradition in Matthew and Luke. There is too much too summarise especially without the book in front of me.

          Stephanie Fisher
          Nottingham
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Dave Gentile
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:51 PM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words







          Stephanie,

          Thanks for this. It sounds like I could agree with a good deal of the details without necessarily adopting the conclusion. I think the gospel of Mark probably started quite early as well, but then evolved. So finding a number of indicators that Mark was early would not, for me at least, show that ALL of Mark was early.

          I won't comment on Ch. 7 specifically, because I'd have to see the specific arguments.

          In thinking about this, however, something that has always been in the back of my mind here became explicit. There are approximately 9 pericopes in the great omission. Luke retains most of Mark's pericopes. (Let's just say 90%, the exact number is not important). If we suppose that Luke goes through Mark, retaining most pericopes and rejecting those that displease him (10%), what are the chances that Mark would have placed 9 such pericopes in a row? Something on the order of 100,000,000 to 1. Again the exact number is not important, but just by order of magnitude calculations this is not a random event. Even if we can argue that all 9 displeased Luke, why were they all together like this in Mark? Combined with other observations, like those by Streeter, and my own observations that lead me to think that much of this insertion is about extending the message of Jesus to include not only Jews, but also Gentiles, I am left very convinced that this text (or at least much of it) was inserted into an earlier versin of Mark.

          Changing topics a bit, I thought I'd add a bit about the other place where I think an insertion in Mark's text is most obvious. Mark 3:22-30. Here the text interrupts text related to the family of Jesus. One might argue such sandwich techniques are Mark's style, but I would argue that Mark is just full of insertions, as it appears.

          Bruce has also argued that "Holy Spirit" is a later development, and all instances of this seem rather un-secure in the text of Mark.

          Then we have Luke's behavior. Luke follows Matthew's text here. There is no connection to the text of Mark at all, as if he never saw it. Also, Luke does not locate this in the same position Mark does, rather he places it in his travel narrative, one of his two large sections where he places things he got from Matthew. These actions need not be connected. That is - Luke could have used Mark's text, but relocated it. Or he could have used Matthew's text, but kept it in Mark's location. Thus the fact that he does neither amounts to two separate indications that Luke has not seen this part of Mark, which combined with the break in the text of Mark itself, makes me near certain that this is a late insertion, absent in Luke's text of Mark (or at least Luke's favorite text of Mark).

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, IL






          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
          Checked by AVG.
          Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.