Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Gentile
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words
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).
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]