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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Time Depth of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    Without examples, I have no way to convince you, so this discussion is probably not going to be productive at this time. The most that could be established is
    Message 1 of 54 , Jun 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Without examples, I have no way to convince you, so this discussion is probably not going to be productive at this time. The most that could be established is the general plausibility of the idea, assuming that supporting evidence could later be produced.

      But, one point would be that Mark does show a lot of document wide planning, that is, it is not just an assembly of pericopes thrown together. It shows a plan. However, this plan, it seems, changes with time. New beginning points, highlights, and end points are added. With old material integrated sometimes a bit roughly into the new plan. So in a way, Mark does use written sources. He uses his previous version, and merges it with his newly created text. And while there is an occasional marker of a layer, the style does stay rather consistent.

      Secondly, the layers, once put in order, with intrusive material later than the material intruded upon tell a reasonable story of the development of earliest Christianity. This is an important point. The intrusive material is thematically later in the expected development of things than the material intruded upon.

      Another point would be that we are looking at many and varied types of insertions. Sometimes it might be a free-standing pericope. Othertimes a new story interrupts an old one. Sometimes a story is just expanded. This would be an odd way to integrate a number of sources sitting before you, and a very difficult process to imagine being completed with any degree of success - unless of course the sources were already very similar. So are we to propose a multitude of gospel accounts prior to Mark then? Certainly one author over time is a simpler solution.

      Turning it around, how would you justify a statement like "Mark shows no signs of being the first written account?" Where Mark overlaps with the proposed saying source, I have good reasons to believe the sayings originated in Mark's context. And while there certainly may be signs of Aramaic behind Mark at points, that need not be a written account. And I don't doubt Mark is partially a product of the fluid oral environment surrounding the author, combined with the author's response to that.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside IL


      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dave,
      >  
      > Someone did have to be first.  Mk shows no evidence of having been that author.
      >  
      > Could you elaborate on your dismissal of the idea that Mk's use of (and specifically, arrangement of) different sources could produce the phenomena you see in the book?
      >  
      > Chuck
      >
      > --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dave Gentile <gentile_dave@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Dave Gentile <gentile_dave@...>
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The Time Depth of Mark
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 4:17 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Chuck,
      >
      > No, not different sources, but again you'd have to see the examples. And besides, not everyone can have used a source, somebody had to be the first to write this stuff down.
      >
      > Dave Gentile
      > Riverside, IL
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Dave Gentile
      Chuck, But there might be something of a common selection factor at work in what Luke would choose to use and what might survive. If Luke thinks a written
      Message 54 of 54 , Jun 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Chuck,

        But there might be something of a common selection factor at work in what Luke would choose to use and what might survive. If Luke thinks a written account is important enough to copy, then he and others might think this account is worth preserving. On the other hand, if Luke thinks another existing account is trivial nonsense worth ignoring, then others may also be so inclined in which case we are not surprised that it failed to survive 2000 years of history.

        So the question is not so much about contemporary accounts. We know for example that some later non-canonical accounts exist, and anybody can take pen to paper and write something, if they are so inclined, at any time. The question is really about accounts that from Luke's point of view are historical or at least of value enough to Luke that he would think them worthy of being copied, but yet are lost to us.

        Returning to a point from a previous note:

        New jokes are composed everyday. Old ones get passed around, but every so often you hear a new one. Could not the same be true of stories of Jesus? If this were the case the collection would be larger each time someone wrote them down. I think we can see this process at work. Early Mark has a small collection. This collection grows as Mark grows. Down the road we see a larger collection in Matthew, and a little farther along a still larger collection in Luke.

        P.S. While I am also enjoying the conversation, I now have actual work to do. Thus at some time soon expect me to either drop out of conversation for awhile, or at least have diminished output…

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, IL




        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, IL




        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dave,
        >  
        > I mention Lk's reference to make a single, narrow point.  Many accounts existed, new or old.  Whether Lk used them or not, almost all of these accounts *did not survive and are no longer extant.*  This means that *most* of the written accounts of Jesus did not survive.  Which means one is taking no leap at all--quite the opposite--if one concludes there was a Q, or an M source, or an L source, or a Mk source.
        >  
        > I hope this makes sense.
        >  
        > Rev. Chuck Jones
        > Atlanta, Georgia
        >
        > --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Dave Gentile <gentile_dave@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: Dave Gentile <gentile_dave@...>
        > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Time Depth of Mark
        > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 12:26 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Chuck wrote: Also, separately, how do you square your model with Lk's own mention that many have produced written accounts of Jesus? His comment has been, in fact, fundamental to me in my thinking on this stuff.
        >
        > Dave: I think the question of how many accounts Luke is aware of and how many accounts Luke thinks are wroth considering enough to copy are two separate questions. If Luke thinks the guy in the rival congregation in the next town just wrote a gospel yesterday, this will count towards those "many" who have undertaken this but won't count as a written source for Luke.
        >
        > I see this in his attitude towards Matthew and Mark. He sees Mark as an old source that has been around for awhile and he will largely copy it. Matthew? Well, that's a newcomer on the scene. He would not even bother with it except for the fact that it has a claim to a providence of an interview with the disciple Matthew. Thus the gospel of Matthew will be worth extracting things from, but not copying. The proto-John guys who just wrote their gospel yesterday? They will be ignored.
        >
        > At least that would be my account of Luke's environment and thought process.
        >
        > Dave Gentile
        > Riverside, IL
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.