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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Sanders 2 (Mk 1:29 par)

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/18/2005 1:38:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... LEONARD: Bruce, your response to my post illustrates perlucidly what I have long said to be
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/18/2005 1:38:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      brooks@... writes:

      > My conclusion is that Lk >Lk. Vincent Taylor would have loved it. Thanks to
      > Leonard for this second opportunity to consider the Lukan situation, and to
      > have arrived (as I imagine) at a more satisfactory account of it. All
      > progress is welcome progress.
      >
      >

      LEONARD: Bruce, your response to my post illustrates perlucidly what I have
      long said to be true of Markan priority proponents, namely, that they seem to
      have been trained, subliminally perhaps, to utterly ignore the text of Matt.
      Please do not take this personally. I am speaking of an almost universal trait I
      have discovered among those who accept Markan priority. Matthew is virtually
      obliterated from their consciousness most of the time. I sometimes try to
      duplicate this attitude, as I did in my own original post in this sequence, by
      ignoring Mark altogether. But never with much success in terms of consciousness
      raising. By the way, the annihilation of Matthew because his narrative is
      regarded as secondary and derivative from Mark is in process of being duplicated
      (or complemented) by a parallel assault on the sayings material in Matthew. We
      now have "scholarly" works (such as that by Aaron Milavec) which are trying to
      make the extremely implausible case that the Didache precedes (and is
      therefore presumably a source for) much of the sayings material in Matt. I just don't
      buy any of it -- because I don't find the arguments for the secondary
      character of Matt in any way convincing.

      In your response to me, your entire point was designed to show the secondary
      character of Luke's account with respect to Mark. Well, that is something I
      agree with you on, except that I believe the Gospel Luke knew and used was
      Matthew and not Mark. The explanatory (read introductory) phrases you found in
      Mark's story of the calling of the apostles all have exact parallels in Matthew.
      They therefore would help to support Markan priority only if Markan priority is
      presupposed. The fact remains, however, that in BOTH cases, that of Peter and
      that of Levi/Matthew, Matt introduces these persons (1) in a way that
      parallels the standard and typical introduction into a narrative of a new person (as
      illustrated by my references to Zechariah and Elizabeth in Lk 1); and (2) in a
      way that is not paralleled in the other Synoptics, where these peoples' names
      appear for the first time as though the stories about them are already known
      to the audience. Thus,

      Matt: Jesus saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter....
      Mk: he saw Simon...


      Matt: Jesus passing on from there saw saw a man sitting at the tax
      collector's booth called Matthew...

      Mk: And going on from there he saw Levi of Alphaeus sitting....

      Your response to my post, therefore, did more to obfuscate than to refute the
      point I was making.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA


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