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

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

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    Here is an out-of-date page where I try to do that: http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html In essence, let s say that we could establish the need
    Message 1 of 54 , Jun 8, 2009
      Here is an out-of-date page where I try to do that:

      http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html

      In essence, let's say that we could establish the need for an Aramaic connection between Matthew and Luke, enough that we determine we need a written Aramaic document here. One possibility of course would be an authentic old document. My alternative proposal is a document created in say 80 AD, by the author of the gospel of Matthew (also 80 AD). What would favor one idea over the other? One - a study of the "overlap texts" showing that Mark is first and the "source" is derivative.

      Another approach is to show that the apparent motivation behind the text and the issues addressed by the text fit better with Matthew's time and agenda than with the time and probable agenda of the historical Jesus.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL


      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
      > To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 11:35 AM
      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Time Depth of Mark
      >
      >
      > >>and perhaps even does a bit of his own translation on the author of
      > >>Matthew's forged Aramaic saying "source". <
      >
      > Dave:
      >
      > This statement bears clarification for me since I have not kept up with this
      > thread. How can one assume that a non-extant source document was forged?
      > Although there is clear Aramaic interference in Matthean Greek, my position
      > is that it is transferred from Mark and a Greek translation of Aramaic
      > sayings that the Matthean author used. I do not believe this Greek speaking
      > Hellenistic Jew (Antioch) was Aramaic competent. What was forged and how do
      > you know?
      >
      > Jack Kilmon
      > San Antonio, TX
      >
    • 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
        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.