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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Sanders 3 (Mk 1:33 par]

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/17/2005 1:46:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... LEONARD: I find this not at all convincing. What on earth would inspire one to think of AMt
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/17/2005 1:46:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      brooks@... writes:

      > BRUCE: There is more going on here than just the lack of a Mk 1:33
      > correspondence
      > in the other two Synoptics, but let us concentrate on that. I would say that
      > it belongs to the class of narrative exaggerations which are recurrent in
      > Mk, particularly as describing the press of the throng of Jesus's hearers,
      > or patients. The "all" in Mk 1:32 already invites qualification in the mind
      > of a realistically inclined reader, and that the whole "city" (or even
      > village) were gathered about the door [1:33] looks like an overstatement
      > too. An overstatement such even a child might question. We may be reminded
      > of "so that they could not even eat" (Mk 3:20, which also has no parallel in
      > Mt or Lk, though the following passage, Mk 3:22f, does have parallels (at Mt
      > 12:24 and Lk 11:15). [Snip.....] My suggestion is that AMt and ALk both
      > chose to go with
      > the latter mode of presentation, and accordingly might well have opted, in
      > their (here) quite different ways, to avoid arousing reader incredulity on
      > minor matters. That is, the scenario of Mt/Lk omission violates no
      > observable general tendencies in those texts.

      LEONARD: I find this not at all convincing. What on earth would inspire one
      to think of AMt as catering to a "realistically inclined reader"? Certainly,
      an evangelist who could assert of JB (3:5) that not only Jerusalem, but all
      Judaea and the whole region of the Jordan went out to him (whether or not these
      words are Matt's original own, or copied from Mark) should have no scruple
      about likewise copying from Mark the charming exaggeration to the effect that the
      whole small town of Capernaum was gathered at the door of Peter's house to see
      Jesus. No, the sentence in question (Mk 1:33) indeed looks very much more
      like an addition of a late Mark, which well explains its complete absence (not
      just emendation!) in both Matt and Lk.

      > BRUCE:There is at the same time a point on which both Matthew and Luke are
      > stronger, not milder, than the Markan narrative. Mark has only some being
      > cured; both Matthew and Luke insist that it is "all." It has been often
      > noted, by observers from Hawkins on down, that when Jesus's limitations are
      > attested in Mark, Matthew and/or Luke often have a less limited version.
      > Here is one instance. I think we are entitled to ask, not in light of any
      > prior assumptions about Gospel priority but simply as the most likely
      > scenario for beliefs about Jesus over time: Is it more likely that the
      > powers of Jesus will be diminished within his tradition over time, or
      > amplified? I think it overwhelmingly likely that the latter option, what I
      > call the aggrandization scenario, is the true one. Then Mk with his
      > portrayal of Jesus's limited success in healing on this occasion, is
      > evolutionarily earlier than the uniformly successful picture given us, at
      > the same place, by Mt and Lk. The evidence would then suggest Mk >Mt, Lk.
      > [Snip....]
      > As far as the above investigation has been able to go, then, I conclude
      > that, far from being an argument against Markan Priority, this passage,
      > taken as a whole, appears to provide quite credible evidence in its favor,
      > and to be at minimum consistent with that conclusion if reached on other
      > grounds.

      LEONARD: I strongly disagree. Your analysis lacks linguistic sophistication
      here. Above all you miss the important point that for a Semitic mind the term
      "many" (RAB) does not mean "many as opposed to all", many in a restrictive
      sense, but rather many as opposed to few (there is no partitive genitive here!).
      That Mark uses the term in this sense is clear as crystal from 2:15c (another
      explanatory phrase with no parallel in Matt or Luke). The point, therefore, of
      Mk 1:34 is that those whom Jesus cured here were many. If anything, this is
      stronger, in terms of stressing the miraculous power of Jesus, than the text of
      Matt, where the "all" would have to be understood as implicitly qualified by
      a phrase such as "all present", and which would therefore not necessarily
      imply that the thus qualified entities were many. But in general the terms POLUS
      and PAS here are, in both Matt and Mark, used to make an equivalent, not a
      contrasting point (see, for instance, Matt 8:16, where both terms are used). One
      could perhaps argue, on the other hand, that Luke emphasizes the idea of
      universality more than the parallel texts by using the (perhaps?) stronger hAPANTES
      (4:40) and hENI hEKASTWi AUTWN (also 4:40). I go with Sanders on this one too.

      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.