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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Why Does Jesus predict he will be spit on in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark?

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic On: Jesus and Spitting From: Bruce My earlier and longer response to the spitting question seems to have gotten lost in the wind. Too bad, I kind
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 25, 2009
      To: Synoptic
      On: Jesus and Spitting
      From: Bruce

      My earlier and longer response to the spitting question seems to have gotten
      lost in the wind. Too bad, I kind of liked it. The essence of it, in answer to
      the original question of what Synoptic theory the prediction and spitting might
      imply (both in Mk, no prediction in Mt, no spitting in Lk) was that reasonable
      explanations are available based on the following elements:

      1. Synoptic theory Mk > Mt >> Lk

      2. Mt's known propensities, including a fondness for doubling Mk.

      3. Lk's position further down the Respect for Jesus Trajectory, plus

      4. Lk's known propensities, including dividing Mk's narrative into more pieces
      (there is an extra Trial scene in Lk), and his fierce sense of rivalry with Mt.

      That is, no new data or suppositions seem to be required.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • E Bruce Brooks
      Dave, That s about it. I don t think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List; Thomas (at its beginning, perhaps James ) is the earliest, and even that is
      Message 52 of 52 , Oct 12, 2012
        Dave,

        That's about it. I don't think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List;
        "Thomas" (at its beginning, perhaps "James") is the earliest, and even that
        is post-Markan. The sayings collections, as far as I can judge from extant
        material, are derivative anthologies, not primary documents. On claimed or
        conjectural texts I have no comment. Your ??? I would call Luke A, and your
        "Luke" is now my Luke B. To complete my picture of Luke-Acts:

        Mark (accretional, 30-45)
        Luke A (rewritten Mark plus new material, pre-70)
        Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
        Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
        Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B
        Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)

        gThos does not seem to know gJohn, or did I miss something? It would be
        interesting to know if gThos is aware of (and anthologizing from) Luke C as
        well as Luke B. I haven't checked this. If not, then we would have,
        chronologically, more or less the following picture:

        Execution of Jesus (30)
        Mark (accretional, 30-45)
        Execution of James Zebedee, 44
        Leadership of conservative James the Brother at Jerusalem, c46
        Confrontation between "some from James" and Paul in Galatia
        Gnostic / Spirit tendencies in Pauline churches, 50's
        Death of Paul, c60
        James = Thos 1-12, perhaps c60)
        Luke A (rewritten Mark plus James plus new material, pre-70)
        Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
        Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
        Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B)
        Colossians (post-Paul; extending Gnostic tendencies in Pauline churches)
        Thomas (extending James; drawing on Luke B and Matthew, less on Mark)
        Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)
        Ephesians (knows Acts II, perhaps c85)
        John (c90)
        1 Peter (in two layers, x and c93)
        1 Clement (knows Ephesians and 1 Peter, c96)

        Colossians (not long after Paul's death; probably written by the editor of
        the first Pauline corpus) and Ephesians (after Colossians, and also after
        Acts II) continue the Gnostic strain in the Pauline churches. Other
        post-Pauline literature (Pastorals, 2 Thess, Hebrews) is from different
        sources, and has different purposes.

        I have not included the probability that gJohn was written in at least three
        strata.

        Those who would compress this schedule by making Mark post-70 need to
        present a convincing alternative to the above picture, including all its
        components. It seems to me that there is good evidence, starting from the
        Oxford Committee's close look at literary directionality and awareness, for
        each step. Refutations welcome as always.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.