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

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

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Only Mk is consistent here (both prediction and act). How can these differences be explained on any synoptic theory? This is, of course, a prejudiced way of
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 27, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Only Mk is consistent here (both prediction and act). How can these
      differences be explained on any synoptic theory?

      This is, of course, a prejudiced way of describing the situation. If Matthew had the prediction, and Mark not, we would doubtless be hearing about Matthew adding to the supernatural character of Jesus by having him predict the spitting. There is nothing "inconsistent" about simply not having a prediction and reporting?an act (Matt).?Matt may very well be original; and?the prediction, a development in the tradition introduced by Luke and followed by Mark. Unicuique suum.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA


      -----Original Message-----
      From: David @ Comcast <davidinglis2@...>
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 5:49 pm
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Why Does Jesus predict he will be spit on in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark?



      In Mk 10:34 Jesus predicts that he will be spat on, and the act itself is
      mentioned in Mk 14:65 and 15:19

      In Lk 18:32 Jesus predicts that he will be spat on, but the act itself is
      not mentioned in Lk

      The predication is omitted in Mt 20:19, but the act itself is mentioned in
      Mt 26:67 and 27:30



      Only Mk is consistent here (both prediction and act). How can these
      differences be explained on any synoptic theory?



      David Inglis

      Lafayette, CA, 94549

      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.92/2203 - Release Date: 07/01/09
      05:53:00




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.