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

Matthew's ending

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a recent post, Bruce Brooks wrote: ? ?Matthew, another known Mark reader, did his best to patch in what he thought would have been the ending. ? Leonard:
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 3, 2010
      In a recent post, Bruce Brooks wrote:
      ?
      ?Matthew, another known Mark reader, did his best to patch in what he
      thought would have been the ending.
      ?
      Leonard: This strikes me as a singularly inapt way to view the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew, which are in fact the perfect ending for the Gospel of Matthew itself, with numerous tie-ins with themes and concepts developed throughout his own Gospel. Without the hypothesis of Markan priority (and it is an hypothesis, which means that Matthew cannot rightly be described as a "known" reader of Mark) one would never come upon the idea of Matt 28 as a bit of patch work designed to complete the work of a source, apocopated or not.?Matt 28?is extremely well integrated into the?Gospel of Matthew itself, and is best understood as completing that work.
      ?
      Bruce also wrote:
      ?
      Some later scribes, in a variety of ways, performed the
      same restorative service to the end of the Mark copy they were then making.
      Same inference. Their results are interesting without being convincing. For
      them too, the only recourse was their best guess.
      ?
      Leonard: The last sentence here surprises me. Is it not fairly evident, and commonly held, that the long ending of Mark conflates various elements of the known Gospel endings of canonical Matthew and Luke? If that is so, to say that?its author's?"only recourse was?[his] best guess"?would be?misleading, to say the least.
      ?
      Leonard Maluf
      196 N Main Street
      Leominster, MA
      ?

      ?



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Leonard, Each of the synoptic writers did a masterful job of taking his source material and shaping a coherent narrative and thematic consistency.  So the
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 3, 2010
        Leonard,

        Each of the synoptic writers did a masterful job of taking his source material and shaping a coherent narrative and thematic consistency.  So the unity of Mt 28 doesn't prove Matthean priority anymore than the unity of Mk 1 and 2 would prove Markan priority.  Their relationship has to be decided on other grounds.

        Rev. Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia
        ___________________
        From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Matthew's ending
        To: synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 7:46 PM


        ...the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew...are in fact the perfect ending for the Gospel of Matthew itself, with numerous tie-ins with themes and concepts developed throughout his own Gospel. Without the hypothesis of Markan priority (and it is an hypothesis, which means that Matthew cannot rightly be described as a "known" reader of Mark) one would never come upon the idea of Matt 28 as a bit of patch work designed to complete the work of a source, apocopated or not.?Matt 28?is extremely well integrated into the?Gospel of Matthew itself, and is best understood as completing that work.







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