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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] The Great Omission

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Bruce, This conclusion assumes that Luke was merely copying the text of Mark, as opposed to freely editing it, and further examination shows clearly that
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce Brooks wrote:

      > ..... If anyone out there is actually interested in the subject, take a
      > Greek text of Mark and (in the other hand) one of Luke, and follow along
      > with both, word by word, just before the Omission, until you come to the
      > place where Luke loses contact with Mark. Make a note of it. Then line up
      > the respective points at the end of the Omission, where Luke regains
      > contact, again following the two word by word. What will emerge, I venture
      > to suggest, but only for those actually taking the time to perform the
      > experiment, is that the boundaries of what Luke includes and omits *do not
      > correspond to pericope boundaries.*

      Bruce,

      This conclusion assumes that Luke was merely copying the text of Mark, as
      opposed to freely editing it, and further examination shows clearly that the
      assumption is invalid.

      If Luke had been a mere copyist, then an examination of Mk 6:42-44; 8:27;
      and Lk 9:17-18 along the lines you suggest would show that he omitted KAI
      APO TWN ICQUWN and the sentence mentioning the PENTAKISCILIOI, and then
      omitted the first part of Mk 8:27 with its mention of KAISAREIAS THS
      FILIPPOU. But far from omitting the mention of the five thousand, he had
      already mentioned them several sentences earlier. Also, in 9:18 he added
      that Jesus was 'praying alone'. This is not the work of a copyist. Once we
      grant that Luke was an editor exerting considerable freedom in his use of
      Mark (and this is easily verified when we expand our comparisons between
      Mark and Luke), it is surely a nonsense to claim that Luke's deviation from
      Mark can be pinned down to mid-sentence, or even to mid-pericope.

      > ..... At minimum, however many copies of Mark were available to
      > medium-income readers in Syria, noneof them contained the ending of the
      > text.

      They all contained the ending (16:8). It's just that some people
      underestimate Mark's skills as an author. ;-)

      > Matthew, another known Mark reader, did his best to patch in what he
      > thought would have been the ending.

      Mark revelled in subtlety. Matthew, as a good teacher, liked to set things
      out clearly. This simple distinction explains many of the differences
      between their texts.

      > ..... if, as I and some others have concluded, Mark is early, with a core
      > narrative written in the early or mid 30's, .....

      Not a chance. Several older aphorisms untainted by the synoptic editors
      indicate that the original disciples expected the imminent return of Jesus.
      Why write anything down if you think the end is imminent? One of the
      clearest trajectories in the early Jesus movement is from eager expectation
      of an early return, to acceptance of, and preparation for, an increasingly
      long delay. Mark illuminates a part of the trajectory when he deliberately
      sets the embarrassing 9:1 in a context designed to suggest that the
      expectation of an imminent return was somehow fulfilled in the
      Transfiguration.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.