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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark's biggest sayings block (Mt 19:28)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: Ron On: Sayings Behind Mark From: Bruce Ron s list of units in Mark which he sees as elaborations of a core saying which
    Message 1 of 50 , Oct 18, 2011
      To: Synoptic (GPG)
      In Response To: Ron
      On: Sayings Behind Mark
      From: Bruce

      Ron's list of units in Mark which he sees as elaborations of a core saying
      which Mark got from a previous sayings source is interesting, but in too
      many ways to take up in one note. I here limit myself to a dissent from the
      next to last (his #12), merely to get it out of the way. Ron lists that item
      as:

      12. 10:28-30, based on 10:29-30 // Mt 19:28 // [Lk] 22:28-30

      One problem I see is that there are two elements here, the compensation for
      sufferings in this life, for believers in general, and the specific reward
      waiting for the disciples (given the number, it is obviously only the latter
      that involves twelve thrones, meaning that in this passage the "disciples"
      are being understood to be the Twelve Apostles). For the general
      compensation part, we have

      Mk 10:29-30 || Mt 19:29-30 || Lk 18:29b-30,

      with a parallel in Mk, andnd for the twelve thrones part, which has no
      parallel in Mk, we have:

      Mt 12:28 || Lk 22:28-30

      Note that the Luke parallel is at a different point in the narrative. It
      would now be interesting to take up the question: of these two Twelve
      Thrones items, which one is intrinsically earlier, and (separate question)
      which one better suits its immediate narrative context, in Mt and Lk?

      Ron says of this passage: ) "Mark has replaced the twelve's reward of
      sitting on 12 thrones with a reward suitable for Gentiles (Mk 10:30)."

      I would say, clearly not so. Mark, if he came second to Matthew and/or Luke,
      has simply omitted the Twelve Thrones part, and not replaced it with
      anything. If Mark is first (as many have suspected), then Mt and/or Lk have
      added that idea, for reasons yet to be determined.

      The vice of this Q stuff, especially in its modern ("Mk/Q overlap") form,
      can be seen here: it leads to results which contradict the manifest Mk >
      Mt/Lk directionality of the extant texts, which, simply because those texts
      are extant, probably deserves the higher credit.

      To other aspects of Ron's list, which I repeat have various kinds of
      interest from my point of view, I hope to return later.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ronald Price
      ... Jeff, Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders, though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which
      Message 50 of 50 , Nov 10, 2011
        Jeff Peterson wrote:

        > ..... while Paul doesn't mention signs
        > and wonders performed by Jesus, he does regard signs and wonders as marking
        > apostles of the risen Christ (Rom 15:18–19; 2 Cor 12:12).

        Jeff,

        Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders,
        though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which is
        Paul's strongest statement on the subject, that the context is his desperate
        desire to present himself as a true apostle. Also he was somewhat agitated
        (2 Cor 12:11).

        But unfortunately none of the four claims to deeds of power (your two plus 1
        Thess 1:5 and 1 Cor 2:4) are accompanied by details. Consequently we can't
        be sure what Paul meant, and there is at least the possibility that he was
        referring to the drama of mass conversions which this persuasive missionary
        no doubt initiated.

        > It wouldn't be a great leap to suppose that Paul had heard reports from
        > Cephas, James, et al. of signs and wonders performed by Christ .....

        But this is nothing more than a supposition, and its perceived likelihood
        depends on whether or not we consider (on other grounds) that Jesus was a
        miracle worker.

        So I still maintain that our only independent witness to Jesus as a miracle
        worker is the gospel of Mark.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.