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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Kloppenborg vs. Fleddermann

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Ron Price wrote: Mark would have been superfluous had it not been the foundation for Matthew and Luke, as the relative unpopularity of Mark in the early
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Price wrote:
      Mark would have been superfluous had it not been the foundation for Matthew
      and Luke, as the relative unpopularity of Mark in the early centuries surely
      indicates.

      Leonard: The judgment about the "relative unpopularity of Mark" in the early centuries is based largely on the literary remains of those centuries. But surely, in literary circles, the more literary Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John continued, as ever, to be more used and esteemed than Mark, as they had always been. Where it was known, Mark's popularized and dramatized Gospel was probably more genuinely "popular" than other Gospels (when it finally came along), meaning that it likely was a favorite among people who did not leave much evidence to posterity because they did not write books.

      Your logic here also leaves unexplained why the enormous (relative) popularity of Mark in, say, the 20th century, in spite of the existence of Matthew and Luke. I suspect I know how you would respond to this, namely, that it is principally the new knowledge of Markan priority that has given Mark's gospel such a boost in popularity in the last couple of centuries. But I doubt that Mark's priority would have escaped being known in the early centuries, had it been a fact, or that a knowledge of its priority would have had any less impact on its popularity back then than the assumption of its priority has today.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA


      ________________________________________________________________________
      Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gentile_dave@emc.com
      Leonard wrote: But I doubt that Mark s priority would have escaped being known in the early centuries, had it been a fact. Dave: This is a reasonable question.
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Leonard wrote: But I doubt that Mark's priority would have escaped being
        known in the early centuries, had it been a fact.



        Dave: This is a reasonable question. If Mark is first, why does
        tradition say Matthew was first?



        I have a proposal, which I discussed at some length with Ron Price, and
        mentioned briefly here.

        The idea is that there was a saying source, but it was a forgery by the
        author of the gospel of Matthew, in order to justify his expansion of
        Mark.



        So first we have the gospel of Mark, maybe developed in stages, but
        already well established by the time the gospel of Matthew comes along.
        In order to justify expanding the gospel of Mark, the author of Matthew
        forges a "saying source" and claims it to be actual words of Jesus
        recorded by the disciple Matthew. The author of the gospel of Matthew
        then uses this "saying-source" to "correct" and update Mark.



        Luke is then taken in by the saying-source forgery, but recognizes the
        gospel of Matthew as contemporary. Luke makes his own gospel, using Mark
        and the "saying-source", with only occasional reference to Matthew.



        Future generations (including Pappias), are also taken in by the
        forgery, and thus credit Matthew (or at least Mathew's LOGIA) as being
        first, and Mark's gospel as being second. If this hypothesis is correct,
        it would answer Leonard's question - "If Mark is first, why does
        tradition say Matthew was first?" Of course, I realize Leonard has a
        different answer in mind.



        In discussion with Ron, I came to realize that there is very little that
        can separate his idea from mine. We did come up with some ideas for
        detailed work that could be done, and reviewing Fleddermann work, from
        the perspective of my hypothesis and his, was one of those ideas.
        However, I have not had time to pursue that yet, beyond some preliminary
        work. So, as it stands, my personal assessment currently places Ron's
        idea and mine on almost equal footing. They both correctly describe many
        points (in my opinion), and where detailed work could be done to
        separate them, I've not done anything more than begin that process. But,
        currently I know of nothing that seems to eliminate either hypothesis
        from consideration.



        Here is my current draft

        http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html

        which just represents where I left off in the process. But comments on
        the project thus far are welcome.



        Thanks,



        Dave Gentile

        Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

        B.S./M.S. Physics

        M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

        Riverside, IL





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