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

Re: Kloppenborg vs. Fleddermann

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.