Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer
----- Original Message -----
To: <k.hanhart@...>; <M.S.Goodacre@...>;
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer
> In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> << Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...:
Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language. Mark's
meaning is probably: "he charged
> Simon with being a (the) rock". >>
> Karel, I have numerous questions that emanate from your lengthy post, but
perhaps I should refrain from posing them till I have read your book. In the
meantime, I would like to highlight the oddity of your argument's premise,
which is that John and the author(s) of an early Christian creed were
dutifully recording the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels through coded
(not to mention chronologically inverted) allusions at roughly the same time
that an almost universal tradition was developing in the church that
emphatically asserted the priority of Matthew as the first written Gospel. I
find this odd in the extreme.
Leonard, I, for one, find it odd that you appear to be unacquainted with the
first century method of referring to passages in Tenach. This is always done
through key terms. If Mark, for instance, writes "when you see to 'dbelugma
tes eremoseos'" (13,14) his readers knew he was citing Dan 9,27.
First century authors didnot have footnotes or notes in the margin but their
audience or at least - in the case of the ecclesia -, the presbyter would be
in a position to explain the text in the light of Daniel.
This practice was essential because communication was very expansive at the
Finally, the practice that the early ecclesia's notified each other of what
documents were "received", i.e. approved, by them, is well known Hence my
conclusion that the Creed originally was a booklist of received documents.
What do you think of my comment: 'epetheken onoma toi Simoni'?
With regard to the above citation from the end of your post, could you
explain to me what is wrong with the Greek of the cited Markan phrase? I
have never had any particular difficulty understanding the phrase, or its
syntax, and it reads to me like a good essential summary of the story in
Matt 16 which Mark will later omit. Mark is not interested in the issue of
legitimation of an authority in the (Jewish)Christian community with which
that Matthean source-text deals. (You see I am far from conversion on this
> Leonard Maluf
> Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
> Weston, MA