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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: To: ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, May
    Message 1 of 3 , May 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <Maluflen@...>
      To: <k.hanhart@...>; <M.S.Goodacre@...>;
      <synoptic-L@...>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      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,
      k.hanhart@... writes:
      >
      > << 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
      time.
      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'?

      cordially,

      Karel





      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
      topic.)
      >
      > Leonard Maluf
      > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      > Weston, MA
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.