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

RE: [XTalk] Re: More on Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • Sukie Curtis
    ... What do you think of Crossan s proposal in _The Birth of Christianity_, pp. 31-41, that the shape of the canon in regard to the gospels represents one side
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Wieland Willker wrote:

      > I think the even more interesting question is, why we have Mk at
      > all. Why was it included
      > into the canon and not Q, too?
      > It seems that Mk was seldom used and seldom copied and that they
      > obviously digged out one
      > of the last existing damaged copies of Mk and added it to the
      > canon. Why? Why was it
      > earlier neglegted, but then got canon status? Contrast Q.

      What do you think of Crossan's proposal in _The Birth of Christianity_, pp.
      31-41, that the shape of the canon in regard to the gospels represents one
      side of "A War of Gospel Types," in that it was the FORM or TYPE of
      narrative "biography gospels" (portraying a life of the earthly Jesus, up to
      and including his death and resurrection) that was preferred over against
      the "discourse gospel" type (sayings and revelations of the risen Jesus to
      his disciples set AFTER his resurrection), or even the hybrid
      biography-discourse. Mark, although already incorporated into Mt and Lk,
      would be valued as another example of the same TYPE, and John also, even
      though it teeters on the edge of a different mind-set in terms of its
      content. You stack up four of the same type of gospel in a row and maybe
      people begin to get the point! Q on its own terms (as Kloppenborg describes
      it) may have been moving in the direction of a biography gospel but wasn't
      far enough along to fit; and as primarily a collection of sayings, perhaps
      it looked a bit too much like other sayings collections which were by that
      time mostly developing gnostic tendencies.

      Sukie Curtis
      Cumberland Foreside, Maine
    • Brian McCarthy
      Wieland, You write that the more interesting question is, Why was have Mark at all? The hypothesis I have worked with is that originally each of the gospels
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 7, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Wieland,

        You write that the more interesting question is, Why was have Mark at all?

        The hypothesis I have worked with is that originally each of the gospels was
        the sole one in use in some significant local component of the emerging
        'Great Church' network: Antioch having one, Alexandria another etc.

        And then as the Great Church network continued to strengthen itself through
        communication between its local component churches, that there was a
        sharing: each local cluster of churches accepting the gospels of the others,
        and having its own gospel accepted by them.

        For this to explain the survival of Mark, after Lk and MT became available
        to everyone, would require that Mark had been the official gospel in use in
        at least one important local component.

        This idea is reinforced by the fact that Mark did not just survive but
        became one of the four canonical gospels. For it simply to have survived it
        would have sufficed for it to have been replaced everywhere by the 'new and
        enlarged' 2nd editions of the gospel (Mt and Lk.); and, having failed to be
        accepted universally, to have simply been preserved as a beloved 'relic' by
        the local church cluster where it originated. (If sometime later only a
        single copy survived in some dusty corner, then it could easily have lost
        that famous last page.)

        (As I wrote this, the following modification occured to me: Given that it
        apparently predated the other gospels by a couple of decades, Mark's use
        could have spread widely throughout the Great Church network. But as soon as
        the others were brought into existence the various local components might
        quickly have replaced it without any sense of loss--in every area except
        where it originated. There it could have retained the status of Number One
        gospel or at least the status of cherished gospel. This would have sufficed
        to ensure its later canonization.)

        Brian McCarthy
        Madison WI

        P.S. While each of the gospels may have had an 'author', I do not
        necessarily see these authors as autonomous. One or the other a) may have
        written under commission by his church and b) only have had their gospel
        accepted when it measured up to the requirements of the elders.
        (Further imagining! Mark's writing abilities were originally limited to what
        was needed to work for some large import/export business. He learned how to
        write a gospel through having his first 6--or 12!--drafts refused by his
        elders. None of them could have written a gospel by himself, but they knew
        what they wanted a gospel to be!
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Wieland Willker" <willker@...-bremen.de>
        To: "Crosstalk" <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:58 AM
        Subject: [XTalk] Re: More on Mark 16:9-20


        > I think, the most probable scenario is that for whatever reason the REAL
        ending is lost
        > (either Mk never wrote one, or it was lost very early in the transmission
        history). From
        > early on people felt uncomfortable with this strange ending. Now, knowing
        the Gospels of
        > Mt, Lk and John, it is not too difficult to prepare some ending. It is not
        really needed
        > that EVERYTHING is exactly copied from Mt, Lk or Jo, some freedom is
        allowed here. And we
        > have at least three different endings. This shows IMHO that these endings
        have been
        > prepared later to make Mk conform to the other Gospels. As Kurt Aland has
        convincingly
        > shown, the so called shorter ending seems to be the oldest.
        >
        > I think the even more interesting question is, why we have Mk at all. Why
        was it included
        > into the canon and not Q, too?
        > It seems that Mk was seldom used and seldom copied and that they obviously
        digged out one
        > of the last existing damaged copies of Mk and added it to the canon. Why?
        Why was it
        > earlier neglegted, but then got canon status? Contrast Q.
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        > ---------------
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        >
        >
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Brian McCarthy
        Apologies, I should have written, Why we have Mark at all, not Why was have Mark at all.Which makes no sense. ... From: Wieland Willker
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 7, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Apologies,

          I should have written, Why we have Mark at all, not Why was have Mark at
          all.Which makes no sense.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Wieland Willker" <willker@...-bremen.de>
          To: "Crosstalk" <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:58 AM
          Subject: [XTalk] Re: More on Mark 16:9-20



          > I think the even more interesting question is, why we have Mk at all. Why
          was it included
          > into the canon and not Q, too?
          > It seems that Mk was seldom used and seldom copied and that they obviously
          digged out one
          > of the last existing damaged copies of Mk and added it to the canon. Why?
          Why was it
          > earlier neglegted, but then got canon status? Contrast Q.
          >
          > Best wishes
          > Wieland
          > <><
          > ---------------
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          >
          >
          >
          > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
          >
          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.