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

Re: [XTalk] Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark Used CG in 15:42-16:8, Pt. 2-Fatigue in 16:6

Expand Messages
  • Jan Sammer
    From: Ted Weeden ... Given some interesting correspondence ... may ... when he ... suggesting ... to ... additional ... 16:6 ...
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2002
      From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent@...>
      ...
      Given some interesting correspondence
      > between the use of EQHKAN in the texts of CG as I have noted, I think Mark
      may
      > have inadvertently and under the influence of the CG text, penned EQHKAN
      when he
      > meant EQHKEN. And Matthew and Luke caught the error and, in the case of
      > Matthew, corrected it along with the other Markan stylistic weaknesses.
      >
      > My argument for my theory that Mark may well have used CG as a source for
      > composing his burial and empty-tomb stories is a cumulative one. I am not
      > placing all "my eggs" in the basket of a Markan error in 16:6. I am
      suggesting
      > it is plausible to see Mk. 16:6 as an error, and Gundry, for one, appears
      to
      > view it that way. CG offers an explanation for the error, and if
      additional
      > examples from CG account for other "odd" features of the Markan empty-tomb
      > story, in particular, then that gives more weight to the plausibility that
      16:6
      > is an instance of Markan editorial fatigue.
      >
      Editorial fatigue, if I understand the concept correctly, is not limited to
      the synoptics, but appears to occur also in John 20:3, where Mary Magdelene
      speaks about herself in the plural (OUK OIDAMEN). The most likely
      explanation for this expression is that although John decided to have only
      one woman, Mary Magdalene, come to the tomb, he used a source in which
      several women were mentioned and inadvertently copied OUK OIDAMEN from his
      source, instead of editing it to OUK OIDA.

      With reference to Mark's use of the plural EQHKAN, it should be recalled
      that John (who may have used the same pre-Markan source for the passion
      narrative as the synoptics), speaks of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus as
      burying Jesus jointly (19:40). Thus while both of these instances of
      "editorial fatigue" indicate the existence of a pre-Markan passion
      narrative, they do not directly corroborate the CG thesis. They could just
      as validly corroborate the existence of a pre-gospel passion play as
      postulated by Stecchini, where for technical reasons two characters would
      have been required to carry Jesus' body, and where an entire procession of
      women (the chorus) was represented as coming to the tomb to mourn Jesus and
      to witness the miracle of the resurrection.

      Jan Sammer
      sammer@...
      Prague, Czech Republic
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.