Re: [GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas
From: "kurt31416" <kurt31416@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 6:50 PM
Subject: [GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas
> Hi Jack,John 21 may have been the original ending of Mark.
> Stupid question. How come there's virtually no Mark/John sayings
> parallels, never more than 2 in a row, then all of a sudden, there's 10 in
> a row, from the Last Supper to the end of Mark? All of a sudden, it's the
> same Jesus talking. (J.S. Five Gospels data)
> And, of course, all the Thomas parallels clustered in the first part.
> Why would Mark's Thomas saying list only be at the beginning of Mark, and
> why are all the sayings in Mark from the Last Supper to the end, (none of
> which is in Thomas) also in John?
> Rick Van Vliet
Mark anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21
without the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first
In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times (14:67-72). In John (21:15-17),
Peter affirms his love three times....the pro-Petrine redemption anticipated
in Mark. This completes what form critics have come to recognize as Markan
brackets (like the bracketed blind men at 8:22 and 10:46). In Mark, the
shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
the new shepherd..completing another incomplete Markan bracket. In Mark,
the first words spoken to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST
words spoken are "follow me" (Jn 21:22) completing another Markan bracket.
If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
I am, to the point of annoyance to some, the "follow the Aramaic" guy and
also find support in this from Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark,
edited with a few Johannine signature phrases, we should see typically
Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John with none or little in Matthew and
Luke. I find this in Mark's frequent use of the historic present resulting
from Aramaic narrative participle also frequent in John 21. There is also
a connection between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de
and frequent use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35,
6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.
San Antonio, TX
- Hi Jack,Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon.Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact that, as a historian, you picked up two historical references to two very, very early Chritian documents in Papias (The Matthean Logia and Mark's Notes) and have proposed that one was our Book of Q and the other the Gospel of Thomas.Quite an original idea, and well worth exploring.It's been been both interesting and stimulating trying to test out your intriguing proposal.Thanks.When you get back to this, I have a question.- Since the Matthean Logia is said to have been written down in Aramaic (actually, Papais calls it "Hebrew".) wouldn't back translating the Q parallel sayings in Thomas not also yield the sort of results you've found in the Markan sayings?Best Regards,Ron McCannSasakatoon, Canada PS Couldn't find a listing for a Kilmon in the phone book. Does yourr son go by a different name or like many of the younger set, does he use only a cellphone?