10178Re: [Synoptic-L] Herod's Worries
- Jul 4, 2005In a message dated 7/4/2005 8:14:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brooks@... writes:
BRUCE: Let's see if I can restate this for beginners like myself.
(1) The conjunction of Jesus's going forth with the advice to the Twelve is
found only in Mt 9:35 / 10:1f and in Mk 6:6b / 7f. On the hypothesis that
GMk in general is derivative from GMt and GLk, he can only have picked up
this sequence by following GMt at this point.
OK, I follow you thus far.
(2) The conjunction of the Advice to the Twelve with the Sending of the
Twelve occurs only in Lk 9:5/6 and in Mk 6:12/13. On the above assumption,
GMk can here only be following GLk, and it then follows that he must have
shifted to the GLk model sometime in between.
This is partially correct (though I assume you mean Lk 9:6, not Lk 9:5-6. It is Mark who then extends his Acta Apostolorum to include two full verses). My other problem with your formulation here is that you speak of the "Sending of the Twelve" as proper to Mark and Luke. This is of course not true at all. In Matthew the apostles are sent out, very explicitly and very clearly, in 10:5 and 6, where they are told to go specifically to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (cf. 9:36). What we do not find in Matt is a narrative comment of the evangelist describing their actual going forth and engaging in this mission, in response to the commissioning words of Jesus.
Where exactly? At the "staff" passage, as abundantly noted in previous
posts, Mk 6:9 diverges from both, allowing a staff, whereas both Mt/Lk
forbid it. At Mk 6:10, we have "And he said to them," without precedent in
either supposed source. The Lukan similarity perhaps begins to outweigh the
Matthean similarity at approximately Mk 6:11 "and if any place will not
receive you" (|| Lk 9:5 "and wherever they do not receive you," personalized
in Mt 9:14 as "and if any one will not receive you or listen to your
words"). Let's then take this as the transition point. But why should AMk
make that transition at just this point? What in the Lukan variant would
have attracted his eye and pen?
I assume that Mark had both texts in front of him when he wrote, and you are approximately correct in your determination of when Luke becomes the dominant influence in this passage.
(3) The conjunction of the Sending of the Twelve with the Herodian
speculations occurs only at Mk 6:13/14f and at Lk 9:7/7f. The Matthean
parallel is elsewhere, namely at Mt 14:1-2. Leonard, if I read him right,
suggests that AMk here shifts back to GMt.
My statement here was a bit confusing, I admit. If you are going to say that Mark's text remains closer in its formulations to Lk than to Matt for the most part in this passage, I will agree.
1. It seems easier to suppose that AMk would continue following GLk rather
than turning many pages to shift to GMt. A motive for the extra effort would
have to be shown. None suggests itself to me.
You are right, although it is clear that -- while following Lk here as his primary source -- Mark at least found the parallel passage in Matt 14 before beginning to write, and allowed it to influence his formulations, especially in 6:14. This was simply SOP for Mark, so no special motive is needed here.
2. Of the two candidate Markan sources, compared to the Markan text -
Mt 14:1 - "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus
Lk 9:7 - "Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done
[Mk 6:14] - "King Herod heard of it; for Jesus's name had become known
- Mk follows Mt in mentioning Jesus's fame, but at the same time he does
not adopt the feature of GMt which would avoid the seeming reference to the
disciples, namely, providing a noun object "the fame of Jesus" for Herod to
hear about, rather than relying on previous context to supply what has
caused him to worry. Both Mk and Lk rely on previous context to fill in the
meaning of "all that was done" (Lk) and "it" (Mk).
There is no '"it" in the Greek text of Mark. But the reference is vague and general, and to the preceding gospel narrative of the deeds of Jesus in both, yes.
It seems, from this skeleton comparison, that AMk does not shift to GMt, but
rather continues to have both sources in view, taking features from both,
and in ways that create rather than solve a continuity problem.
As I said above, I agree with you that Mark would have both gospel sources in view at this point in his redaction, on the Griesbach hypothesis. I also think you correctly describe the result of Mark's editing here, and in the process perhaps strengthen the case for Mk 6:7-13 as an interpolation, if one assumes Markan priority. In its more immediate context, the object-less verb AKOUEIN in Mk 6:14 refers back to verses like 6:2 and even 5, rather than to the immediately preceding verse.
The opposite of the Mark-last position is the Luke-last position, which has
had some play recently. We might see if motives for choice between sources
more readily suggest themselves on this alternative hypothesis of the
relationship. We have, GIVEN GMt and GMk, TO FIND motives for the text of
GLk as we have it.
Goulder (1989) takes this section up at 1/428f. I won't here paraphrase. But
I do note in general that there is explicit support in GLk for a critical
(that is, sometimes adversative) use of more than one source. The opening of
that Gospel, the only explicitly authorial one of the three Synoptics, where
(a) multiple earlier versions of Jesus's career are said to exist, and (b)
dissatisfaction is implicitly suggested with all of them, otherwise there is
no reason to embark on a new account. I don't think that there is anything
like that much support for the alternative Mark-last hypothesis.
(a) "Multiple versions of Jesus's career" are not said to exist in the opening verses of Luke, which speaks rather of the many who have "undertaken to set in order an account of things which have been brought to fulfillment in our midst". This could as well refer to the authors of the OT books which Luke believes speak of Jesus (24:27, 44), and of which we know for certain that Luke made abundant use throughout his Gospel and especially in his first two chapters. Your (b) implies that Luke begins his phrase with a concessive (although), whereas he actually begins with a causal conjunction (inasmuch as). It was not so much general dissatisfaction with Matt that inspired Luke to rewrite the gospel story as the awareness that the Gospel message needed to be updated to encompass and address the important new moment of the Pauline mission.
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>