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

6492Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthean and Lukan Dependence on Mark

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Jul 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/9/2001 8:25:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      emmanuel.fritsch@... writes:

      << Leonard argues :

      # 2. Even allowing that the difference is as great as Ted says it is,
      # as an argument in favor of Markan priority it is still scarcely
      # incontrovertible or strong.

      Ted has recently acknowledged it, when writing (Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:45) :

      # However, with respect to the various portrayals of the disciples, if
      # either Matthew or Luke (as you contend) were shown to be prior to Mark
      # and that Mark was dependent upon both or either one of them, then my
      # case for Mark's systematic vendetta against the disciples would have
      # a compelling boost. If such were the case, then the fact that, for
      # example, Mark fails to provide the disciples a resurrection appearance,
      # as do Matthew and Luke, as well as ends his Gospel with sealed lips of
      # silence (as I have just noted) rather than evangelistic proclamation
      # and missional mandate, would leave the inescapable conclusion, in my
      # judgment, that Mark" purpose in his profiling of the disciples was to
      # intentionally "defrock" the "Twelve."

      So, if I well understood, the phenomenon pointed out by
      Ted would better fit with Markan posteriority than priority. >>


      Perhaps so, but I still don't think Ted's conclusions are validly drawn
      (i.e., even from the supposition of a late Mark). Ted fails to raise the
      question of whether the portrayal of the historical disciples is in any sense
      a primary objective of Mark at all, whether positive or negative. Though I
      hold myself that Mark was the third Synoptic Gospel written, I still do not
      read the evidence the way Ted does. I think the portrayal of the disciples in
      Mark is completely subordinate to a message about Jesus, or at the most, the
      disciples in Mk serve to represent weaknesses and foibles in the Christians
      Mark is addressing. Mark need not be making any statement at all about the
      Twelve apostles as such. They may simply have a representative function in
      the story -- either representing Jewish Christianity generally, or, more
      probably, the "disciples" of Jesus to whom Mark is addressing this Gospel as
      a logos parakleseos. I also see a perfectly possible allusion, in the final
      verses of Mark, to the by then well-known story of the rehabilitation of the
      disciples, and in particular of Peter, after a period of weakness and denial
      (16:7). One is not, I think, supposed to treat the highly stylized and
      functional ending (16:8) with full logical seriousness, as though the reader
      were expected to believe in the end that the disciples of Jesus never heard
      the message of the Resurrection, because the women were too afraid to speak.
      Conventions of dramatic composition are at work in this abrupt ending; they
      follow their own laws and elicit their own proper emotions.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic