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

Re: [Synoptic-L] No Luke: a thought experiment about Q

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... A method without evidence is no useful method. Your point about Two independent witnesses is correct, and an ancient legal method used throughout the
    Message 1 of 38 , Jun 23, 2005
      --- "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>

      > >But Q would surely have been totally invisible.
      > Would anyone in these
      > >circumstances be able to define a logical method by
      > which they would be able
      > >to reconstruct something like Q?
      > The problem in this scenario is not so much one of
      > method but of
      > evidence. Two independent witnesses are usually
      > needed to reconstruct
      > a common source.

      A method without evidence is no useful method. Your
      point about "Two independent witnesses" is correct,
      and an ancient legal method used throughout the
      Mediterranean basin.

      > I've felt for a long time that Q might be an
      > artifact of a
      > particular approach to analyzing the synoptic
      > problem, but deleting
      > Luke is not the way to show that. A better way to
      > show that Q is
      > amorphous is to do what Eric Eve (and others did and
      > will do) is
      > to attempt to reconstruct Mark assuming the
      > existence of Matt,
      > Luke, and Q. It is possible to get something from
      > doing the
      > reconstruction, but that something turn out to be a
      > pale shadow
      > of the real Mark.

      Exactly! Here we have two witnesses that do not
      corroborate Mark as, in your own words (see above), "a
      common source". Ergo, the "evidence" suggests that
      Mark could not have been written before Matt and Lk.

      Best regards,
      John N. Lupia,III

      Yahoo! Sports
      Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Karel Hanhart
      ... From: Karel Hanhart To: John Lupia Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] No Luke: a
      Message 38 of 38 , Jul 6, 2005
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Karel Hanhart" <
        To: "John Lupia" <
        Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:51 PM
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] No Luke: a thought experiment about Q

        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "John
        Lupia" <
        > To: "Karel Hanhart" <
        face="Times New Roman" size=3>k.hanhart@...>
        > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:44
        > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] No Luke: a thought experiment about
        Dear John,
        In a previous reply (July 3) I objected to your exegesis below because you
        stated among other items that the rolling away of the stone (by Jacob in Gn
        29) "prefigures" Christ. May I remind you that this discussion began with my
        thesis that my midrash exegesis of Mark's opened monumental tomb appears to
        be confirmed in the critical saying "on this Rock I will build my ecclesia"
        in Matthew (16:17-20) .  Thus Matthew knew Mark and confirmed the meaning of
        the climactic ending to his gospel. Briefly: - Based on the reference to LXX
        Isa 22,16 1) the "monumental tomb" [mnemeion] in both passages appears to be
        a metaphor of the temple, built on the Rock [petra] of Zion, Israel's
        central place of worship. Both Arimathea, member of the Sanhedrin,  in Mark
        and  the high priest Sebna in Isa 22 stand condemned. 2) Simon Peter
        [Petros - Rockman] is the last named and emphatically selected apostle in
        the Gospel (Mk 16,7). If Arimathea is convicted like Sebna was by the
        prophet Isaiah, then Peter is elevated to replace him in his office like
        Eljakim in Isaiah. 3) The 'keys' passage in Mt 16:19 is probably paralleled
        in that same pericope in Isaiah (Isa 22,22).
        The Matthean passage [the only one in the four gospels in which the term
        ekklesia occurs] appears like a meteor in the Markan//Mathean sequence of
        Peter's confession and Jesus' rebuke of Simon's misconception. Suddenly we
        read, "Blessed are you Simon...". In light of the above notes on the meaning
        of Mark's ending, the conclusion is warranted a) Matthew closely followed
        Mark in his sequence of Simon's  confession and b) Matthew ADDS and CONFIRMS
        Mark's intention expressed in the tomb story that from now on Simon (who was
        martyred in Rome) would be heading, the ecclesia, the people of God.  The
        temple was destryed, the high priestly office non-functional, hope for
        Israel seem to have vanished. Both Mark and Matthew build their hope of the
        risen Christ and his ecclesia now in exile.

           Your answer below is not a rebuttal at all to the thesis that Mark wrote
        a midrash. This failure stems from your approach to the Bible which differs
        sharply from my own.. To you the Bible is the text book of the Christian
        church and thus you claim exegetically a) that "the rolling of the stone in
        Gen 29 "prefigures" Christ"  and "Eliachim (in Isa 22) prefigures Christ
        with the robe his sindon (tallit) used as his burial shroud". You may or may
        not have deduced  this from patristic interpretations.
        My objection is that this kind of interpretation ignores the basic fact that
        when Mark and Matthew were writing their Gospel in the aftermath of the
        Judean revolt, the ecclesia was still largely Jewish - the NT was not
        written - the Torah and the prophets were the guiding lights of all Judean
        authors, whether or not they were Christian. One century later  the tables
        were turned; the synagogue was dismissed as totally erroneous, inimical to
        Jesus Christ and to God's revelation through him. Thus the Hebrew Bible
        became dogmatically the Christian's bible.
        However, the exegete must attempt first of all to be true to history and not
        to later dogma. To give a modern example. Today one may not, as a
        Protestant, discuss the Reformation, while excluding the claims of the Roman
        Catholic Church in his/her deliberation - their roots drink from the same
        Source. So also one cannot, as a Christian, discuss the Gospel at the
        exclusion of the Jewish people and the Hebrew Bible.  -
        their roots drink from the same Source.
        That is why I tend to dismiss your exegesis as inadmissable in the forum of
        exegetical scholarship. I realize, however, that with this staement I also
        dismiss the agelong supersessionist interpretation in the history of the
        We will come nearer to the truth about the origins of the Church if we begin
        to take the Judean historical context fully into account.

        Looking forward to your reply,

        yours cordially,

        Below follows the previous discussion:
        Karel wrote to Lupia:
         May I test your "resounding YES" a bit further? I asked a precise question
        concerning Mark's tomb story:  To sum it all up, John, would you agree Mark
        was  citing the Greek texts of Isa  22,16; 33,16 and Gen 29, 2ff.?

        >>> Lupia 
        >>> >When I said all of the evangelists did cite the
        >>> (I realize some do
        >>> > not like LXX as a
        reference to the Septuagint or
        >>> > Hebrew Bible) I thought it
        was a resounding YES!
        >>> > If you read my posts it >would
        >>> > have been clear enough that my position is
        >>> nearly every >verse in all
        >>> > 4
        Gospels are couched in references to the LXX and
        >>>  >Graeco-Roman texts.
        >>> > I apologize if I was not clear
        enough in my
        >>> >initial response to
        >>> Hanhart's reply:
        >>> You are
        still dodging my precise question, ....
        >>> Let
        >>> me
        rephrase it: Is the
        >>> opened tomb story  'couched' in
        specific references,
        >>> namely, to lxx Isa
        >>> 22,26;
        33,16 and Gen 2?
        >  Lupia:
        >> You mean Is 22,16;
        33:16 and Gen 29:2.
        > Hanhart - No I did mean the Septuagint
        version of these verses.
        > Lupia continued:
        Isaiah 22 includes the destruction of Juda, Sobna
        >> (Shebna) a
        prefigure of Joseph of Arimathea, and
        >> Eliachim a prefigure of
        Christ. The tomb carved by
        >> Sobna (Shebna) is surely seen by Mk as a
        parallel but
        >> within the context of the entire section
        >> the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 AD ; and
        >> prefiguring Christ with the robe his sindon
        >> used as his burial shroud; and keys, a symbol of
        >> absolute power, which builds on the Matthean text to
        refer to Peter as his vicar.
        >> Isaiah 33 parallels the
        wrath of God against the
        >> enemies of His Church and the eternal rule
        of justice
        >> of Christ in His Church (Church militant,
        >> and triumphant)
        >> The
        parallels of Gen 29 are the rolling away of the
        >> stone to water the
        flock of sheep, prefiguring the
        >> Risen Christ who feeds the Church
        with His salvific
        >> grace and sacraments (earlier echoed in Jn
        >> The marriage to Lia instead of Rachel prefigures
        >> Church given to the Gentiles for salvation (as Lia)
        and Lia's four sons prefigure the 4 Gospels confirming
        >> Mk is the 4th
        and final one.
        > Hanhart:
        > I have learnt to
        interpret texts from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint
        > on their own
        merits. Prefiguration is not found in my exegetical toolbox.
        > It is, in
        my view, not permissable to state that Jacob rolling away the
        > stone
        from the well "prefigures Christ". This approach to the Hebrew Bible
        may have been practices by certain Church Fathers, but our first task is
        > to read such passages as much as possible in their own historical
        > as part of Israel's tradition.
        > However, you appear to
        admit that Mark deliberately referred to the
        > passages mentioned above.
        Did you already come to the above
        > interpretations previous to my
        questioning? Or did you formulate an answer
        > on the spur of the moment?
        For I was surprised to read your  statement:
        > "The tomb carved by
        Sobna (Shebna) is surely seen by Mk as a parallel but
        > within the
        context of the entire section paralleling
        > the destruction of Jerusalem
        in 72 AD ...". How did you come to that
        > conclusion?  And what do
        you think is the parallel between Sebna and
        > Joseph of
        > I am also puzzled by  your
        >> "The editors [of Nestle-Aland]  are not
        infallible you know. They
        >> probably rejected the evidence of these
        parallels since they
        > show the things I pointed out."
        > I
        am sorry, but that answer doesn't make sense to me. You first appear to
        admit Mark referred to Isa 22, 33 and Gn 29; but now you appear to agree
        > with the rejection (?) of these parallels by the editors of Nestle
        > they show the things I pointed out.
        > Perhaps we
        should let the matter rest. For there is a wide gulf between
        > what you
        mean by "prefigure" and by my own understanding  of midrash. It
        would take a long conversation to clarify the issues at stake which cannot
        > be adequately dealt with in this list.
        > yours
        > Karel Hanhart

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.