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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Priorty of Mark (hard evidence)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic-L On: Staff (Priority of Mark) In Response To: Richard Richmond From: Bruce Richard had lined up three passages as showing Markan priority. In
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic-L
      On: Staff (Priority of Mark)
      In Response To: Richard Richmond
      From: Bruce

      Richard had lined up three passages as showing Markan priority. In part (and
      in his order):

      Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff;
      no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not put
      on two tunics.

      Matthew Matt.10:10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor
      a staff; for the laborer deserves his food.

      Luke 9:3 And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor
      bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.

      Focusing for the moment on the staff, we have Mk allowing one, and Mt/Lk
      prohibiting it. As for "wear two tunics," I would assume that this refers to
      "a second (spare) tunic." Mk, as I read it, allows traveling clothes
      (sandals, staff, one tunic) but no spares (a second tunic, or food, or money
      to buy those and other things), for the principle stated by Mt and (I should
      think) implicit in the other two: that the travelers should earn their way
      by their healing and preaching.

      That seems realistic to me, and the Mt/Lk more strenuous prohibitions look
      less realistic. So, if I know from other evidence that Mk was first in time,
      I could write a good essay interpreting the changes, but I am less
      comfortable assuming that in this detail we have evidence for Markan
      priority. Who is to say if (1) an originally reasonable equipment standard
      was later made less unreasonable for doctrinal or other reasons, or if (2)
      an originally overstated ideal was later tempered by those with more
      experience of the roads of Palestine?

      Richard makes his point as follows: "If Mark did copy Luke he would have to
      have added
      sandals and changed position on the taking of a staff (What was the point of
      mentioning a staff if it need not be taken, note that all three mention the
      staff. There is no other text that says the disciples carried a staff of any
      kind)."

      Well, what was the point of mentioning *anything* not to be taken? I would
      answer: To forbid it, and in the process to make or imply a point about the
      self-sustaining nature of the early ministry. For my own part, I am
      perfectly willing to imagine either of these writers adopting, on the staff
      question, a view opposite to that of the other. There are other changes in
      the list of what is permitted and not, and those also I can imagine. I have
      no choice but to imagine them: there they are. What I can't see at this
      moment is that there is a strong intrinsic probability that one version (eg,
      yes staff) came before the other (eg, no staff).

      Can anyone strengthen the directionality to be imputed to the staff
      difference? Other than by the appeal suggested above, to a greater
      probability of the realism > nonrealism scenario?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.