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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Walking stick or Shepherd's staff : the priority of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    John N. Lupia wrote: For healing Mk 6:13 adds they anointed with oil. This clearly establishes a very late writing and an early reference to the sacrament of
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2005
      John N. Lupia wrote:

      For healing Mk 6:13 adds they anointed with oil. This
      clearly establishes a very late writing and an early
      reference to the sacrament of the anointing of the
      sick. This is cited as a ritual in Jas 5:4. Lk 10:34
      mentions the medical practice of placing wine and oil
      on the wounds in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
      However, Church sacramental use of sacred oil with no
      wine is to be applied to the sick with prayers for
      their healing.

      Actually anointing the sick with oil is a very old
      pratice and if anything comfirms that the commission
      of the twelve is not a post resurrection event. The
      Essene communtiy at Qumran was established long before
      the New Testament period and did teach about the
      Twelve men establishing a new Israel. They also
      annointed the sick with oil.

      The book of acts tells us that Peter found it necessar
      to replace Judas which is a clear indication that the
      official position and commission of the Twelve had
      already been established. The discourse given by Peter
      points to the time of the Baptism of John as the
      beginning. In choosing a replacement for Judas his
      criteria is to choose someone that had been with the
      movement since the Baptism of John.

      The book of James (which many hold to be the oldest of
      the epistles) confirms the practice of anointing with
      oil and as I pointed out the shepherds staff goes back
      to Psalm 23. You offer no evidence whatever to support
      your position that Mark did not intend the staff of a
      shepherd. And again all of the issues involved in the
      commission are present in Paul's letters written
      between 40 and 50 CE. According to Mark the
      commissioning of the twelve took place before the
      death of John the Baptist. Since he is about 2000
      years closer to the event I tend to believe him unless
      there is strong evidence to the contrary.

      I am curious as to when you would date the Gospel of
      Mark. I date it around 74 CE and would hardly consider
      anything at that point late with regard to the
      development of the church.

      Rick Richmond


      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...



      ____________________________________________________
      Yahoo! Sports
      Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
      http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John Lupia
      ... Mk was probably composed on or about the 50th anniversary of Easter, c. 80-83 AD. A half century of early Church development is a considerable period of
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 1, 2005
        --- Richard Richmond <rickr2889@...> wrote:

        > I am curious as to when you would date the Gospel of
        > Mark. I date it around 74 CE and would hardly
        > consider
        > anything at that point late with regard to the
        > development of the church.

        Mk was probably composed on or about the 50th
        anniversary of Easter, c. 80-83 AD. A half century of
        early Church development is a considerable period of
        time for theology, liturgy, hierarchy, new
        ecclesiastical community foundations, and ecumenical
        and diplomatic relationships with non-Christians and
        factions to have developed. These developments are
        found in the text of Mk for the discerning reader.

        Best regards,
        John N. Lupia, III

        John N. Lupia, III
        Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
        Fax: (732) 349-3910
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
        God Bless America

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/1/2005 1:28:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Even if your premise is correct, your logic is silly here. It confirms nothing of the sort.
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 1, 2005
          In a message dated 7/1/2005 1:28:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rickr2889@... writes:

          Actually anointing the sick with oil is a very old
          pratice and if anything comfirms that the commission
          of the twelve is not a post resurrection event.


          Even if your premise is correct, your logic is silly here. It "confirms" nothing of the sort.



          The Essene communtiy at Qumran was established long before
          the New Testament period and did teach about the
          Twelve men establishing a new Israel. They also
          annointed the sick with oil.


          And there is nothing in Mark's Gospel that suggests that its author sees the twelve men chosen by Jesus as having anything to do with a new Israel. Other than in the rather routine reference in 12:29 Mark doesn't even mention Israel, old or new. This central concept and context in which Jesus and his immediate disciples worked and functioned seems no longer to be of interest in Mark's Gentile Christian community. Israel is of course a fundamentally important concept throughout the work of both Matthew and Luke.

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA
        • John Lupia
          ... I have no reason to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the Gospels for any of Jesus statements found in any of them. I see no need to appeal to
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
            --- Maluflen@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 6/30/2005 9:43:45 PM Eastern
            > Daylight Time,
            > jlupia2@... writes:
            >
            > > I agree with you on this, Leonard. However, I
            > think
            > > the historical statements of Jesus are relevant.
            >
            >
            > I was not making a general statement about the
            > relevancy of the historical
            > statements of Jesus; my frame of reference, rather,
            > was the discussion of the
            > relative antiquity of the three Synoptic texts we
            > have in front of us. In this
            > discussion, it is not relevant to psychologize about
            > what the historical
            > Jesus would likely have said.

            I have no reason to doubt the authenticity and
            veracity of the Gospels for any of Jesus' statements
            found in any of them. I see no need to appeal to
            skepticism and undermine the value of the texts, or
            give them a value that undermines their integrity and
            authority. They are, after all, all we have to go on
            and work with.


            > But this raises an interesting question in its own
            > realm. I think it is
            > fairly uncontroversial to state that some sayings of
            > Jesus reported in our
            > gospels have a good chance of going back,
            > substantially, to the historical Jesus,
            > and others do not.

            You are welcome to your opinion, which I do not hold.

            I would like to suggest that the
            > missionary discourse in the
            > Synoptics does not.

            I believe they do and a rational explanation is that
            Mk jumbles things around with similar events and
            brings the synoptic reading into question making it
            appear as though there are different takes on what
            Jesus said. Why Mk does this? We both agree, he is
            writing to a later Church than Luke and Matthew.

            There are all kinds of
            > indications -- in Matthew, the
            > original account -- that the words are formulated
            > and spoken into the present of
            > the Gospel communication event itself.

            This would be true for all the Gospel writers and is a
            far different thing and subject matter than the
            veracity of what Jesus said in any Gospel.

            Jesus is
            > speaking here as 'the Lord of
            > the harvest" (Matt 9:38) who is sending his laborers
            > into his harvest. Speaking
            > for Jesus here is the evangelist himself (a
            > "prophet" -- see Matt 10:41 -- in
            > this sense). It is extremely important to note that
            > in Matthew's text the
            > words spoken by Jesus on this occasion are not
            > followed by a report of the
            > disciples going out on a mission, as a past event,
            > and as we find in Luke and Mark
            > (Mark even has a full-blown "Acts of the Apostles"
            > in 6:13).

            Matthew's non-report is the living proof of the Church
            of his day. In other words, the very Church period in
            which Matthew wrote was living proof of their
            (apostles) actions having been a success or else there
            would be no Church. This rhetorical form was one
            Matthew uses and characterizes his style. I do not see
            how this can place Matthew in priority over either
            Luke or Mark. This argument, though of interest, is
            not productive in attempting to discern chronology of
            the Gospels.

            > This interpretation would imply that the words in
            > Matt 10 do not go all the
            > way back to the historical Jesus,

            Leonard, where is the (1) logic, (2) the argument?

            but they do go
            > back to an extremely early
            > moment in the story of the church -- the time when
            > the twelve disciples ruled
            > over and spoke authoritatively to a renewed Israel.
            > The challenge is issued to
            > Matthew's contemporaries that they are to obey the
            > apostles, and thereby obey
            > Jesus and God (the shaliah concept). Matt 10:40 is
            > very pointed and very
            > important in this respect: "He who receives you
            > receives me and he who receives me
            > receives the one who sent me". That "receiving"
            > means or at least includes
            > primarily "hearing" is suggested by the parallelism
            > of phrases in the negatively
            > formulated Matt 10:14.


            The original is in Lk 9:48; 10:6; followed by Jn
            13:20; 22:26 from which Matthew harvested the text and
            reworked it giving it that Matthean ring and iconic
            imagery.

            > It is also extremely significant that in Luke's
            > Gospel these pointed words
            > are not spoken to the twelve.


            See Lk 9:48; 10:6. Clinging to rigidity of thinking
            that the order of sayings in unmoveable to and in
            specific events is why the Synoptic Problem is yet
            unsolved . The evangelists were more fluid than modern
            researchers allow. They could jumble things up since
            that is licit as long as the original meaning of what
            Jesus said is not lost. No harm, no foul. Voila, 4
            Gospels each appearing in conflict and contradiction
            to very rigid minds.



            By Luke's time, the
            > twelve are no longer the voice
            > of Christ and of God for the Gospel recipients.
            > Instead, "the Lord" (Lk 10:1:
            > not the historical Jesus) speaks directly to the
            > group of the seventy (most
            > likely representing the new missionary movement of
            > Paul and his companions),


            I appreciate your view but wholeheartedly disagree.


            Best regards,
            John N. Lupia, III

            John N. Lupia, III
            Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
            Fax: (732) 349-3910
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
            God Bless America




            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
            http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • John Lupia
            To all: Clinging to rigidity of thinking that the order of sayings or that a particular saying is unmovable to and in specific events in the Public Ministry of
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
              To all:

              Clinging to rigidity of thinking that the order of
              sayings or that a particular saying is unmovable to
              and in specific events in the Public Ministry of Jesus
              is why the Synoptic Problem is yet unsolved. This is a
              naïve journalist approach to texts that are not
              photojournalistic. The evangelists were more fluid
              than modern researchers allow. They could jumble
              things up since that is licit as long as the original
              meaning of what Jesus said is not lost, twisted,
              obscured or radically altered giving it an altogether
              different one. It is because of this fluidity that we
              have 4 Gospels with varying versions since each wrote
              to a specific historical situation in the Church
              addressing their own issues and served as
              clarifications of what some mistook the text to mean
              that was written by their predecessor. Unfortunately,
              to modern eyes and minds each appears in conflict and
              contradiction to the other and so we have the Synoptic
              Problem, a misinterpretation of the very nature of the
              Gospels and total darkness on how they were written.


              Mk, for example, jumbles things around in the sending
              out of the twelve with similar events and brings the
              synoptic reading into question to modern eyes
              producing the illusion that there are different takes
              on what Jesus actually said and did.

              Take for example, Mark 6:7 which like Mk 14:13 sends
              them out two by two and mirrors what LK 10:1; 24:13
              says about the seventy-two and the disciples on the
              road to Emmaus. Why Mk switches things around
              borrowing from one event that which occurred in
              another is only answerable in the situation of the
              Church when Mk wrote.

              Writing post Lk, Jn, and Mt we find Mk mention the
              apostles sent out two by two since this was the
              standard for witnesses as cited in Mt 18:16 and in
              rooted in ancient Jewish law in Jn 8:17; Apoc 11:3; 2
              Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28; Mt 26:60. Moreover,
              Mt 18:19 points out the power of two in agreement; and
              again, the religious gathering of two or more in
              Jesus’ name assures them of Christ’s presence, in Mt
              18:20. In Lk 19:29//Mt 21:1//Mk 11:1 Jesus sends out
              two disciples, a phenomenon of practice attested to in
              the oldest Gospel of Luke in several places including
              his Acts 9:38; 19:22.

              So we need to ask is Mk contradicting Lk and Mt about
              this event or is he rather attempting to speak to the
              Church in his own time using a modus operandi in
              current use and not wanting to cite an original
              expression Jesus had historically made since there are
              always those in the crowd who reject their
              institutions current practices, thinking to themselves
              that they are wiser or better and out of vanity and
              egotism would prefer to deviate by justifying their
              behavior that this is what Jesus originally and
              historically said and had his apostles do. In other
              words, Mk appealed to his hearers and readers to abide
              by current Church standards since Jesus sanctioned it
              and thus avoided confusing anyone or tempting anyone
              to deviate from the present course of action. This
              tells us that the Church had gained wisdom in
              carefully wording things in each successive Gospel
              since the earlier Gospels were greatly and widely
              misinterpreted resulting in factions and dissentions
              disrupting the harmony and order established in the
              Church. Herein lies the crux to the so-called Synoptic
              Problem. This is why we find each successive Gospel
              restating things to fine tune and focus the meaning
              and avoid misinterpretation and factions.

              Another example in this same narrative has Mt 10:10
              “no sandals” borrow from Lk 10:5. Why? Perhaps Mt was
              shifting the nuance of meaning Lk 10:5 conveyed that
              the historical or symbolical time of year the event
              took place was during the Jewish liturgical calendar
              of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. Lev.
              16:29,31; 23:27,29; Num. 29:7 "in the seventh month
              (Tishri), on the tenth day of the month, you shall
              afflict your souls" From this the tradition on Yom
              Kippur was to not wear sandals. On Yom Kippur those
              who were not able to go to Jerusalem spent the entire
              day in their local synagogues fasting. So the charge
              to take no staff, sandals, bread or money may have
              been a reference that Luke and Matthew’s Jewish
              audience would have understood without any need for a
              modern interpreter to point it out to them. Having the
              twelve go preach about Jesus for Yom Kippur has very
              obvious significance that Jesus is the only one who
              can take away the sins of human beings.


              Mark not writing predominantly to Jews in Rome but to
              Gentiles no longer sees the need to make the obscure
              references to Yom Kippur but restates things in terms
              Romans could have grasped while avoiding
              eccentricities that could lend themselves to
              misinterpretations and factions.

              Best regards,
              John N. Lupia, III

              John N. Lupia, III
              Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
              Fax: (732) 349-3910
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
              God Bless America

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              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.