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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jul 1 10:46 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 9 , Jul 1 10:55 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Jul 3 1:44 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 9 , Jul 3 3:43 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            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.