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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2005
    • 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 2 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
      • 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 3 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
        • 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.