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

who brought the staves and sandals? (was: Re: [Synoptic-L] the Priority of Mark a response to E. Bruce Brooks)

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    On July 3, Leonard Maluf wrote: [snip] ... [snip] ... Leonard (and everybody), As with most texts, this argument is reversible and can easily be used in the
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On July 3, Leonard Maluf wrote:


      >>I think Bruce says it well in this paragraph, though I would apply the
      >>whole thing to the missionary discourse in Matthew. And the point made by
      >>Bruce makes it clear why Matt's text does not presuppose the account in
      >>Mark. The gospel account simply expressess the radical dependency on God
      >>that is expected of the Christian missionary. If God is with them on their
      >>mission (cf. Matt 28:20), then they need nothing else. What is listed (and
      >>prohibited) in Matthew's text is accordingly everything that a normal
      >>traveler would take along for his journey.<<


      >>Minimal equipment for the road...Yes, Mark's text is less radical, and
      >>therefore belongs to a period of accommodation -- more likely a later
      >>period. Mark's minimal allowances (sandals and a staff) may well, as Bruce
      >>suggests be concessions to a certain realism in reflecting on the needs of
      >>a missionary on the road. I still think, however, that with a little
      >>imagination one can also think of the fusion of horizons in Mark that I
      >>suggested in an earlier post: Mark wishes the description of the first
      >>missionaries to resemble that of, and be recognized in, the pastor who is
      >>reciting the gospel drama to his Roman flock, with staff in hand and
      >>sandals on his feet.<<

      Leonard (and everybody),

      As with most texts, this argument is reversible and can easily be used in
      the opposite direction.  I wouldn't decide the synoptic problem on it, but
      Mark is more radical than Matthew here.  He's sending his missionaries out
      with only a walking stick and sandals because that's all they need while
      they are on the road.  Food and lodging are supposed to be provided by those
      to whom they preach.  Matthew adds that they don't need to take sandals or
      staves either, because those will *also* be provided by the congregation;
      this is the point of "the worker is worthy of his maintenance."  Mark
      clearly has actual missionaries in mind here.  They're going to need their
      sandals and staves to get to the next town, where their food and shelter
      will be provided.  Matthew has a more institutionalized form of reciprocity
      in mind here.  His preachers are already in town (they wouldn't get far
      without sandals or staves) and their present congregation is supposed to be
      responsible for all of their material needs, not just the food and lodging
      required by travellers.  Mark could be said to be earlier on this basis, but
      I think the evidence is fairly indecisive.



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