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

[Synoptic-L] resonse with regard to Mark and the shepherd's staff

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    E. Bruce Brooks writes: STAFF Rick s statement of the Mk/Mt travel advice was: Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      E. Bruce Brooks writes:


      STAFF

      Rick's statement of the Mk/Mt travel advice was: 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.

      Matt.10:10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics,
      nor sandals, not a
      staff; for the laborer
      deserves his food.

      I think we have here what is usually called an
      interpolation, and the motive for the interpolation is
      easy enough to see: it is to provide something that
      Jesus in his lifetime did not provide: rules for
      traveling missionaries. Where are the boundaries of
      the interpolation? The Aland Synopsis (#145) ends the
      sequence at Mk 6:30-31, and commences the Feeding of
      the Five Thousand (#146) at Mk 6:32. It is in the
      latter pericope that the "sheep without a shepherd"
      remark occurs (6:34), and that remark has its own
      immediate outcome, it is the reason why Jesus decides
      to "teach them many things." In other words, it is
      Jesus's own teaching, not that of the disciples, that
      is in immediate context with the "sheep without a
      shepherd" motif. Further, that phrase comes in GMk
      after, not before, the dispatch of the disciples as
      missionaries. I can't help concluding that the
      consecutive reader or hearer of GMk was not influenced
      by the distant and indeed subsequent "sheep" motif,
      and thus would have been unlikely to construe "staff"
      as specifically a "shepherd's staff." The idea of the
      normal traveler's staff seems to suffice handsomely
      for the passage in question. (See above)


      Before I address the issue of the staff commented on
      by Bruce, I feel the need to address a broader
      assumption that is being made here concerning the
      dissection of Mark's text before assessing the meaning
      and use of his choice of terms within the context of
      his completed document.

      Why do we need to talk about Mark's document in light
      of the context of his “interpolations” or the sources
      used in his compilation? This approach is founded in
      remote speculation and ignores the document as a
      complete unit. The very conclusion you draw from this
      approach neglects to take into consideration that Mark
      has used both the sending out and return of the
      disciples as brackets for the story of John’s death, a
      literary device that is a characteristic of Mark’s
      unique style. Conclusions drawn from attempts to find
      the source pieces of Mark's compilation overlook the
      obvious. I am of the opinion that we must first look
      at the Gospel in its completed form with an intended
      audience and purpose. To do otherwise is to examine
      the mountain with our nose pressed against the rock.
      Which I regard as a completely inadequate starting
      point for our investigation. So then what Aland or
      anyone else says about the supposed elements of Mark's
      composition individually are not pertinent to the
      issue at hand regarding the order and interdependence
      of the three. Synoptic Gospels. With respect to the
      Gospel of Mark, I Make the following observations from
      a literary and textual frame of reference

      1. There is a specific point of view given from the
      perspective of the narrator throughout the document.

      2. There is a coherent plot, things that are
      anticipated come to pass evidenced by the fact that
      within the narrative conflicts are resolved and
      predictions are fulfilled.

      3. The characters demonstrate consistency from one
      scene to the next. These characters fulfill the roles
      and tasks they take on within the framework of the
      narrative.

      4. Style, organization and character development
      demonstrate the literary techniques of story telling
      and unify the narrative at several different levels.

      5. Consistent themes present themselves in the
      narrative; such as faith, suffering, sin, the rule of
      God, ethical choices and the possibility that human
      beings can change i.e. convert.

      6. On the text critical level vocabulary, phrases,
      sentences, episodes and structure confirm the unity of
      the work as a whole.

      7. The same can be said of Matthew and Luke though the
      unity of the whole is less developed and dependent to
      a large extend on the narrative order we can see most
      clearly in Mark. (I am sure many will wish to debate
      this seventh point but from a literary standpoint it
      is well taken).

      All of these points are made to emphasize the
      necessity of dealing with the Synoptic documents as we
      have them, when trying to assess the priority of one
      document over against the others. What the sources
      might have intended or looked like before they were
      compiled by Matthew, Mark, and Luke begs the question.



      Now to respond to another response:

      Bruce wrote:

      The staff is respectively allowed and forbidden
      (forbidden and allowed, if I had quoted them in the
      other order). The difference is our problem. Rick
      says, of his preferred solution to the staff question:
      "My point here is that making a negative point
      concerning an act is usually the outcome
      of someone offending in that area. Like laws, it is
      not until they are issues or judged as wrong that
      community sees the need of formalizing the rule
      regarding such issues.

      I quite agree, as a general principle, that
      prohibitions imply previous practice of the thing
      prohibited. But it seems to me that the Markan version
      of the travel instructions very easily comes under
      this general principle. What GMk prohibited is likely
      to have been, not the prescription of a
      rival gospel, but simply the normal standard practice
      of travelers at that period.


      I am inclined to ask if you really think Mark presents
      Jesus as having an interest in normal everyday travel
      practices or that Mark did not intend to connect the
      sending forth of the disciples with there return? In
      the Synoptics these terms are theologically loaded.
      What Mark means by his narrative can only be
      determined by how Mark uses RABDOS withing the context
      of his narrative. And I maintain that his use does in
      point of fact, anticipate the return of the twelve,
      the feeding of sheep and the following feeding
      narrative modeled on the 23rd Psalm where the
      Septuagint uses the vary same word in reference to God
      shepherding David and his Army. Mark's frame of
      reference concerning RABDOS and his vocabulary in
      general is strongly influenced by the Greek version of
      the Old Testament in this instance (Psa 22:4 LXX).
      There is no reason whatever to look elsewhere to find
      his intended meaning for the term. The flow and
      context of his own narrative makes it clear that he
      has this specific Psalm in mind. In Leviticus we have
      a more detailed description of this use of RABDOS Lev
      27:32 And all the tithe of herds and flocks, every
      tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman's
      staff (RABDON), shall be holy to the Lord.


      Given the fundamental logic of this rationale
      presented in the paragraph above the prohibition of
      such a RABDOS by Matthew and Luke has to be seen as
      reactionary, for there can be no question that both
      writers were familiar with the Septuagint use of the
      term and both writers employ the very same term as
      they forbid it. Are we to assume that they knew
      nothing of how the term was used in the Greek old
      Testament? When all the explanations are assessed the
      simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one.
      The simple explanation is that Matthew and Luke
      disagree with Mark's commendation by Jesus for the
      disciples to take the RABDOS with them in their
      missionary enterprise. Matthew and Luke demonstrate
      disagreement by forbidding the RABDOS in their own
      accounts of the same event. The fact that they are
      aware of a commendation to take a RABDOS clearly
      places the text of Mark as the exemplar to which they
      are taking exception.

      I have already presented the other aspects of the
      commission and return to which Matthew and Luke took
      exception and will not repeat them as they are in the
      archives for all to review. There are actually several
      other examples of the same sort of reactionary
      response to the text of Mark evidenced in the
      treatment given by Matthew and Luke and I will post
      them in the days ahead.

      Respectfully submitted by

      Rick Richmond



      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...



      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Mail Mobile
      Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
      http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic L In Response To: John Lupia, Rick Richmond On: The Text of Mark (outgrowth of: Staff) From: Bruce A couple of comments from recent postings
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic L
        In Response To: John Lupia, Rick Richmond
        On: The Text of Mark (outgrowth of: Staff)
        From: Bruce

        A couple of comments from recent postings rather caught my eye. I here
        attempt to respond (as they say at banquets) for philology.

        JOHN LUPIA: 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.

        BRUCE: On this account, there is no Synoptic Problem, except as an artifact
        of modern ignorance. I don't think the difficulties will go away that
        easily. My sense of the history of the SP is that it arose precisely from
        trying to combine the most closely similar three Gospels together, as John
        seems here to suggest, and finding that it didn't quite work. Alignment does
        not produce unity, and rearrangement plus alignment also does not produce
        unity (if they did, we would have, not a Synoptic Problem, but a Synopsis).
        There are any number of directly irreconcilable features among the three,
        not only in order, but in substance. For example, the two genealogies of
        Jesus (in Mt and Lk) are not switchings around of material, or recontexting
        of material, they are different entities, apparently seeking to prove
        different things. No Synopsis known to me attempts to juxtapose them; they
        are given separate pages. Insulated from direct comparison. They will not
        stand direct comparison.

        RICK: Why do we need to talk about Mark's document in light of the context
        of his "interpolations" or the sources used in his compilation? This
        approach is founded in remote speculation and ignores the document as a
        complete unit.

        BRUCE: The recommendation strikes me as circular. The text of GMk, like any
        ancient text, cannot be taken as a complete unit until we have warrant to do
        so. Examination of the text, in search of that warrant, discloses clear
        signs of construction, including some which suggest interpolation. The
        reason we need to talk about those signs is that they are there, in the
        material. They are not remote, and they are not speculation. They arise
        during a search to validate the expectation of unity in the text, and having
        thus arisen, they deny the validity of that expectation.

        Leaving aside other instances, as too unwieldy for one note, but feeling the
        need of an example, I subjoin some considerations pointing to interpolation
        status for Mk 6:7-13 (the Sending of the Disciples). A few were mentioned
        earlier.

        1. There is no other instance in Mk where the disciples take over the
        evangelical role from Jesus. This gives rise to the suspicion that we have
        here a set of guidelines for the post-Jesus ministry, formulated as though
        given by Jesus during his lifetime. That is, if this passage proves to be an
        interpolation (on which see below), there is a fairly obvious motive for it.
        There is also a whole raft of precedents, not only in Christian writings,
        but in the early documents of Buddhism and Confucianism, whole stretches of
        which are exercises in using the validating power of these texts to
        legitimize or forbid practices and beliefs which arose only later in the
        history of the respective persuasions. Updating interpolations are
        essentially normal in such situations. They require local argument, but the
        category itself is unproblematic.

        2. The disciples in this passage are called "apostles," a usage which is
        unique in Mark, and a probable anachronism. It is the language of the
        post-Crucifixion period.

        3. The passage is curiously unspecific as to who did what where. We have
        only "they," without other specification of persons, and with no
        specification of place. This is in strong contrast to GMk otherwise, where,
        convincingly or not (and all will be aware how contested is the geography of
        Jesus's doings in GMk), locations are persistently specified. We are told in
        6:12 that the disciples went out and preached, and then for some minutes we
        are shown (as it were) a film clip of John the Baptist, including a long and
        highly picturesque account of his beheading, complete with motivations and
        intrigues and inner feelings, with enough sex and violence to constitute a
        modern play libretto or operatic libretto, as indeed it has. All
        demonstrating, in the immediate vicinity, that GMk is not averse to detail
        as such. One effect of this John interlude in GMk considered as a linear
        presentation experience (it seems to me) is to allow enough real time to
        elapse between the Sending and the Return that the reader is less directly
        shocked by the brevity of that narrative itself, and by its almost total
        lack of content. If, however, we pull our minds away from the Dance of the
        Seven Veils, and focus on these other things, we notice that the Sending
        passage consists of detailed advice for preparation, but virtually nothing
        on the actual accomplishment. No Synopsis would dare to label this pericope
        The Preaching of the Disciples, which is precisely what it disappoints us by
        not containing. It is the Preparation of the Disciples for Preaching, and it
        deals solely with logistics.

        4. After the return of the disciples, or apostles, the large narrative of
        Mark resumes as though nothing had happened. The disciples slip back into
        their former identities and functions. These people, who in 6:12-13 are said
        to preach and to heal, just like Jesus, are now repeatedly presented as
        baffled by Jesus's preaching (not my impression: they are rebuked both by
        Jesus and by the narrator of GMk for this), and as incapable of duplicating
        some of his feats of healing. That is, Mk 6:7-13 not only has no narrative
        consequences in the later text, it is directly and repeatedly contradicted
        by the imperception and ineptitude of the disciples in the later text.

        All this makes Mk 6:7-13 suspicious. It is unique, it is strangely
        featureless, except for its travel advice, (as though it could prescribe but
        could not relate), it temporarily usurps Jesus's function, it has no
        standing in the following narrative, and it is in contradiction with the
        personae of the disciples in the following narrative.

        So it seems that there are grounds for doubt that this was part of the
        original flow of GMk. But can those doubts be objectively confirmed? Not by
        imagination, but by what is there in front of us in the text itself?

        5. I think they can, and here is how. There are actually two departures for
        preaching which are mentioned in this zone of GMk:

        6:6b And he was going around the villages in a circuit, preaching
        6:7b And he began to send them out two by two, giving them authority over
        unclean spirits

        In 6:6b, it is one person who goes out; in 6:7b, many. This sets up our
        test.

        5. In 6:14-16 we have a reaction to preaching, a reaction by Herod and
        apparently, by several of his advisors. Herod is concerned at the wonders
        being wrought, and wants to know who is doing them. Our question is this: do
        Herod and his advisors react to the wonders wrought by many, or to wonders
        wrought by one? Here is the passage:

        "And King Herod heard of this, for his name had become known, and some said,
        John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and thus these powers are at
        work in him. But others said, It is Elijah, and still others said, A
        prophet, like the prophets of old. And having heard these things, Herod
        said, It is John, whom I beheaded, who has been raised."

        All the speculations here refer to the wonder-working of one man, not the
        wonder-working of a group of man fanned out over a whole region. At 6:14,
        the RSV says, not literally, "Jesus's name had become known," but the
        liberty is surely justified. It is Jesus's works which are causing concern.
        All the candidates for identification offered by the advisors, or by Herod
        himself, are one man: John, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Herod and his
        advisors have in view one man working miracles. Not a dozen men working
        miracles.

        Then we must conclude that Mk 6:14-16 is in sequel with, and in response to,
        the preaching of Jesus as mentioned, albeit briefly, in 6:6b, and has no
        relation to the preaching of the disciples (or apostles) in 6:7-13.

        So in this case, as does not always happen with this or other ancient texts,
        we can satisfy the second test of an interpolation: When the proposed
        interpolation is removed, does the surrounding text make more sense or less
        sense? In this case, removing 6:7-13 leaves a text that clearly makes more
        sense: is more consecutive. Here is the summary:

        6:6b. And [Jesus] went around the villages in a circuit, teaching.
        6:14. And King Herod heard of it, for his name had become known, and they
        were saying, John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and thus these
        powers are at work in him. . . .

        This confirms the conclusion to which other evidence had already pointed. I
        thus think it necessary to conclude that 6:14 was written when 6:6b
        existed, but before 6:7 existed, and that 6:7 is thus later, in our GMk,
        than either 6:6b or 6:14.

        No?

        I would like to add that I think there are interpretational advantages to
        this conclusion. (1) Obviously, getting rid of an inconsecutive fragment
        from this (or any other) text makes the text that much more consecutive, and
        thus that much more liable to interpretation as a single document. A
        document that can more successfully be treated as we are all instinctively
        inclined to treat it. (2) In this specific case, the juxtaposition of John
        and Jesus, with which GMk begins, is better developed in Mk 6 on present
        assumptions, than if we leave 6:7-13 in place to separate them and confuse
        the association. The motif is more clearly visible without 6:7-13
        intervening. Whether this association was true historically, I have not the
        slightest idea. That it was motivically important to AMk [the author of the
        Gospel of Mk] seems unmistakable, and this (I submit) adds to our very
        slender stock of first-hand information about AMk.

        To me, that's an advantage.

        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@...
      • John Lupia
        ... In a nutshell, yes. I don t think the difficulties ... The difficulties to which you refer are not in the texts but in the minds of contemporaries. My
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

          > To: Synoptic L
          > In Response To: John Lupia, Rick Richmond
          > On: The Text of Mark (outgrowth of: Staff)
          > From: Bruce
          >
          > A couple of comments from recent postings rather
          > caught my eye. I here
          > attempt to respond (as they say at banquets) for
          > philology.
          >
          > JOHN LUPIA: 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.
          >
          > BRUCE: On this account, there is no Synoptic
          > Problem, except as an artifact
          > of modern ignorance.

          In a nutshell, yes.

          I don't think the difficulties
          > will go away that
          > easily.

          The difficulties to which you refer are not in the
          texts but in the minds of contemporaries.


          My sense of the history of the SP is that it
          > arose precisely from
          > trying to combine the most closely similar three
          > Gospels together, as John
          > seems here to suggest, and finding that it didn't
          > quite work.

          Not really my suggestion, Mr. Brooks, it was voiced
          long before my birth.

          Alignment does
          > not produce unity, and rearrangement plus alignment
          > also does not produce
          > unity (if they did, we would have, not a Synoptic
          > Problem, but a Synopsis).

          This is circular and redundant.

          > There are any number of directly irreconcilable
          > features among the three,
          > not only in order, but in substance.

          I disagree.

          For example,
          > the two genealogies of
          > Jesus (in Mt and Lk) are not switchings around of
          > material, or recontexting
          > of material, they are different entities, apparently
          > seeking to prove
          > different things. No Synopsis known to me attempts
          > to juxtapose them; they
          > are given separate pages. Insulated from direct
          > comparison. They will not
          > stand direct comparison.


          Here you have clearly misread my original point and
          perhaps it is my fault for failing to state it more
          precisely that I was referring to material that in the
          literature IS considered parallel and comprises what
          IS referred to as the SP.


          Now, what you are saying above is that whichever
          Gospel were first written on the genealogies had it
          all and the other ran off in a direction
          unexplainable. However, long ago this problem was
          solved, to at least my satisfaction, wherein it was
          pointed out that Lk gives us the genealogy of Mary and
          Matthew that of Joseph, her spouse.



          With 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



          ____________________________________________________
          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@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/4/2005 12:15:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... It occurs to me that the data you point out could well be regarded as an example of
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/4/2005 12:15:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brooks@... writes:

            . In 6:14-16 we have a reaction to preaching, a reaction by Herod and
            apparently, by several of his advisors. Herod is concerned at the wonders
            being wrought, and wants to know who is doing them. Our question is this: do
            Herod and his advisors react to the wonders wrought by many, or to wonders
            wrought by one? Here is the passage:

            "And King Herod heard of this, for his name had become known, and some said,
            John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and thus these powers are at
            work in him. But others said, It is Elijah, and still others said, A
            prophet, like the prophets of old. And having heard these things, Herod
            said, It is John, whom I beheaded, who has been raised."

            All the speculations here refer to the wonder-working of one man, not the
            wonder-working of a group of man fanned out over a whole region. At 6:14,
            the RSV says, not literally, "Jesus's name had become known," but the
            liberty is surely justified. It is Jesus's works which are causing concern.
            All the candidates for identification offered by the advisors, or by Herod
            himself, are one man: John, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Herod and his
            advisors have in view one man working miracles. Not a dozen men working
            miracles.


            It occurs to me that the data you point out could well be regarded as an example of "fatigue" in Markan editing of Matthew, or as simply an unfortunate result of Mark's policy of conflating the two Gospels of Matthew and Luke. After (if not already during) his abbreviated form of Matthew's mission discourse, Mark has moved to Luke's text to find mention of the actual going forth of the twelve on mission (and later their return). He resumes the story line following Matthew, where there has been no actual going forth, preaching or working of miracles by the disciples, for the Herod and John the Baptist passage. Thus the incoherency in Mark's text that you note.

            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA
          • John Lupia
            ... Perhaps, but the image seems broader to me than the narrower take you have. Mk is saying the name (obviously the result of his fame) of Jesus was
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Maluflen@... wrote:

              > In a message dated 7/4/2005 12:15:44 AM Eastern
              > Daylight Time,
              > brooks@... writes:
              >
              > > . In 6:14-16 we have a reaction to preaching, a
              > reaction by Herod and
              > > apparently, by several of his advisors.

              Perhaps, but the image seems broader to me than the
              narrower take you have. Mk is saying the name
              (obviously the result of his fame) of Jesus was
              widespread, giving the impression he was now a
              household word, not merely confined to fame at Herod's
              court. Mk places this as an Introduction to Herod
              beheading John, but immediately following---guess
              what?--- the mission of the twelve who made the name
              of Jesus famous since they cured in his name.

              Herod is
              > concerned at the wonders
              > > being wrought, and wants to know who is doing
              > them.

              The characterization of Herod being concerned is not
              apparent in the text.

              Our question is this: do
              > > Herod and his advisors react to the wonders
              > wrought by many, or to wonders
              > > wrought by one? Here is the passage:

              This is a rather silly question. AMk has already told
              us that Herod as well as everyone else had heard about
              Jesus. (cf Mk 6:12-13 what Leonard calls Mark's Acts
              of the Apostles) The question among them was "Who is
              this guy, really?" How can some unknown work such
              signs of power, not only in person, but by remote
              control through his field agents?

              Apparently Jesus' fame according to all the Gospel
              accounts post dates that of JB. Also apparent is the
              fact that signs of equal power were known and
              attributed to JB (who were JB's field agents?) and
              Elijah (his field agent became his successor Elisha).
              Now it is very important and even more subtle that
              some say "He is a prophet, like the prophets we used
              to have." This last phrase is very telling since it
              does not suggest that they are saying that a prophet
              from the past is risen from the dead, but that a
              prophet-like man is now circulating in our midst who
              emulates qualities like the prophets of the past. You
              know, like the one's we used to have.


              [snip]

              > >
              > > All the speculations here refer to the
              > wonder-working of one man, not the
              > > wonder-working of a group of m[e]n fanned out over
              a
              > whole region.

              Uh, what? I have read this post and the logic eludes
              me.

              At 6:14,
              > > the RSV says, not literally, "Jesus's name had
              > become known," but the
              > > liberty is surely justified. It is Jesus's works
              > which are causing concern.

              Here you go with that "concern" again, found nowhere
              in the text. And you failed to see that it is not just
              Jesus' powers in his person but his ability to
              transmit that power to others who remote from him
              physically are able to perform feats in his name as if
              he were present. Now, I hardly see how they were
              "concerned" instead of fascinated and curious and
              perhaps even a bit excited. This could work in their
              favor too. Ever had a really bad toothache?


              > > All the candidates for identification offered by
              > the advisors, or by Herod
              > > himself, are one man: John, Elijah, or one of the
              > prophets.

              Again you limit the fame and talk exclusively to
              Herod's court when Mk's text clearly implies everyone
              everywhere was talking about Jesus. They are not
              identifying one man since JB, Elijah or some new guy
              in town who is reminiscent of prophets like those good
              ones we used to have is at least 3 not one. Note among
              the suggestions two are specific individuals who
              require being raised from the dead. The 3rd suggestion
              has no requirement, but rather, he seems like a really
              good guy who performs signs and wonders like the
              prophets we used to have.


              Herod and his
              > > advisors have in view one man working miracles.
              > Not a dozen men working
              > > miracles.
              > >


              They are exclusively talking about Jesus, yes. Why do
              you think they are talking about a dozen other men.
              The only time other men are discussed are in the 3
              suggestions about "Who is this Jesus, really?"
              See, just one guy, not a dozen.


              Leonard:
              > It occurs to me that the data you point out could
              > well be regarded as an
              > example of "fatigue" in Markan editing of Matthew,


              No Leonard. This is a bad call here. The huge pink
              elephant being missed here is what I have pointed
              out---the 3rd suggestion that Jesus seems like a nice
              enough man who displays signs of being a holy man of
              God like the prophets we used to have ---remember?
              Now how is this a sign of fatigue? Mark Goodacre are
              you paying close attention? See Mk 8:28. The 3rd
              suggestion in Mk 6:15 has now changed to "One of the
              prophets" this means he is some unnamed prophet from
              ancient times raised from the dead. A fatigue using Lk
              9:18-21 who was copied in Mt 16:13-20 . This is an
              excellent example of Markan fatigue (pun intended
              Mark).

              With 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



              ____________________________________________________
              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@...
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic-L In Response To: John Lupia On: Mt/Lk Genealogies From: Bruce JOHN: Now, what you are saying above is that whichever Gospel were first written on
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic-L
                In Response To: John Lupia
                On: Mt/Lk Genealogies
                From: Bruce

                JOHN: Now, what you are saying above is that whichever Gospel were first
                written on the genealogies had it all and the other ran off in a direction
                unexplainable.

                BRUCE: Not at all. I merely point out that the two genealogies are different
                in a way that cannot be accounted for by scribal error, and thus require
                explanation. Both are to some degree stylized, it seems, but they are not
                stylized from the same base of information.

                JOHN: However, long ago this problem was solved, to at least my
                satisfaction, wherein it was
                pointed out that Lk gives us the genealogy of Mary and Matthew that of
                Joseph, her spouse.

                BRUCE: Long ago is right. Commentaries available to me identify this as the
                theory of Annius of Viterbo (c1490), advanced more recently by Hartl 1909
                (see Nolland) and Heer 1910 (see Fitzmyer). Other suggestions for
                reconciliation, such as the levirate marriage theory, go back still further,
                to Africanus (3rd century). I take all these as evidence that there is
                something needing to be explained; something not obviously compatible, plus
                a desire on the part of the tradition that they should be compatible. These
                pressures are exactly how commentary traditions arise in the first place -
                to explain difficulties in the canonical texts, or to apply them to modern
                situations which those texts did not envision.

                I wouldn't recommend judging the Annius theory or any other theory by its
                degree of scholarly acceptance (nor will any other adherent of the widely
                unaccepted Farrer hypothesis), but some scholarly reasons for not accepting
                Annius strike me as having merit. Everyone will have their own taste in
                these matters, and John has indicated his. Mine runs with Manson 1930, who
                said (p34) "But the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not, as they stand,
                reconcilable, for Joseph is in Luke the son of Heli, whereas in Matthew he
                is the son of Jacob. It does not remove this discrepancy to assume that the
                Lukan genealogy is that of Mary, and to understand the words "the son, as
                people supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli" to mean that Jesus (though
                nominally the son of Joseph) was actually (ie on his mother's side) the son
                (ie grandson) of Heli. The word "son" does not admit of two different
                meanings in one sentence."

                If we can't, agreeably to each other, reconcile the genealogies as scribal
                errors for a common original, or as all within the Jesus family, there may
                be a larger possibility. It is a commonplace of traditions both sacred and
                secular that they tend, over time, to aggrandize their central figures.
                George Washington had his mythical aggrandization process, Confucius had a
                quite spectacular one, Buddha an even more spectacular one (partly fueled by
                Sri Lankan local chauvinism). It is not unthinkable that something of the
                sort may have happened to Jesus as well. As a possible example of an
                aggrandizing tradition, I note the following as regards genealogies of
                Jesus:

                GMk: none; Jesus's baptism is the occasion of his validation
                GMt: from Abraham; Israelite-validational in implication
                GLk: from God; inclusively human in implication
                GThos: before the creation of the world; universal in implication

                These agree with the characters of the respective Gospels, and they also
                make, for me, a very plausible aggrandization sequence. Which, plus the
                thought that the improved models GMt and GLk largely obsoleted the primitive
                GMk on which both had drawn, will also apparently account for all the
                papyrological termini ante quem, this being probably the best direct
                chronological evidence we have.

                Working from an outside perspective, as I do in these matters, and leaving
                insiders free to go their own way in the matter, as they will whether I say
                so or not, I would be inclined to enter this situation as evidence
                supporting a GMk > GMt > GLk > GThos chronological sequence. Not decisive,
                but contributory.

                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@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... This comment quoted by Manson frustrates me. Clearly, Luke is up to something because he threw in a hWS ENOMIZETO ( as was supposed ), which signals that
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 02:33 AM 7/5/2005 -0400, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                  >I wouldn't recommend judging the Annius theory or any other theory by its
                  >degree of scholarly acceptance (nor will any other adherent of the widely
                  >unaccepted Farrer hypothesis), but some scholarly reasons for not accepting
                  >Annius strike me as having merit. Everyone will have their own taste in
                  >these matters, and John has indicated his. Mine runs with Manson 1930, who
                  >said (p34) "But the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not, as they stand,
                  >reconcilable, for Joseph is in Luke the son of Heli, whereas in Matthew he
                  >is the son of Jacob. It does not remove this discrepancy to assume that the
                  >Lukan genealogy is that of Mary, and to understand the words "the son, as
                  >people supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli" to mean that Jesus (though
                  >nominally the son of Joseph) was actually (ie on his mother's side) the son
                  >(ie grandson) of Heli. The word "son" does not admit of two different
                  >meanings in one sentence."

                  This comment quoted by Manson frustrates me. Clearly, Luke is up to something
                  because he threw in a hWS ENOMIZETO ("as was supposed"), which signals that a
                  word is being used in a non-standard sense, but Manson's argument quoted here
                  refuses to credit Luke's phraseology. Furthermore, hUIOS can be taken in a
                  broader sense of a "male issue," which avoids the charge of lexical inconsistency.
                  (At any rate, Mason's criticism runs into problems at the end of the genealogy
                  with Adam's being a son of God.)

                  For frustrating to me is that Manson is refusing any invitation from Luke's text
                  to interact with the genealogy with Matthew (the weasel wording of hWS ENOMIZETO
                  and the different senses of hUIOS). Manson's refusal to harmonize is certainly
                  appropriate hermeneutically if Luke is independent of Matthew. What if, however,
                  Luke wrote with knowledge of audience's awareness of Matthew? In that case, it
                  would be appropriate to accept the text's invitation to interact with the Matthean
                  genealogy and the issue would then become how to determine what the nature of
                  that intertextuality is supposed to be (harmonization, correction, or something
                  else).

                  Here's why this is a problem for synoptic source criticism. Many arguments
                  for the relative independence of Luke and Matthew bring forth as evidence
                  the conflicting genealogies between Matthew and Luke. Yet, the genealogies
                  are conflicting when they are interpreted under a hermeneutical assumption
                  that they are independent of one another. In other words, the hermeneutics
                  is begging the source critical question.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Chuck Jones
                  To: Synoptic-L In Response To: Bruce On: Mt/Lk Genealogies From: Chuck Jones BRUCE: SNIP If we can t, agreeably to each other, reconcile the genealogies as
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 5, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment

                    To: Synoptic-L
                    In Response To: Bruce
                    On: Mt/Lk Genealogies
                    From: Chuck Jones

                    BRUCE:

                    SNIP If we can't, agreeably to each other, reconcile the genealogies as scribal
                    errors for a common original... SNIP

                    CHUCK:

                    Bruce, you put your finger on the key *synoptic* question about the geneaologies in the above quote.  The synoptic question is whether the genealogies suggest that Mt used Lk or Lk used Mt, and they emphatically suggest not.  Discussions of how two such different genealogies came to exist (Mary's lineage vs. Joseph's, etc.) take for granted (don't they?) that Mt and Lk worked independently in creating or including their geneaologies.

                    We face a similar situation with the birth narratives.  Any story has four elements:  setting, characters, plot and dialog. Mt and Lk's birth narratives have in common the settings of Bethlehem and Nazareth and the characters Mary, Joseph, Jesus and an angel.  One piece of dialog overlaps, set in two different contexts:  "'She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus...'," the angel tells Joseph in Mt 1:21, while Gabriel tells Mary in Lk 1:31,"'And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.'"  There is zero overlap in plot--no event occurs in both narratives.  (This seemingly impossible phenomenon is true because Mt does not record the actual birth.)

                    Given this, it seems to me that the most likely scenario is that Lk knew *of* Mt but had little exposure and no access to the document, or vice versa.  Complete ignorance of each other's work seems unlikely:  How would each independently decide to begin their gospel with a birth narrative and a genealogy?  But literary dependence seems equally unlikely:  Why would either author/editor include completely independent--and contradictory--birth stories and genealogies if they had access to the other?

                    Put another way:  if I assigned a group of students to write a biography of Jesus, and offered no further guidance, I would conclude that Lk and Mt conferred as to how to begin their submissions.  I would also conclude they did not reveal to each other the actual content of those beginning sections.

                    Chuck Jones

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

                  • Chuck Jones
                    Stephen C. Carlson wrote: Here s why this is a problem for synoptic source criticism. Many arguments for the relative independence of Luke and Matthew bring
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 5, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment


                      "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:

                      Here's why this is a problem for synoptic source criticism. Many arguments
                      for the relative independence of Luke and Matthew bring forth as evidence
                      the conflicting genealogies between Matthew and Luke. Yet, the genealogies
                      are conflicting when they are interpreted under a hermeneutical assumption
                      that they are independent of one another. In other words, the hermeneutics
                      is begging the source critical question.

                      Stephen,

                      I'm having trouble understanding your line of thought in the above paragraph.

                      The two genealogies conflict with one another.  Any reconstruction of how that might have come to be must begin with this starting fact.  Right?

                      Chuck  Jones

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

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