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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jul 4 3:38 AM
    • 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 2 of 9 , Jul 4 12:03 PM
      • 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 3 of 9 , Jul 4 11:33 PM
        • 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 4 of 9 , Jul 5 8:33 AM
          • 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 5 of 9 , Jul 5 8:33 AM
            • 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 6 of 9 , Jul 5 8:59 AM
              • 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.