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

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    Ignore that last. It was supposed to go:So please show us. You know that Homer was a writer/author. Tell us how you know that AMk was a
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 18, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Ignore that last. It was supposed to go:

      > So please show us. You know that Homer was a writer/author. Tell us how
      > > you know that AMk was a writer/theologian with a definite agenda.
      > > BRIAN WILSON
      >
      > I find this a very odd question. If I posit the contrary:
      > Tell us how you know that AMk was a writer/theologian with NO
      > definite agenda? I can't imagine what you could say.
      >
      > What would writing with NO agenda look like? Random statements
      > presented in no organized fashion contradicting one another...
      > that might be it.
      >
      > If we assume against all reason that Mark included every single
      > thing he knew in his book (and so had no selection-agenda

      Papias says he "omitted nothing he had heard".

      > among potential material for inclusion) he still organized it in
      > various ways. If what he wrote down was verbatim
      > what he had heard then he had no editorial agenda. If we say no,

      He had been Peter's simultaneous translator.

      > he didn't organize it, he just reported what happened in order as
      > he knew it then I suppose he had no agenda of that sort.

      When the Neronian smoke cleared Peter and Paul were dead and Mark back in Alexandria (*back*: Metzger says because he is described as going to Alexandria on two occasions he never went at all. MacArthur, I presume, was never in the Phillipines and "I shall return" is vat ex.) When he had recorded all he remembers, he has a stack of papyrus sheets. How is to to organize his material? The choices are short to long like the Analects, long to short like the Quran, and grouped topically like The Prophet. He does none of these. He creates a pseudochronology ("not in order", Papias says).

      He knows Jesus emerged at John's baptism, so he puts that first, and then his Palestinian stuff, and then his going-to-Jerusalem stuff, and finally his Jerusalem stuff, ending with the execution and subsequent events.

      This aspect of this model dissolves another crux, the discrepancy between John's and Mark's timing of the Temple riot/stampede. John put it early because it *was* early and Mk late because it was a Jerusalem story.
      >
      > However, if we do this thought experiment, the result will be
      > that we must assume a pre-Markan Mark, i.e. a Mark that
      > existed as we know it which AMark simply wrote down and
      > AMark was a pure scribe for pre-Mark. Then the question
      > will switch to trying to fathom the agenda of
      > pre-Mark which will turn out to be absolutely identical to
      > the agenda of AMark and so, as a hypothesis, gets us absolutely
      > nowhere.
      >
      > Steve
      >
      >
      Sorry for all my muddle.

      Tim

      -----
      Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
    • Tim Reynolds
      ... 1. Galilean for Palestinian above. Sorry. 2. Mk s pseudochron also generates a one-year mission in Mk, baptism to execution, and three years or so
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 25, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        > When the Neronian smoke cleared Peter and Paul were dead and Mark back in Alexandria (*back*: Metzger says because he is described as going to Alexandria on two occasions he never went at all. MacArthur, I presume, was never in the Phillipines and "I shall return" is vat ex.) When he had recorded all he remembers, he has a stack of papyrus sheets. How is to to organize his material? The choices are short to long like the Analects, long to short like the Quran, and grouped topically like The Prophet. He does none of these. He creates a pseudochronology ("not in order", Papias says).
        >
        > He knows Jesus emerged at John's baptism, so he puts that first, and then his Palestinian stuff, and then his going-to-Jerusalem stuff, and finally his Jerusalem stuff, ending with the execution and subsequent events.
        >
        > This aspect of this model dissolves another crux, the discrepancy between John's and Mark's timing of the Temple riot/stampede. John put it early because it *was* early and Mk late because it was a Jerusalem story.

        1. "Galilean" for "Palestinian" above. Sorry.

        2. Mk's "pseudochron" also generates a one-year mission in Mk, baptism to execution, and three years or so in Jn, real-time.

        3. As Mt, I think, discovered, any attempt to chronologize Mk destroys its awesome dramatic impact, the sunlit Galilee days darkening toward Jerusalem.

        Tertium datur,

        Tim Reynolds

        -----
        See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=1142
        --
        Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.