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

Re: alternative views of Gospel origins

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Sullivan
    ... From: Maluflen@aol.com To: densull@megsinet.net ; Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Date: Thursday,
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
      To: densull@... <densull@...>; Synoptic-L@...
      <Synoptic-L@...>
      Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 8:01 AM
      Subject: Re: alternative views of Gospel origins



      >
      >In virtually all cases. Yes, Denis. This is precisely what I meant by my
      >original comment. Mark's demonstrable creativity is that of a good
      >storyteller, not that of a writer in the sense of macro compositional
      talent.
      >What I think is extremely unlikely, based on the evidence we have, is that
      >Mark was the first Synoptic writer and did the mammoth job of
      macro-composing
      >a Synoptic-type Gospel narrative that was later virtually copied by the
      >demonstrably highly creative writers, Matthew and Luke. Mark's creativity,
      as
      >you have beautifully illustrated, is for the most part limited to the
      addition
      >of imaginative, minor details, suitable for a lower-class,
      not-particularly-
      >literary audience whom he wished to reach, and most probably did reach,
      with
      >his more colourful Gospel drama.
      >
      ><< Curiously, in many of these short Markan passages, I found Greek words
      or
      > phrases not used in the Matthean or Lukan parallels, but that could be
      found
      > elsewhere in Luke or Acts. This seems to indicate some interaction between
      > Mark and Luke-Acts in one direction or another.>>
      >
      >Yes, probably in the direction of Acts to Mark. We all have to get used to
      the
      >very sensible idea that Mark is simply a late work. The evidence for this
      has
      >been noted by many (as witness recent posts of Yuri Kuchinski, e.g.), but
      most
      >scholars will do all kinds of contortions, such as the gratuitous positing
      of
      >a pMk, to avoid the obvious conclusion that should be drawn from this
      >evidence. There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply
      >letting go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very
      liberating
      >to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only on a
      >temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that many would
      >ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.
      >
      >Leonard Maluf
      >
      >P.S. Happy feast of the Annunciation of the Lord to everyone!

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Thanks so much, Leonard! I appreciate your comments!

      Yes, Mark looks to me to be a preacher (as others including Lindsey, have
      suggested). Mark's is a fascinating and lively treatment of the gospel
      material, but is certainly late.

      Best wishes,

      Dennis Sullivan
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: [Dennis:] ... Yes, this is possible IMHO. ... I don t think so, Leonard. ... Yes, there s clear evidence of _some_
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
        On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 Maluflen@... wrote:

        [Dennis:]
        > << Curiously, in many of these short Markan passages, I found Greek words or
        > phrases not used in the Matthean or Lukan parallels, but that could be found
        > elsewhere in Luke or Acts. This seems to indicate some interaction between
        > Mark and Luke-Acts in one direction or another.>>
        >
        > Yes, probably in the direction of Acts to Mark.

        Yes, this is possible IMHO.

        > We all have to get used to the very sensible idea that Mark is simply
        > a late work.

        I don't think so, Leonard.

        > The evidence for this has been noted by many (as witness recent posts
        > of Yuri Kuchinsky, e.g.),

        Yes, there's clear evidence of _some_ passages in Mk being late. Evidence
        to the contrary abounds also re other passages.

        > but most scholars will do all kinds of contortions, such as the
        > gratuitous positing of a pMk, to avoid the obvious conclusion that
        > should be drawn from this evidence.

        Have you read Koester, Leonard? It doesn't seem so, since his analysis of
        pMk is anything but "gratuitous".

        > There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply letting
        > go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very liberating
        > to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only
        > on a temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that
        > many would ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.

        You're still trying to oversimplify this whole matter...

        Regards,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

        http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Leonard Maluf wrote - ... I agree. Try letting go the security blanket of Marcan priority, - and Matthean priority, and Lukan priority as well. You will see
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
          Leonard Maluf wrote -
          >There is extraordinary resistance, for some reason, to simply letting
          >go of the security blanket of Marcan priority. It is very liberating
          >to do so, and I would urge on all the wholesome exercise, even if only
          >on a temporary and experimental basis. I find it hard to imagine that
          >many would ever return to the theory of Marcan priority.
          >
          I agree.

          Try letting go the security blanket of Marcan priority, - and Matthean
          priority, and Lukan priority as well.

          You will see the synoptic gospels in a new light.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
          SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 3/25/1999 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 26, 1999
            In a message dated 3/25/1999 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            yuku@... writes:

            <<
            Have you read Koester, Leonard? It doesn't seem so, since his analysis of
            pMk is anything but "gratuitous".
            >>

            No, Yuri, I must confess I have read very little of Koester. I have run into
            the man casually at Harvard a couple of times, and he seems like a really nice
            gentleman. I assume you mean something other than his 2 volume NT
            Introduction, or does that include good sections on his Synoptic theory as
            well? In any case, please tell me again the work of his I should start with,
            and I will forthwith place it on my urgent "to do" list. My own impression of
            Mark's Gospel, though, is that it is quite homogeneous, and from this fact I
            have drawn the (hasty?) conclusion that if there are sections in Mk that are
            clearly late, then the Gospel is clearly late. I wonder if a pMk would ever
            have been hypothesized if Matt and Lk never existed? Perhaps I will learn wise
            answers to these questions by working through your reading list. I do, by the
            way, have a copy of the book you always quote from by A. Loisy. I found it
            some years ago in a second-hand bookstore. It is certainly interesting, but I
            haven't got through the whole thing yet either. It contains quite a bit of
            detail, no?

            Regards,
            Leonard Maluf
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... Dear Leonard, Sorry for late reply. I ve been busy with other things of late. A good volume to look up is ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS by Koester. He deals
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 31, 1999
              On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 Maluflen@... wrote:

              > In a message dated 3/25/1999 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              > yuku@... writes:
              >
              > <<
              > Have you read Koester, Leonard? It doesn't seem so, since his analysis of
              > pMk is anything but "gratuitous".
              > >>
              >
              > No, Yuri, I must confess I have read very little of Koester. I have
              > run into the man casually at Harvard a couple of times, and he seems
              > like a really nice gentleman. I assume you mean something other than
              > his 2 volume NT Introduction, or does that include good sections on
              > his Synoptic theory as well? In any case, please tell me again the
              > work of his I should start with, and I will forthwith place it on my
              > urgent "to do" list.

              Dear Leonard,

              Sorry for late reply. I've been busy with other things of late.

              A good volume to look up is ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS by Koester. He deals
              with pMk in some detail there, and provides many refs. But he's very
              technical in this book, never taking it beyond text-criticism. What he
              fails to provide is a historical background for these textual
              developments. For this, I would recommend Alfred Loisy's books, especially
              his

              Loisy, Alfred Firmin, 1857-1940. The birth of the Christian religion =
              (La naissance du Christianisme). London: G. Allen & Unwin. 1948.

              Loisy, Alfred Firmin, 1857-1940. The Origins of the New Testament.
              London: G. Allen and Unwin. 1950.

              Basically, Koester is saying the same things as Loisy said, although I've
              never seen a reference to Loisy in Koester. (Which I find a little
              strange.)

              From what I know, Loisy was never too popular among German scholars. I
              guess their Protentantism may have come in the way of their appreciating
              his points of view, among other things. Loisy was quite critical of
              Protestant scholars' views (not less than he was critical of Catholics.)
              So Koester may have acquired these views via Bultmann (who was very
              appreciative of Loisy).

              > My own impression of Mark's Gospel, though, is that it is quite
              > homogeneous, and from this fact I have drawn the (hasty?) conclusion
              > that if there are sections in Mk that are clearly late, then the
              > Gospel is clearly late.

              I see what you mean...

              > I wonder if a pMk would ever have been hypothesized if Matt and Lk
              > never existed?

              Difficult to say.

              > Perhaps I will learn wise answers to these questions by working
              > through your reading list. I do, by the way, have a copy of the book
              > you always quote from by A. Loisy. I found it some years ago in a
              > second-hand bookstore. It is certainly interesting, but I haven't got
              > through the whole thing yet either. It contains quite a bit of detail,
              > no?

              Are you referring to one of the above?

              Regards,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.