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

Re: alternative views of Gospel origins

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 24 , Mar 25, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 24 , Mar 26, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 24 , Mar 31, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            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.