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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk Priority?

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... Too much from me. I do think NT studies has become a bit like bridge where you have to point out that you use Gerber and Short Club before playing. So I
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 24, 1999
      > Significant, if true, in support of Markan priority. Could you give us a
      > couple of good examples of Markan redactional elements in Luke's parables? As
      > usual, I insist that Mark's priority be proved, as opposed to taken for
      > granted. I realize that this is asking a lot from some people.
      >
      > Leonard Maluf

      Too much from me. I do think NT studies has become a bit
      like bridge where you have to point out that you use Gerber
      and Short Club before playing. So I use Mk priority before
      playing. If somebody demands that I explain why I use Gerber
      rather than Blackwood I just tend to shut up. Not that it's not
      a legitimate question. Still, I just go along with
      expert opinon and hope they aren't all idiots
      (not an impossibility) and eagerly await the vanishing minority
      who disagree (all active on synoptic-l) coming up with something
      that makes me stop in my tracks and realize that indeed the
      experts are all idiots. Problem isn't so much with the technicalities
      of the linguistic details, where Mk sometimes seems to follow
      what is it, Lk? Mt? but more generally why Mk decides to create
      a dreadfully written attack on the disciples of the Lord at such
      a late date and, if he did, why anybody would have bothered
      to preserve the thing.

      Steve
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/24/1999 9:48:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes:
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 25, 1999
        In a message dated 6/24/1999 9:48:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        miser17@... writes:

        <<
        Too much from me. I do think NT studies has become a bit
        like bridge where you have to point out that you use Gerber
        and Short Club before playing. So I use Mk priority before
        playing. If somebody demands that I explain why I use Gerber
        rather than Blackwood I just tend to shut up. Not that it's not
        a legitimate question. Still, I just go along with
        expert opinon and hope they aren't all idiots
        (not an impossibility) and eagerly await the vanishing minority
        who disagree (all active on synoptic-l) coming up with something
        that makes me stop in my tracks and realize that indeed the
        experts are all idiots.>>

        I'm afraid there are a great many New Testament scholars who are no more
        capable of demonstrating Marcan priority (with valid arguments!) than you
        are. I wish they were all as refreshingly honest about it as you.

        << Problem isn't so much with the technicalities
        of the linguistic details, where Mk sometimes seems to follow
        what is it, Lk? Mt? but more generally why Mk decides to create
        a dreadfully written attack on the disciples of the Lord at such
        a late date and, if he did, why anybody would have bothered
        to preserve the thing.>>

        I dealt with this issue at length last summer, in conversation with
        Kuchinski, if you remember. Will not redo it here, but those who know their
        way around the archives of this list's postings may go there (probably July
        or August) for my views. In a nutshell, I argued that (1) the difference
        between Mark's and Matthew's presentation of the disciples is not all that
        great; (2) eventual negativity in Mark's portrayal of the disciples is
        easily explicable in terms of a dramatic portrayal with homiletic motives,
        directed at practicing "followers of Christ" (symbolized by the disciples in
        Mark's narratives) who have not yet given, and would undoubtedly like to
        avoid, the ultimate witness of martyrdom (the echo of a passage of Heb here
        is intentional); (3) specifically, the lack of understanding of the disciples
        regarding the identity of Jesus serves the purpose of a heightened
        Christology in Mark (the divine is incomprehensible), and is therefore
        probably a late feature; (4) there are a number of passages in Matt where the
        disciples actually come off decidedly worse than they do in Mark (this throws
        an awful monkey-wrench in the view of scholars who insist that Matthew is
        writing after Mark, and engaged in a major white-washing job with respect to
        the image of the disciples).

        Leonard Maluf
      • Jim Deardorff
        ... The problem of AMk s dreadfully written attack on the disciples is no problem for someone who looks into the AH without being under the influence of
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 25, 1999
          At 09:43 PM 6/24/99 -0500, Stevan Davies wrote:
          >...Still, I just go along with
          >expert opinon and hope they aren't all idiots
          >(not an impossibility) and eagerly await the vanishing minority
          >who disagree (all active on synoptic-l) coming up with something
          >that makes me stop in my tracks and realize that indeed the
          >experts are all idiots. Problem isn't so much with the technicalities
          >of the linguistic details, where Mk sometimes seems to follow
          >what is it, Lk? Mt? but more generally why Mk decides to create
          >a dreadfully written attack on the disciples of the Lord at such
          >a late date and, if he did, why anybody would have bothered
          >to preserve the thing.

          The problem of AMk's dreadfully written attack on the disciples is no
          problem for someone who looks into the AH without being under the influence
          of theological commitment, as had been too many 19th-century theologians who
          got the ball rolling in favor of granting piority to Mark. AMk's attacks on
          the Jewish disciples are easily seen to be retaliation for AMt's attacks
          against gentiles. In addition, they served the purpose of showing how
          gentiles would make better disciples than would the "lost sheep of Israel."

          So why would anyone want to preserve Mark? We need to ask also why would
          anyone in the late 1st- or early 2nd-century have wished to preserve an
          anti-gentile gospel (Matthew)? Indeed, ALk, if dependent upon Mark and
          Matthew as indicated by the external evidence, had ample motivation to try
          to improve upon this sorry state of affairs. AMk, although to be commended
          for having omitted Matthew's anti-gentile barbs, had swung the pendulum too
          far in the opposite direction, and in addition had omitted too much valuable
          Judaistic material. So the Gospel of Luke was the answer. But even there,
          ALk's distaste for Matthew's anti-gentile stance shows through strongly in
          his preference for Mark's order and content where it deviated from
          Matthew's, and in his maltreatment of the Matthean material he reinstated
          that AMk had left out.

          How does one avoid this sorry state of affairs? Simple -- assume Markan
          priority and Luke's independence of Matthew. It is primarily by comparing
          parallel passages of Mark and Matthew involving the disciples that the
          numerosity and intensity of AMk's attack against the disciples (and other
          Jewish friends of Jesus) is made so evident. This runs contrary to the first
          point made by Leonard Maluf in one of today's e-mails. However, his 3rd
          point was not too far off the track, of AMk's "homiletic motives": his
          desire to chastise the disciples for their desire to avoid martyrdom. I
          would express this more as AMk being able to twist the natural desire on the
          part of the disciples to stay alive into one of fear unbecoming a disciple,
          as one more blow in his counterattack against Matthew's anti-gentile attacks.

          Jim Deardorff
          Corvallis, Oregon
          E-mail: deardorj@...
          Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.