Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk 1,1
- At 10:14 AM 7/3/99 +0300, Sakari Häkkinen wrote:
>Dear friends,Yes, AH stands for the Augustinian hypothesis.
>thank you for your answers. I noticed from the three first
>mails that the issue is far from solved. That is what I was
>looking for. ...
>does "AH viewpoint" mean the hypothesis that GMt was the
>first written Gospel?
>Your suggestion that ARCH is meant toThere are a lot of places in Mark where it shows dependence upon Matthew.
>correct the beginning of GMt does not convince me. Nothing
>in the text supports that.
Some of these are improvements over Matthew, some others are attempted
improvements that weren't given careful consideration. Most of them show
dependence in other ways.
Mt 1:1 could obviously be improved, as AMt's book wasn't a genealogy. The
genealogy was just the beginning of Matthew. So AMk can be seen as having
improved upon Matthew here.
>If that were the case, shouldn'tThere are many indications that AMk did not wish his gospel or EUAGGELION to
>AMk give at least some clearer hints if not explying his
>critics to GMt?
appear to be dependent upon Matthew. So, AMk did not come out and say that
his gospel depended upon Matthew. He made his gospel look quite different by
being much shorter, writing it in Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic, adding many
dualisms or redundancies, making it pro-gentile, etc. Thus one may keep
one's eyes open for the clues or hints that this is what happened, and then
one finds them.
>To begin a book of this type (new type?) ARCH is not a badYes, that's why it can be seen as an improvement over Matthew, from the AH
>first word at all. Genesis begins in LXX by the words EN
>ARCH (like the 4th Gospel). The style of AMk might be here
>more intentional than sometimes has been thought.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm