Re: [Synoptic-L] Narrative Structure of Mark
- At 10:55 AM 7/9/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>Thanks for this. After reading the piece, I remain wary of chiasticMark,
>theories of the Gospels for the following reasons:
>(1) The old problem that it is surprising that no-one has spotted this
>before and that, if so, Mark has failed in what he was attempting to do.
Your points (2)-(6) to Jeffrey Krantz seemed very strong and sufficient.
Hence it is your point (1) above I'd like to discuss briefly. If there is a
very strong reason why past NT literature has not reported on what may seem
to certain investigators to be an obvious point, then (1) does not hold.
The example I have in mind is one of the arguments favoring Mark being
secondary to Matthew: it was Matthew's anti-gentile statements that provided
the chief impetus for AMk, in Rome, to write his gospel. In so doing, AMk
not only removed these anti-gentile irritants, but retaliated in kind by
portraying the Jewish disciples and friends of Jesus as being extra dumb,
discourteous and fearful. This is nasty business that hardly any NT journal
editor would want to have published in his journal, nor book publisher would
wish to have pubished within his line of books. They would no more want this
than the 19th-century theologians wanted to face up to the full implications
of the Augustinian tradition; thus, primacy of Mark was much to be preferred.
However, no such strong reason of theological commitment exists for NT
scholarship to have avoided earlier reporting of Jeffrey Krantz's
argumentation, so your point (1) may still be relevant there.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm