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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Krantz
    I ve been following this thread for a bit, and am concerned that, though the women do seem to be slurred by Mark s ending, the discussion has quite forgotten
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 11, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been following this thread for a bit, and am concerned that, though the
      women do seem to be "slurred" by Mark's ending, the discussion has quite
      forgotten the young man who announced the resurrection to them. Whether through
      the women or through the young man, (whom I still take to be a Markan archetype
      for the follower of Jesus) his first appearance as the man with many
      possessions (10:17-22) who was Jewish makes any slander of Judaism as a whole
      somewhat suspect. (This isn't to say that Mark is not anti-Jewish in some
      respects only that it may be overstating it to make it too universal.)

      I still see the ending, whether one buys my (not very popular) thesis on Mark's
      structure or not as an intentional attempt to contrast responses to the
      preaching of JBap with the preaching of the young man, or Markan archetypal
      follower of Jesus.

      Jeff K.

      Jim Deardorff wrote:

      > No offense, Jeff, but this doesn't make sense, because the concept of the
      > resurrection was the keystone of the earliest Christianity, as propagated by
      > Paul, long before the Gospels were written.
      >
      > A reminder then is in order that the most obvious solution to Mark
      > Goodacre's question should not be overlooked or ignored merely because it is
      > distasteful to Christianity. What kind of scholarship would that be? This
      > final portrayal of the Jewish women as fearful and disobedient is just one
      > more of AMk's many, many slurs against the Jewish friends and disciples of
      > Jesus, upon comparing Mark against Matthew. No doubt in AMk's mind this
      > retaliation was justified because AMt had tried to reserve discipleship to
      > "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and to forbid the mission to go
      > anywhere among the gentiles. (At the time Semitic Matthew was written, Mt
      > 28:19-20 had not been appended, nor Mt 12:17-22).
      >
      > This is such a serious issue that it can scarcely be discussed openly today,
      > nor could it 150 years ago either. But by placing Mark ahead of Matthew and
      > ignoring the external evidence of Matthean priority, the theologians then
      > and scholars now, too, have come close to eliminating this sorry plight.
      >
      > Jim Deardorff
      > Corvallis, Oregon
      > E-mail: deardorj@...
      > Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm

      --
      Jeffrey H. Krantz
      Church of the Advent, Westbury, NY
      Mercer School of Theology, Garden City, NY
      Homepage http://www.agapenetwork.org
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... through ... Thanks, Jeff, for bringing this to my attention. Although this man was probably Jewish, that is not made definite. All AMk had to go by was
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 11, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:13 PM 7/11/99 -0400, Jeffrey Krantz wrote:
        >
        >I've been following this thread for a bit, and am concerned that, though the
        >women do seem to be "slurred" by Mark's ending, the discussion has quite
        >forgotten the young man who announced the resurrection to them. Whether
        through
        >the women or through the young man, (whom I still take to be a Markan archetype
        >for the follower of Jesus) his first appearance as the man with many
        >possessions (10:17-22) who was Jewish makes any slander of Judaism as a whole
        >somewhat suspect. (This isn't to say that Mark is not anti-Jewish in some
        >respects only that it may be overstating it to make it too universal.) ...

        Thanks, Jeff, for bringing this to my attention. Although this man was
        probably Jewish, that is not made definite. All AMk had to go by was
        Matthew's EIS in (19:16). It seems likely to me that the reason AMk didn't
        describe him as being a gentile, or alter him into one, is that the man went
        away sorrowful. So this man did not make the cut -- why change him into a
        gentile?

        The least reversible item in this passage that indicates Mark utilized
        Matthew is that in Mark the man knelt before Jesus, while in Matthew he
        simply approached him. Also, in Mark the man calls him "Good Teacher" versus
        Matthew's "Teacher."

        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.