Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke 6:6-11
- At 09:39 PM 10/3/99 -0500, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
><< ... the main argument in support of these Evangelists' higherI do have a few difficulties with this argument. We know that by
>Christology is that they are prone to omit references to Jesus'
>experiencing emotion. So the argument is entirely circular and not at all
>convincing ... >>
>Obviously not convincing to you, but others hold that it has merit. And it
>seems reasonable to me. Davies and Allison (1988:104-105) write:
><< The general direction of early Christology cannot be gainsaid. It was
>from the lesser to the greater. The passing of time incontrovertibly saw a
>development; there was an enhancing of feelings of reverence, and increase
>in Jesus' position and status. Hence, because Matthew possesses a higher
>Christology than Mark, and because he lacks certain details which make
>Jesus more human, all presumption is against Matthean priority ... To say
>the least, we find it perplexing to suppose that an early Christian writer
>with Matthew's text before him would almost systematically set out to
>highlight Jesus' ignorance and make him a much more emotional figure. But
>the reverse procedure is quite intelligible. >>
>I would concur. You can call it "entirely circular" or whatever you want,
>but it still seems to me to be a strong argument. At the very least, I have
>never heard anything close to a convincing argument based on this evidence
>for the Two-Gospel hypothesis.
the time Paul wrote his letters, there already existed a higher
Christology than Mark's gospels. Taken seriously, this argument
would imply that Mark was written before Paul, which no one
(including Irenaeus) seriously believes.
Another difficulty is that Matthew and Luke occasionally "add"
Jesus' emotion to Mark's account. For example, Mark 1:41
SPLAGXNISQEIS (moved with pity) is typically cited, but it is
added to Mark at Mt20:34//Mk10:52 and is found in M and L
A final difficulty is that this argument is typically
presented with no supporting evidence. Sanders, TENDENCIES,
pp.143,145, meticulously examined the evidence and found
"no clear tendency toward adding omitting ... emotions can
be seen." The criterion of adding/omitting emotion proves
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
- Brian Wilson wrote --
>Leonard Maluf replied --
>I would suggest that it does not take much imagination or ingenuity to
>work out very convincing reasons for what Mark did if he used Matthew,
>or for what Matthew did if he used Mark.
>Often true, in individual cases. But overall, the view of Matt re-
>Judaizing an originally Jewish-Christian tradition that has previously
>been substantially un-Judaized by Mark is difficult. One should only
>assume such a tortuous line of development for very good reasons.
>Those usually supplied in support of the relative priority of Mark do
>not fit the bill.
Your argument seems to me to be that, if we assume the Farrer
Hypothesis (or similar), (1) Mark must have un-Judaized his source
material and (2) Matthew must then have re-Judaized this source
material, and that this is "tortuous" and therefore unlikely. What are
the grounds for either (1) or (2), however?
With respect to (1), it is conceivable that Mark un-Judaized none of his
source material, but faithfully used the source material available to
him, however un-Judaic it might be. If Mark wrote first, we cannot
distinguish between tradition and redaction in the Gospel of Mark. If we
had a method for making such a distinction, we would immediately be able
to use it to tell whether Matthew used Mark, or Mark used Matthew, and
the synoptic problem would be solved in a flash. On the Farrer
Hypothesis (or similar), not only do we not know which material Mark un-
Judaized, but we do not even know that he un-Judaized any source
material at all.
With respect to (2), on the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar) since half
the Gospel of Matthew is non-Markan material, it would seem that Matthew
has combined un-Judaic Mark with Judaic source material of some kind(s).
This is neither overall un-Judaizing nor overall Judaizing. It is
So, on the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar), there is no tortuous
development of un-Judaizing followed by re-Judaizing. There is only
conflating of Judaic and un-Judaic material. This would have been very
understandable bearing in mind that Christian communities such as those
at Rome, Antioch in Syria, Corinth and so on, were an intermingling of
Gentile and Jewish Christians, and that the writer of the Gospel of
Matthew would have realized that his book could be copied and circulated
widely to such "mixed" assemblies within weeks of it being written.
The question remains whether it is possible for the advocate of the
Griesbach Hypothesis to give an irreversible directional indicator
showing that Matthew did not use Mark. The alternative question is
whether the advocate of the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar) can give an
irreversible indicator to show that Mark did not use Matthew. I doubt
that either can do this.
EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".