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

[Synoptic-L] Christological Argument for Markan Priority

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/4/1999 3:26:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes: [Stephen Carlson]
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 4, 1999
      In a message dated 10/4/1999 3:26:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      scmiller@... writes:

      [Stephen Carlson]
      << 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 Mt 20:34//Mk 10:52 and
      is found in M and L material. >>

      [Steve Miller]

      << I don't see that a problem at all. Showing pity is not the same as showing
      anger. >>

      Steve, what evidence do you have that attributing anger to Jesus diminished
      with a recognition of his divinity? I assume you are a patristics expert, if
      you can make a statement like that? Besides, it is not at all clear to me, on
      other grounds, that Mark has a relatively low Christology. Matthew, e.g.,
      refers to Jesus as God's son in a OT passage where the original reference was
      to Israel. Mark's use of the "Son of God" title appears to me a much more
      direct reference to Jesus' belonging to the divine world, with divine powers.
      And only in Mark, in the hearing before Jewish authorities prior to his
      death, does Jesus respond to the question "are you the Son of God?" with the
      direct : "I am...".

      Leonard Maluf
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/4/1999 10:22:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 4, 1999
        In a message dated 10/4/1999 10:22:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        scmiller@... writes:

        <<
        The way I would present the material is like this:

        (1) "Moved with pity/anger ..." (Mk 1:41);
        (2) "... sternly warning ..." (Mk 1:43);
        (3) "He looked around them with anger; he was grieved ..." (Mk 3:5);
        (4) "And he was amazed at their unbelief" (Mk 6:6a);
        (5) "And he sighed deeply in his spirit" (Mk 8:12);
        (6) "... he was indignant" (Mk 10:14);
        (7) "Jesus ... loved him" (Mk 10:21); and
        (8) "He ... began to be distressed and agitated" (Mk 14:33).

        Out of these eight examples of Jesus expressing emotion. Matthew omits the
        first seven; and Luke omits all eight examples. >>

        Are you not assuming here, in your very wording, what the Christological
        argument is supposed to prove? (rhetorical question). In minor Logic, I think
        this is called a "petitio principii". It is listed as a logical fallacy.

        <>

        I do too.


        <<But another clear example of the Christological argument for Markan
        Priority....>>

        Where was the first one? As you can see, I see the above evidence to be
        highly significant too... but obviously as an indication of Markan
        posteriority, the late addition of dramatic detail to the Gospel story by a
        good story-teller. The opposite case I see as extremely difficult: namely,
        that Matthew and Luke independently viewed that material as somehow offensive
        or inappropriate. If you read your list again, with the Gospel of John in
        mind, you might also find it suggestive of Mark as a late, rather than the
        original Gospel.

        Leonard Maluf
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.