[Synoptic-L] Christological Argument for Markan Priority
- In a message dated 10/4/1999 3:26:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< 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. >>
<< I don't see that a problem at all. Showing pity is not the same as showing
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...".
- In a message dated 10/4/1999 10:22:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
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
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