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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Christological Argument for Markan Priority

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... So, it is your argument now that Christology in general tended to a higher Christology, but at different rates in different places. If this is the case,
    Message 1 of 44 , Oct 4, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 02:28 AM 10/4/99 -0500, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
      >To: Stephen Carlson,
      ><< We know that by 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. >>
      >
      >Actually, what this argument would imply (if taken seriously) is that not
      >everyone in Christendom developed the same degree of Christology all at the
      >same time, but nonetheless there was a general tendency towards a higher
      >Christology.

      So, it is your argument now that Christology in general tended to a
      higher Christology, but at different rates in different places. If
      this is the case, then a better answer for the Christology of the
      gospels is that they reflect the Christology of their own location,
      rather than engaging with some trend in a foreign community. Your
      observation therefore tends to discount any measurable effect of a
      "general tendency towards a higher Christology" -- and is a step in
      the right direction.

      ><< 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
      >anger.

      The passage quoted from Davies and Allison, state "much more emotion" on
      the part of Jesus. Pity is an emotion. Furthermore, there is nothing
      about anger that is ungodlike. Paul for example writes of the wrath of
      God.

      ><< 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 nothing. >>
      >
      >First of all, you are here presenting Sanders' conclusion for
      >POST-canonical traditions. Second, when he does discuss the evidence for
      >the Synoptic gospels (on pages 181-182, 186), his data includes emotions
      >generally and not emotions necessarily particular to Jesus.

      As to the first point, it appears to be a concession that there
      is no evidence in post-canonical traditions for an increasing
      Christology that forced people to remove emotions from Jesus.
      This leaves no evidentiary foundation for the tendency, because
      appealing to canonical (intra-synoptic) evidence is circular.

      As to the second point, Sanders' data is detailed enough to
      separate out Jesus and the emotions of others. When this is
      done, there still is no tendency.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      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 E. Wilson
      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Leonard Maluf replied -- ... Leonard, Your argument seems to me to be that, if we assume the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar), (1) Mark
      Message 44 of 44 , Feb 28, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian Wilson wrote --
        >
        >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.
        >
        Leonard Maluf replied --
        >
        >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.
        >
        Leonard,
        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
        overall conflation.

        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.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        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".
        _
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.