- ... 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, 1999View SourceAt 02:28 AM 10/4/99 -0500, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
>To: Stephen Carlson,So, it is your argument now that Christology in general tended to a
><< 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
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'The passage quoted from Davies and Allison, state "much more emotion" on
>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
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
><< A final difficulty is that this argument is typically presented with noAs to the first point, it appears to be a concession that there
>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.
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 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 -- ... Leonard, Your argument seems to me to be that, if we assume the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar), (1) MarkMessage 44 of 44 , Feb 28, 2000View SourceBrian 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".