[Synoptic-L] Mark and 2 Macc
- As you all may know, Augustine was the first to posit an
actual literary basis for the composition of the gospels,
stating that "Mark seems to have followed closely after
him [sc. Matthew] like someone following on his footsteps
and abbreviating him." (DE CONSENSU EVANGELISTARUM I.4)
This view was critiqued by Streeter, FOUR GOSPELS (1924),
among others, who argues that "only a lunatic would leave
out Matthew's account ... in order to get room for purely
verbal expansion of what was retained." (p. 158) Although
E.P. Sanders had his doubts about the Streeter's argument
(TENDENCIES (1969), p. 85), it seems that most people have
followed Streeter's critique (see, e.g., Stein, SYNOPTIC
PROBLEM (1987) p.45).
For unrelated reasons, I was reading the ANCHOR BIBLE
DICTIONARY article on Second Maccabees, vol. 4, p. 442,
in which Thomas Fischer (Cryer trans.) stated that:
The somewhat verbose epitomizer (or abridger),
who modestly remained anonymous, abbreviated
the five books of Jason . . . into a single
book . . . . This redactor organized and
partly expanded the contents, as was the current
practice . . . . (Parentheticals omitted).
Is this behavior, however, what the supporters of
Augustine and Griesbach allege on the part of Mark's
use of Matthew: that he abridged Matthew, yet expanded
the contents with the typical Markan flourishes (when
Abiathar was high priest, Jesus sat on a cushion, etc.)?
[I think the Jerusalem School posits a similar deed of
Mark on Luke, but with some evidence that the Markan
expansions are harder to translate into idiomatic Hebrew.]
Is any one aware of any studies on the Synoptic Problem
and Epitomization? Or is this a topic for a future Ph.D.?
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