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

Re: [Synoptic-L] "un-Judaizing"?

Expand Messages
  • John C. Poirier
    ... I believe that Matthew is dependent on Mark. I don’t really see any difficulty with supposing that the more Jewish Matthew could have used the more
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 29, 2000
      Maluflen@... wrote:
      >
      > 1. Mark and Matthew are not just any two gospels, they are gospels that most
      > think are genetically related (and by direct descent, in one direction or
      > another). This makes it more difficult that the one, a gentile gospel, would
      > have been so literally taken over into a Jewish gospel as much of Mark is
      > into Matthew on the 2 SH.

      I believe that Matthew is dependent on Mark. I don’t really see any
      difficulty with supposing that the more Jewish Matthew could have used
      the more gentile Mark. Why is this more problematic than supposing that
      a gentile Gospel used a Jewish Gospel (i.e., is not problematic at all)?

      > 2. In spite of the fact that Mark is gentile-Christian in interest and in
      > framework, there are numerous passages in Mark that were clearly framed and
      > composed within a thoroughly Jewish ambiance. It is difficult to imagine,
      > e.g., that the original author of the story of the transfiguration was a
      > gentile, or even a Jew without Jewish interests or strong Jewish background.

      Although I believe that Mark precedes Matthew, I have always had
      problems with the notion that Mark was the one who originally strung the
      pearls on the string. I see many signs that Mark has wrecked a
      narrative that once cohered better than it does now.

      > If I read you correctly here, you are arguing against a direct literary
      > relationship between Mark and Matthew, and thus insulating yourself against
      > much of my previous comment. Have I understood you correctly? And if so, how
      > do you think the two Gospels actually relate?

      I’m sorry to confuse you (and probably others). By my reference to the
      discussion about travel and communication, I intended to reinvoke the
      question to which that discussion was originally attached (the universal
      dissemination of a new writing), and not to the question of Matthew’s
      relationship to Mark. I was simply using this opportunity to write an
      opinion that I should have posted a month ago. As I stated above, I
      believe Matthew used Mark.


      John C. Poirier
      Middletown, Ohio
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.