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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus' True Kin case study

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/17/2000 11:43:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
    Message 1 of 45 , Jul 18, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/17/2000 11:43:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      scarlson@... writes:

      << In W.C.Allen's case, his argument relies on an implicit major premise
      that greater interest in the disciples is a sign of lateness. Based
      on E.P.Sanders's study, I feel that most of these tendency arguments
      are next to worthless.>>

      I agree with this. Especially since there is really not a consistent tendency
      in this case. Why, for example, would Matt and Lk, with their "greater
      interest in the disciples", have both omitted Mk 6:12-13, the only Synoptic
      text that describes the twelve disciples preaching repentance and
      successfully casting out demons and performing cures?

      << There is a good argument, by the way, amongst all the others -- the
      fatigue argument.
      > << Fatigue
      > Davies & Allison 1991: (2SH) "It makes sense for Mk 3:31 to mention people
      > 'standing outside', for Jesus is in a house (cf. 3.20f.). But Matthew has
      > failed to tell us what Mark has told us (cf. Lk 8.20). That is, in
      > abbreviating his source, he has neglected to inform us what 12.46
      evidently
      > assumes, namely, that Jesus is inside. This is an example of imperfect
      > editing, and evidence for the priority of Mark." (363, footnote omitted)>>
      >
      [L.M. It is only "imperfect editing" if this is in fact a case of editorial
      fatigue. This is what is to be proved, and it therefore cannot be assumed].

      >It is problematic for this theory that Luke also says nothing about a
      house.
      >Are we to think that both Matt and Luke fatigued here simultaneously? Or is
      >it more reasonable to assume that Mark, as a late redactor, is attempting
      to
      >make the text more coherent by adding an element that will account for the
      >expression "outside" in the words of those who tell Jesus about his family
      >who have arrived?

      << Luke's saying nothing about a house is hardly problematic in the least.
      It could indicate that Luke too shows fatigue and is dependent on Mark.
      (An alternate possibility is that Luke depends on Matthew here, so both
      possibilities fit the Farrer Theory.)>>

      I would insist that the fatigue argument with respect to Matt loses some
      ground when it is observed that a reference to a house corresponding to Mark
      3:20 is also absent in Lk. (More argument in support of this position below).
      It is a fact that none of the Synoptic accounts, including Mark, contains a
      reference to a house in the pericope in question itself (Mk 3:31-35 par.).
      That Matthew seems to think of the incident as having taken place in a house
      is probably confirmed by 13:1. There is really no need for this house-setting
      to be explicitly affirmed within the story itself. There are other examples
      in the Gospels of incidents that clearly took place in a house, but where
      Matthew doesn't mention the house, or any part of a house, explicitly. For
      example the story of the last supper in Matt 26:17-29 (and cf. EXHLQON in
      26:30). In both Lk and Mk we are told explicitly that the event took place in
      a KATALUMA, (concrete reference to a part of a house) that was ruled by an
      OIKODESPOTEJ. These are simply late, imaginative features added to a story
      (that of Matt) which implies such a setting, without saying so explicitly.
      PROS SE in Matt 26:18 clearly implies a house or home, but that is precisely
      my point: the physical setting of a house is implied in the narrative, not
      stated explicitly. See also Matt 15:21-28, where a house is probably implied
      by the comment of the woman in 15:27, and added explicitly to the story by
      Mark (7:24).

      <<If you follow the fatigue argument carefully (you should consult Mark's
      on-line article at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm for more
      details), you should recognize that Mark's account is more coherent
      because of the reference to the house in v20.>>

      I need not deny this to think that Mark's text is late compared to the other
      Synoptics. But see below.

      << If a late redactor were
      to make Matthew and/or Luke more coherent, isn't more reasonable for
      the late redactor to fix the account at the scene of the problem, i.e.,
      somewhere in vv31-35, rather than several lines earlier as is the case
      here?>>

      An interesting point. And I would now be willing to suggest in response that
      the addition in Mark 3:20, even if it is late as I think it is, was not added
      by Mark in order to solve a supposed problem of incoherence in the story he
      will tell in 3:31-35. It is really too far away to do that effectively. But
      does this mean that the reference to a house in 3:20 was not added by Mark at
      a late stage of Gospel redaction? Not at all. See my final paragraph below.


      >It is impossible to "prove" that Mark wrote third on the basis of this one
      >pericope; nevertheless, the pericope is perfectly compatible with the
      >Griesbach hypothesis. Mark follows more closely here the wording of Matt,
      but
      >agrees with the perspective of Luke in adapting the saying of Jesus to a
      >later audience (other than the original twelve disciples, as in Matt).

      <<Well, I find many pericopae to be "compatible" with most different
      source theories. If all we had was mere compatibility, then the
      synoptic problem is a matter of taste instead of science.>>

      This is a bit facile as a response. What I claimed was that the evidence as a
      whole is "perfectly" compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis. This may be a
      bit of an exaggeration, but I intended the term at least to convey a greater
      compatibility of the evidence with the Two Gospel Hypothesis than with
      competing hypotheses. And perhaps there is a mid-term between taste and
      science that would most appropriately describe the Synoptic problem.

      The problem with the fatigue argument is that, in spite of protestations to
      the contrary, it presupposes that Mark wrote first and proceeds to give a
      plausible argument for fatigue on the part of Matt and Lk as late redactors
      on that basis. Because of its narrow focus on fatigue as an explanation of
      particular passages, however, it ignores much other relevant evidence of the
      Synoptic phenomenon as a whole. This is especially evident, I think, in the
      present case. There is a whole set of cases where the presence of the term
      OIKOJ or OIKIA in Mark, and its absence in the parallel Synoptic passages,
      needs to be explained: Mk 2:1; 7:17, 24; 9:28; 9:33; 10:10. Mk 3:20 fits well
      into this category of texts, and should be considered with reference to it.
      Now if you examine these Markan texts and their Matthean (and at times also
      Lukan) parallels it is going to be very difficult to think of them all as
      representing Matthean (and Lukan) omissions (whether because of fatigue or
      for any other reason). They fit much better into the category of Markan
      additions: the house is the place Jesus retires to in order to be alone with
      the twelve, and as the gospel proceeds often to impart special teaching to
      them as well. But (in the early part of the Gospel) this retreat is often
      detected by the crowds who rush to surround the house and place further
      claims on Jesus' ministry to them.

      This raises an interesting question: are we even to think that Mark imagines
      the scene in 3:31-35 as taking place in a house? Perhaps not; and one
      certainly cannot base such a view on the mere presence of the term EXW in
      3:31, 32. More than half the uses of EXW in Mark, if I am not mistaken,
      clearly do not imply a house. EXW here could be thought of with reference to
      the "circle" (Mk 3:31, 34) of crowds surrounding Jesus. It is actually
      unlikely, in Mark in particular, that this event is envisioned as taking
      place in a house, which is the place (in Mark) where Jesus goes to retreat
      from the crowds, not to sit with them (cf. Mk 7:17)!

      Thus, EIJ OIKON in Mk 3:20 should probably be taken as having no special
      connection at all with the story told considerably later in 3:31-35. In
      Mark's text, it should be read with reference to the mountain setting (3:13)
      of the previous incident. After being on a mountain for the selection of the
      twelve, Jesus returns "home" (EIJ IOKON) in 3:20. In addition, the text
      should be read with an eye to numerous other Markan texts in which a
      reference to a house has (probably) been added at a late stage of redaction.

      Leonard Maluf
    • David C. Hindley
      Tim said: ... lynched in 68 CE ... People s ... lynching in ... from ... That is, it rained. The silence on how the head and the body came apart fascinates
      Message 45 of 45 , Feb 17, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim said:

        <<"David C. Hindley" wrote:
        >
        > Karel Hanhart said:
        >
        > >>I take it then that the story of Mark having been
        lynched in 68 CE
        > should not be taken as a hard historical fact.<<
        >
        > More like a legend, I'd say. In both Aziz (1960's) and my
        People's
        > Bible Encyclopedia (1913), the same story appears: a
        lynching in
        > Alexandria circa 68 CE, with Mark's body being rescued
        from
        > destruction by the saints, through divine intervention,

        That is, it rained.

        The silence on how the head and the body came apart
        fascinates me.

        in order to be
        > interred under a church. Mark's headless body was later
        stolen from
        > the

        Venetian [DH: I think a church under the control of the
        Coptic Patriarch would be in Alexandria]

        > church (the head was in the possession of the Coptic
        Patriarch at
        > the time) and smuggled to Venice by merchants in a tub of
        pickled pork
        > (to evade inspection by Muslim police) circa 828.

        In 1968, centenary of Mark's death, it was returned to
        Alexandria, where
        I suppose you could go touch it if you wanted. Precisely
        what
        constitutes evidence for you?<<

        Sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.
        Maybe I can touch *a* head that is supposed to be St.
        Mark's, but I can go to an antiquities dealer and touch
        fragments of the "true cross" or the bones of any number of
        "saints."

        What I was getting at was that the tradition about Mark's
        body having been venerated in Alexandria is rather medieval
        and connected with the cult of relic veneration of that
        time. Before that time there is nothing about it in
        literature (unless I missed something).

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.