Re: [Synoptic-L] Flusser on the Synoptics
- Thanks for posting the following, Dennis.
> From: Dennis Sullivan <densull@...>And this is my own view as well.
> To: Maluflen@...
> Cc: Synoptic-L@...
> Subject: [Synoptic-L] Flusser on the Synoptics
> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:12 AM
> From "Jesus", by David Flusser (edited by Steven Notley), Magnes
> Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 21-22. [ISBN
> 965-223-978-X] (An earlier version of this work was published in
> German in 1968.)
> "...My research has led me to the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospels
> are based upon one or more non-extant early documents composed by
> Jesus' early disciples and the early church in Jerusalem. These texts
> were originally written in Hebrew. Subsequently they were translated
> into Greek and passed through various stages of redaction. It is the
> Greek translation of these early Hebrew sources that were employed by
> our three evangelists.
> ...My experience, however, chiefly based on the research of the late
> R.L. Lindsey, has shown me that Luke preserves, in comparison to Mark
> (and Matthew when depending on Mark), the original tradition.
> A critical re-evaluation of the literary evidence thus indicates thatI'm a little sceptical here. Rather, I would say that the Greek source of
> Luke wrote before Mark.
Lk (which may be described as the proto-Lk) precedes Mk. It seems to me
that, besides much early material, the canonical Lk also contains certain
amounts of late material, that was added to proto-Lk later.
> Mark then reworked the gospel material and unfavorably influencedThis is probable.
> Matthew, who followed Mark's version closely. Finally, it is important
> to add that Matthew, when independent of Mark, frequently preserves
> the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie behind Luke's
> Gospel. Hence, Luke and Matthew together provide the most authentic
> portrayal of Jesus' life and teachings."
On close examination, I really don't find so much unique early material in
Mk. What seems early about Mk is primarily its form, i.e. it is a short
gospel that lacks an infancy preamble, a genealogy, and
post-resurrection appearances. But while the form of Mk does seem early
and primitive, much of its content appears to be quite late, and betrays
considerable later editorial work, a lot of it marked by a clear
Gentile-oriented and anti-Judaic flavour.
I can easily see how 2ST adherents got so confused about Mk being "all
early and primitive". Their problem seems to be that they are simply
confusing the (primitive) form of Mk with its (rather late) content.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"It is so much easier to assume than to prove; it is so much less painful
to believe than to doubt; there is such a charm in the repose of
prejudice, when no discordant voice jars upon the harmony of belief; there
is such a thrilling pang when cherished dreams are scattered, and old
creeds abandoned, that it is not surprising that men close their eyes to
the unwelcome light" -- W.E.H. Lecky (A History of Rationalism)