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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Consensus second time around

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    In a message dated 12/19/2000 7:05:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes:
    Message 1 of 54 , Jan 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/19/2000 7:05:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      K.Hanhart@... writes:

      << I honestly believe that with the above dismissal you are dodging the
      issue. I
      addressed the question why Mark's Gospel was preserved in the canon
      although
      almost all of Mark can be found in Matthew.>>

      The implication here is that you view Mark as merely material that is
      also,
      for the most part, found in Matt. This is a flat appraisal of Mark, I
      think,
      and lacking in a Textpragmatik evaluation. Mark "does" something very
      different from Matt, or from the "Markan" material that is also found in
      Matt. So there would be a value (especially for the not very educated)
      in
      preserving Mark, whether it was written before or after Matthew.

      << One need not preserve a costly book
      twice. My solution would be that Simon Peter had been the important
      authority
      behind Mark's Gospel. Moreover, the early christians apparently needed
      Mark
      in
      order to evaluate in what way Matthew had altered or corrected Mark
      although
      he
      had written with the authority of Peter.>>

      We have no evidence that this kind of comparison took place until the
      time of
      Augustine, do we? And then Mark was recognized, rightly I think, as
      depending
      rather slavishly on Matthew (and in Augustine's latest statement, on
      Luke as
      well).

      << The eminent British scholar of early
      church history, Henry Chadwick, offered an imporant reason why Rome (-
      and
      not
      Jerusalem, or Antioch etc -) became the center of emerging
      christianity. It
      was because "the bones of Peter were buried in Rome". (I - a
      protestant -
      believe he was right. Moreover, the authority of one of the apostles
      was
      needed
      in order to be accepted in the ecclesia). Now Papias, the earliest
      extra
      biblical witness , claims that the authority behind Mark was Simon
      Peter. And
      numerous interpreters of Mark have substantiated that claim (re. its
      semitic
      style, the Latinisms, the role of Simon Peter etc). Mark was a Roman
      Gospel.
      In
      dubio: traditio!>>

      I agree strongly with your Geographical setting for Mark, though this
      makes
      it all the more unlikely for me that this low-class work became the
      basis of
      the highly sophisticated Palestinian presentation of the life of Jesus
      that
      we find in Matthew. As for the Papias tradition, I would agree that at
      face
      value it is more compatible with Markan priority than with a late Mark;
      however, could not statement simply infer a close relationship of Mark
      with
      Peter since the two were known to have spent some roughly
      contemporaneous
      time in the city of Rome? Or could not Mark's very extensive use of
      Matthew
      be considered a form of dependence on Petrine tradition? In any case,
      this is
      how I understand the tradition of Papias, in light of the internal
      evidence
      between the two gospels, which suggests a dependence of Mark on Matt.

      << You asked for proof that Matthew knew Mark. I offered you a proof in
      Mt
      27,63 that Matthew knew Mark and I am still awaiting your reply. For
      why do
      the
      high priests in Mt 27, 63 cite the MARKAN VERSION of an important
      saying of
      Jesus: "After three days I will rise again" (Mk 8,31; 9,31; 10,33). The
      expression "after three days" is a notorious problem in Mark, because,
      like
      Matthew, he has Jesus die on Friday while the women find the stone
      removed
      on
      Sunday, the third day, a problem I have tried to answer elsewhere. But
      why
      would
      Matthew deviate in 27,63 from his own rendering of an important saying
      of
      Jesus
      in 16,21 and 17,23 ("on the third day")? And why in this obviously
      ironic
      setting of a request to have a number of soldiers guard the tomb in
      order to
      prevent the angel from rolling away the stone? >>

      Thanks for repeating this argument, as I had forgotten some of its
      details.
      And no, I don't consider it a strong argument in favor of Markan
      priority.
      If Matthew was able to "correct" Mark three times, with perfect
      consistency,
      in his parallels to the passion predictions, why does he suddenly lapse
      and
      copy Mark literally at 27:63? A better explanation of the expression in
      Matthew is that Matthew has two OT texts to draw on when speaking of the
      vindicating action of God following the death of Jesus: Hos 6:2 (which
      yields
      the expression "on the third day") and Jonah 2:1 LXX (which yields the
      expression "after three days"). Theologically the two expressions are
      equivalent, and Matthew's knowledge of the Jonah text, as well as his
      application of it to the resurrection of Jesus, and precisely in
      connection
      with the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Matt 12:38 and 27:62), is crystal
      clear
      from Matt 12:40.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Dear Leonard, You wrote -- ... I was assuming that you had found such relatively objective directional indications. I agree with you here, therefore. But what
      Message 54 of 54 , Jan 16, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Leonard,
        You wrote --
        >
        >I am looking for more objective directional indications.
        >
        I was assuming that you had found such relatively objective directional
        indications. I agree with you here, therefore.

        But what then follows? Let us assume that we now have more objective
        directional indications of the secondariness of Mark with respect to
        Matthew than previously. These would be perfectly consistent with
        Matthew not being prior to Mark. For Matthew could have more faithfully
        followed a source which Mark followed less faithfully so that Mark would
        have come to display the same indications of secondariness as if Mark
        had used Matthew directly. The relatively objective directional
        indication would be **negative**, therefore. It would point to Mark
        **not** being prior to Matthew. It does not indicate positively that
        Matthew was prior.

        I would suggest that what you are really looking for are not indications
        of the secondariness of Mark with respect to Matthew, but of indications
        of the priority of Matthew with respect to Mark. These are just not the
        same thing.

        I think the reason why you have not found positive indications of the
        priority of Matthew is that Matthew was not prior. More generally, the
        reason why over the past two hundred years or more scholars have not
        found positive irreversible indicators of the priority of any synoptic
        gospel with respect to the others is that no synoptic gospel is prior to
        the other two. If any synoptic gospel had been prior to the other two,
        surely after so many millions of man-hours (and woman-hours) of study of
        the synoptic problem over the past centuries, a positive irreversible
        indicator would have been found.

        On the other hand scholars have found many and various negative
        directional indications, of greater or lesser objectivity, of each
        synoptic gospel being secondary to the other two (including yours, which
        I think is indeed a more objective indicator). These negative
        directional indicators do not prove the Theory of Non-priority. (I do
        not set out to prove it, and would agree that my argument does not
        amount to deductive proof.) But I would suggest that the Theory of Non-
        priority fits the observed negative directional indicators better than
        any theory of priority.

        For the absence of positive directional indicators and the presence of
        negative directional indicators are what we would expect if the Theory
        of Non-priority is true.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _

        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.