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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Omission of Lord's Prayer in Mark

Expand Messages
  • Richard Anderson
    Mark, I having been trying to think of someone who wrote of the Lord s prayer in the context of the synoptic problem to no avail but I do suggest Jeremias The
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark, I having been trying to think of someone who wrote of the Lord's
      prayer in the context of the synoptic problem to no avail but I do suggest
      Jeremias' The Prayers of Jesus, as a possibility.

      My own response is that Luke more so than Matt and Mark present Jesus at
      prayer. The Lucan Jesus prayed at his baptism, before his first
      confrontation with the pharisees, before he selected the twelve, before he
      questioned his disciples as to who they thought he was, before the first
      prediction of his own death, at the transfiguration and upon the cross. Only
      Luke tells us that Jesus prayed for Peter in his hour of testing. Only Luke
      tells us the prayer parables of the friend at midnight and the unjust judge.
      Like Moses and Elijah, the Lucan Jesus regularly spent long periods of time
      in solititude and prayer. Gallilean holy men regularly spent an hour each
      day stilling their minds in order to direct their hearts toward heaven. Luke
      reports that on occasion that Jesus prayed all night.

      Matt and Mark reject this image of the Lucan Jesus that was perhaps based on
      Jewish mysticism and/or Jewish Palestinian Piety, see A. Buchler, 1922. In
      my view Gospel of Mark is less Jewish. For instance, repentance is less
      important in Matt and Mark than Luke; likewise almsgiving which I suspect is
      not even mentioned in GMark.
      Likewise there is no condemnation of the animal sacrifical system and no
      theology of the cross in Luke as in Matt and Mark.

      It may have been Marcus Borg who said that we in the modern world have
      trouble understanding the reality of the holy spirit because the deeper form
      of prayer have disappeared from our lives. Maybe, Mark felt his audience
      would not understand a man who prayed all night and downplayed this aspect
      of Jesus even to the point of eliminating the Lord's Prayer [or he could not
      decide which version was authentic].

      Richard H. Anderson
      Wallingford PA
      http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke


      Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted
      the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?
      Farmer's chapter on it in _Gospel of Jesus_ (Chapter 4) does not
      attempt to explain its omission. My reason for asking is that I feel
      inclined to draw attention to it as a potential problem for the
      Griesbach theory, but I want to be sure before attempting to mount
      the argument that I have not missed anything important.


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Peter M. Head
      ... No, is the basic answer to the actual question. But you might find something in the early writers (Griesbach, de Wette, Baur), although more likely they
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark (working late?) asked:
        >Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted
        >the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?

        No, is the basic answer to the actual question. But you might find
        something in the early writers (Griesbach, de Wette, Baur), although more
        likely they will just address the large scale omissions. Griesbach Mark
        doesn't omit the Lord's Prayer, he simply omits the whole Sermon on the
        Mount and the Lukan travel narrative.

        But you ought to look at Mark 11.25, because here Griesbach Mark must (?)
        echo the LP in a redactional addition to Matt 21.20-22 (Mann regards this
        as an important indication of Mark's knowledge of Matt).

        Peter


        Dr. Peter M. Head
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens
        Cambridge CB3 9BA
        Tel: 01223 566607
        Fax: 01223 566608
        email: pmh15@...



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
        ... While I appreciate the responses of Lamar Cope, Richard Anderson, Peter Head and others, we may be trying to answer an objection that needs no answer. I
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Goodacre asks:

          > Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted
          > the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?
          > Farmer's chapter on it in _Gospel of Jesus_ (Chapter 4) does not
          > attempt to explain its omission. My reason for asking is that I feel
          > inclined to draw attention to it as a potential problem for the
          > Griesbach theory, but I want to be sure before attempting to mount
          > the argument that I have not missed anything important.

          While I appreciate the responses of Lamar Cope, Richard Anderson, Peter Head
          and others, we may be trying to answer an objection that needs no answer. I
          addressed this issue in an essay published in 1983 - and in several other
          places. To my knowledge no one has responded to my line of reasoning, which
          might suggest that it has little merit. Still, it seems to me a reasonable
          response. With apologies for going on at such length, I wrote:

          "It has often been argued against the Griesbach Hypothesis that Mark would
          have had no reason for omitting so much important material found in Matthew
          and Luke. Examples of such material would include the birth narratives, the
          Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, many of the parables and teachings
          of Jesus, and the accounts of the appearances of the Risen Jesus. The list
          could, of course, be extended, but the point is clear. This line of
          reasoning, however, seems to be based upon an assumption which it may not be
          legitimate to make. There are, after all, many possible reasons why an
          author might write again something which has already been written. He might
          wish to supplement the earlier works by the addition of greater detail or by
          the addition of entirely new material. He might wish to refine or correct
          them in some substantive way. In these and similar cases the later author
          would intend that his work replace the earlier documents, probably with the
          idea that the earlier works would subsequently disappear from general use.
          It is also possible, however, that a later author would write, not to
          replace but only to summarize or to interpret the earlier works by setting
          the materials in a different context or by addressing himself to a different
          audience with different concerns. In these cases the later author would
          intend that his work be used along with the earlier documents. Further,
          since in these cases the omission of materials would not imply their loss,
          there is little need for special attention to the reasons for omission. Far
          more important is the question of what the author has done with the
          materials he has included (from whatever source he has obtained them)."
          ["Crisis and Christology: The Theology of Mark," in New Synoptic Studies,
          William R. Farmer, ed., Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983, pp.
          373-392.]

          In short, if Mark is third, given the respect that he has for the earlier
          gospels, there is little reason to assume that he would have envisioned that
          his work would replace the others and that any material contained in them
          that he did not reproduce would (intentionally) be lost forever. Indeed,
          many of us who prefer the Griesbach Hypothesis (a.k.a., Two Gospel
          Hypothesis) as the best of the currently offered solutions to the synoptic
          problem do not envision that Mark wrote to replace Matthew and Luke,
          intending that these gospels no longer be read. In my view, Mark did not
          include the Lord's Prayer (and the other material) because he had no reason
          to do so and with the knowledge that these traditions would still be
          available to his readers in the other gospels.

          Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
          Crawford Family Professor
          Department of Religious Studies
          Colby College
          4643 Mayflower Hill
          Waterville, ME 04901-8846
          Tel: (207) 872-3150
          FAX: (207) 872-3802


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Mark Goodacre writes -- ... In his Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Gabler 1825 edition,
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 9, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark Goodacre writes --
            >
            >Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted the Lord's
            >Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?
            >
            In his Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae
            commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Gabler 1825 edition, page 406),
            J. J. Griesbach wrote that Mark omitted the Sermon on the Mount from
            Matthew because "Sermones tam longos fere semper Marcus transsilit" --
            "Mark almost always omits such long discourses". The Lord's Prayer in
            both Matthew and Luke is in a long section consisting mostly, if not
            entirely, of discourse. On this view, the Lord's Prayer is missing from
            Mark because Mark preferred narratives to sections of mostly discourse
            material.

            This would seem to me to be a satisfactory account of why Mark omitted
            the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach Hypothesis.

            However perhaps we should also consider why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
            Mark does not contain the Lord's Prayer.

            Is it because (as I think Goulder supposes) Matthew used no source
            material other than the OT and Mark, and the prayer in Matthew was not
            the Lord's, but made up by Matthew out of his own head?

            On the other hand, if not, but if rather during the time of writing of
            the gospel of Mark the prayer was a short unit of oral tradition used
            and deeply respected as indeed basically the Lord's Prayer, why, on the
            Farrer Hypothesis, does Mark find no room for it?

            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@...
          • Karel Hanhart
            ... Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

              > Mark Goodacre writes --
              > >
              > >Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted the Lord's
              > >Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?
              > >
              > In his Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae
              > commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Gabler 1825 edition, page 406),
              > J. J. Griesbach wrote that Mark omitted the Sermon on the Mount from
              > Matthew because "Sermones tam longos fere semper Marcus transsilit" --
              > "Mark almost always omits such long discourses". The Lord's Prayer in
              > both Matthew and Luke is in a long section consisting mostly, if not
              > entirely, of discourse. On this view, the Lord's Prayer is missing from
              > Mark because Mark preferred narratives to sections of mostly discourse
              > material.
              >
              > This would seem to me to be a satisfactory account of why Mark omitted
              > the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach Hypothesis.
              >
              > However perhaps we should also consider why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
              > Mark does not contain the Lord's Prayer.
              >
              > Is it because (as I think Goulder supposes) Matthew used no source
              > material other than the OT and Mark, and the prayer in Matthew was not
              > the Lord's, but made up by Matthew out of his own head?
              >
              > On the other hand, if not, but if rather during the time of writing of
              > the gospel of Mark the prayer was a short unit of oral tradition used
              > and deeply respected as indeed basically the Lord's Prayer, why, on the
              > Farrer Hypothesis, does Mark find no room for it?
              >
              > 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@...


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Mark Goodacre
              Dear Richard Thanks for your message. One comment on the conclusion of it: ... I suppose one concern I would have with this would be that Mark does not seem
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Richard

                Thanks for your message. One comment on the conclusion of it:

                On 8 Jan 2001, at 21:37, Richard Anderson wrote:

                > It may have been Marcus Borg who said that we in the modern world have
                > trouble understanding the reality of the holy spirit because the
                > deeper form of prayer have disappeared from our lives. Maybe, Mark
                > felt his audience would not understand a man who prayed all night and
                > downplayed this aspect of Jesus even to the point of eliminating the
                > Lord's Prayer [or he could not decide which version was authentic].

                I suppose one concern I would have with this would be that Mark
                does not seem afraid to depict Jesus at prayer at both ends of the
                gospel, 1.35, very early in the morning while still dark and 14.32-
                42, Gethsemane, where there is also a good deal of wording
                reminiscent of the Lord's Prayer, and the exhortation to his
                disciples to watch and pray. So I don't get the impression that
                Mark is downplaying this motif a great deal. Further, on the
                assumption of Marcan posteriority, he does not have difficulty on
                deciding on Matthew / Luke elsewhere, e.g. the Eucharistic words,
                a similar liturgical set piece.

                Best wishes
                Mark
                -----------------------------
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                Birmingham B15 2TT
                United Kingdom

                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                Homepage
                http://NTGateway.com
                The New Testament Gateway

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Mark Goodacre
                ... Thanks for the feedback. Yes, Mark 11.25 is the focus of my concern. Given that (a) there is an ideal literary context available here for the Lord s
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 9 Jan 2001, at 10:06, Peter M. Head wrote:

                  > No, is the basic answer to the actual question. But you might find
                  > something in the early writers (Griesbach, de Wette, Baur), although
                  > more likely they will just address the large scale omissions.
                  > Griesbach Mark doesn't omit the Lord's Prayer, he simply omits the
                  > whole Sermon on the Mount and the Lukan travel narrative.
                  >
                  > But you ought to look at Mark 11.25, because here Griesbach Mark must
                  > (?) echo the LP in a redactional addition to Matt 21.20-22 (Mann
                  > regards this as an important indication of Mark's knowledge of Matt).

                  Thanks for the feedback. Yes, Mark 11.25 is the focus of my
                  concern. Given that (a) there is an ideal literary context available
                  here for the Lord's Prayer in Mark, (b) that this context features
                  wording in common with Matthew's explication of the Lord's prayer
                  in Matt. 6.14 and (c) virtually every element in the Lord's prayer is
                  highly conducive to Mark's theological interests, does not the
                  omission at least seem odd?

                  On the third point, let me illustrate. To save myself the time of
                  transliterating Greek, I'll use English translation:

                  (1) Matt. 6.9 // Luke 11.2, "In this way, therefore, should you pray"
                  / "When you pray say":

                  The same presumption of corporate prayer is important to Mark,
                  not only in 11.24-25, as you point out, but also in 14.38, "Watch
                  (pl.) and pray (pl.).

                  (2) Matt. 6.9 // Luke 11.2: "Our father in heaven" / "Father"

                  The address of God as father is also conducive to Mark's interests -
                  - cf. Gethsemane, 14.36, "Abba, Father" and again 11.25, "your
                  father in heaven . . ."

                  (3) Matt. 6.10 // Luke 11.4: "May your kingdom come"

                  The coming of God's kingdom is of course one of Mark's most
                  famous concerns, right from the inception of the Gospel with Jesus'
                  first words about the kingdom having drawn near (1.14).

                  (4) Matt. 6.10: "May your will be done".

                  This is so important a theme to Mark that he makes it the grounds
                  of defining fictive kinship in Mark 3.35. And it is a key element in
                  the prayer in Gethsemane again, "Not what I wish, but what you
                  wish" (Mark 14.36 & par.).

                  (5) Matt. 6.12 // Luke 11.4: "Forgive us our debts (sins) as we
                  forgive our debtors"

                  This theme of reciprocal forgiveness is clearly an important one to
                  Mark since it occurs in the context to which you refer, 11.25, in the
                  parallel to Matthew 6.14.

                  (6) Matt. 6.13 // Luke 11.4: "Lead us not into temptation"

                  Another theme apparently important enough to Mark for him to
                  stress it in the Gethsemane account in quite similar wording,
                  "Watch and pray, lest you come into temptation" (Mark 14.38 and
                  par.).

                  So we have a prayer highly conducive to Mark's interests, and an
                  ideal literary context into which we might have expected him to
                  insert it. Griesbach Mark doesn't seem to avoid other liturgical set
                  pieces found in the concurrent witness of his literary sources, e.g.
                  the Eucharistic words in Mark 14.22-25. So all in all, if I were
                  Griesbach Mark, I think I'd have used the Lord's Prayer.

                  Mark




                  -----------------------------
                  Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                  Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                  University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                  Birmingham B15 2TT
                  United Kingdom

                  http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                  Homepage
                  http://NTGateway.com
                  The New Testament Gateway

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... I am really grateful for these helpful thoughts, and for the reference to your article too, which I read a little while ago and must look up again. I
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 10, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 9 Jan 2001, at 8:36, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:

                    > In short, if Mark is third, given the respect that he has for the
                    > earlier gospels, there is little reason to assume that he would have
                    > envisioned that his work would replace the others and that any
                    > material contained in them that he did not reproduce would
                    > (intentionally) be lost forever. Indeed, many of us who prefer the
                    > Griesbach Hypothesis (a.k.a., Two Gospel Hypothesis) as the best of
                    > the currently offered solutions to the synoptic problem do not
                    > envision that Mark wrote to replace Matthew and Luke, intending that
                    > these gospels no longer be read. In my view, Mark did not include the
                    > Lord's Prayer (and the other material) because he had no reason to do
                    > so and with the knowledge that these traditions would still be
                    > available to his readers in the other gospels.

                    I am really grateful for these helpful thoughts, and for the reference
                    to your article too, which I read a little while ago and must look up
                    again. I suppose the question that therefore comes to mind for me
                    is why Mark is so careful so often to retain the concurrent
                    testimony of Matthew and Luke, including material like the
                    Eucharistic words that we know long predate his Gospel
                    (witnessed in 1 Cor. 11), and which Mark also presumably expects
                    his readers already to know. In other words, I am not clear what it
                    is about the Lord's Prayer that causes the omission when he has
                    come so close (apparently) to recounting it in 11.24-25, and when
                    on other occasions he values the united witness of Matthew and
                    Luke. Professor Farmer often said, did he not, that the purpose of
                    Mark was essentially a unifying, ecumenical one, the kind of
                    purpose that might have encouraged inclusion of the church's
                    prayer?

                    Best wishes
                    Mark


                    -----------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                    Birmingham B15 2TT
                    United Kingdom

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    Homepage
                    http://NTGateway.com
                    The New Testament Gateway

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 1/10/2001 7:43:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 10, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 1/10/2001 7:43:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                      M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                      << So all in all, if I were
                      Griesbach Mark, I think I'd have used the Lord's Prayer. >>

                      So would I, and undoubtedly, so did he (Mark). But this doesn't necessitate
                      his copying it into his Gospel. It seems to me that it would have been
                      somewhat pedantic to do so, given that it was (arguably) already a well-known
                      prayer in Mark's community. Mark is concerned only to narrate the existential
                      drama in which Jesus himself lives out this prayer, as he already does in
                      Matthew, though in a less dramatic way.

                      Leonard Maluf

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      Having just read Harry Y. Gamble s BOOKS AND READERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH, the oral performative aspect of early Christian texts was strongly impressed upon me.
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 10, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Having just read Harry Y. Gamble's BOOKS AND READERS IN THE
                        EARLY CHURCH, the oral performative aspect of early Christian
                        texts was strongly impressed upon me. I had recently purchased
                        and listened to the Gospel according to Mark on tape, which
                        was a wonderful experience. It was more episodic to listen to
                        than to read, even in a synopsis.

                        At any rate, I'm wondering if our emphasis on the omission is
                        misplaced. I think that when a new gospel text is listened to
                        in an area familiar with a previous gospel, the omissions are
                        easy to overlook. Rather, one notices above all the new material,
                        and the changed material. Therefore, if we are to analyze the
                        impact of a new text on an audience, we should give primacy to
                        the new materials and then to the changes. The omission of
                        material relative to the earlier gospel, should play little
                        role unless its presence is absolutely expected.

                        In the case of the Griesbachian Mark, when read to a community
                        familiar with Matthew (by hypothesis), I don't think that the
                        omission of the Lord's prayer would be all that noticed, when
                        the whole Sermon was left out. I would also expect that listeners
                        would understand 11:25 to be an allusion to the Lord's prayer
                        (in its Matthean, not Lukan or Q, form and context).

                        Perhaps the most salient omission of Mark's is the infancy
                        narrative, but Mark's vigorous opening quickly draws the listener
                        into the story without being too worried about it.

                        Just some thoughts,

                        Stephen Carlson


                        --
                        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

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        ... Thanks for this. When I said used , I meant copying it into his Gospel . I like the thought of Jesus dramatically living out the prayer in Mark --
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 11, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 10 Jan 2001, at 20:29, Maluflen@... wrote:

                          > So would I, and undoubtedly, so did he (Mark). But this doesn't
                          > necessitate his copying it into his Gospel. It seems to me that it
                          > would have been somewhat pedantic to do so, given that it was
                          > (arguably) already a well-known prayer in Mark's community. Mark is
                          > concerned only to narrate the existential drama in which Jesus himself
                          > lives out this prayer, as he already does in Matthew, though in a less
                          > dramatic way.

                          Thanks for this. When I said "used", I meant "copying it into his
                          Gospel". I like the thought of Jesus dramatically living out the
                          prayer in Mark -- that's a great turn of phrase. Yet if it is *so*
                          important to him, I still find it difficult to concede the likelihood that
                          he would have omitted it. The parallel of the Eucharistic words is
                          again instructive: Griesbach Mark has these too in the concurrent
                          testimony of his sources, can presume his audience knows them,
                          makes them a key part of the "existential drama in which Jesus
                          lives out these words" and yet he is "somewhat pedantic" in
                          actually recording them. So there's a problem with the
                          consistency of Griesbach Mark's redaction, isn't there?

                          Mark
                          -----------------------------
                          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                          Birmingham B15 2TT
                          United Kingdom

                          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                          Homepage
                          http://NTGateway.com
                          The New Testament Gateway

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Mark Goodacre
                          ... Thanks, Stephen, for your thoughts, which are as sharp as ever. I agree that in the kind of reception you are discussing one indeed notices the new
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 11, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 10 Jan 2001, at 23:25, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                            > At any rate, I'm wondering if our emphasis on the omission is
                            > misplaced. I think that when a new gospel text is listened to
                            > in an area familiar with a previous gospel, the omissions are
                            > easy to overlook. Rather, one notices above all the new material, and
                            > the changed material. Therefore, if we are to analyze the impact of a
                            > new text on an audience, we should give primacy to the new materials
                            > and then to the changes. The omission of material relative to the
                            > earlier gospel, should play little role unless its presence is
                            > absolutely expected.

                            Thanks, Stephen, for your thoughts, which are as sharp as ever. I
                            agree that in the kind of reception you are discussing one indeed
                            notices the new material first, but I reckon that one does notice an
                            omission quite markedly whenever the text might appear to be
                            setting a context for its inclusion. I think of Nicholas Ray's _King
                            of Kings_, for example, when during the Sermon on the Mount,
                            which in that film is made up of material from all over the four
                            Gospels, a lawyer comes up to Jesus and asks "What must I do to
                            inherit eternal life?" Jesus answers with Love God / Love neighbour
                            and the context is set up perfectly for the parable of the Good
                            Samaritan, but it does not appear. Even if one is familiar with the
                            Matthean and Markan versions of the Great Commandment, one
                            notices the absence of the Lucan Good Samaritan. Perhaps this
                            is just me -- I'd be interested to hear of others' experiences of
                            listening / viewing performances that manipulate familiar texts.

                            Similarly, when I used to work in the Disney Store, we used to
                            have hour long video tapes on a loop, the same one playing all day,
                            consisting mainly of edits of songs from the Disney films. Since I
                            was familiar outside of that context with a lot of the Disney films, I
                            couldn't help noticing every time the edit kicked in, in spite of the
                            fact that the different pieces were segued cleverly together.

                            > In the case of the Griesbachian Mark, when read to a community
                            > familiar with Matthew (by hypothesis), I don't think that the
                            > omission of the Lord's prayer would be all that noticed, when
                            > the whole Sermon was left out. I would also expect that listeners
                            > would understand 11:25 to be an allusion to the Lord's prayer (in its
                            > Matthean, not Lukan or Q, form and context).

                            I agree that one would expect the hearer familiar with Matthew to
                            recognise 11.25 as an allusion to the Lord's Prayer. But this, to
                            me, is what is so striking about it. Mark 11.25a: KAI hOTAN
                            STHKETE PROSEUCOMENOI . . . echoes Matt. 6.6-9a, SU DE
                            hOTAN PROSEUCHi . . . PROSEUCOMENOI . . . OUTWJ OUN
                            PROSEUCESQE hUMEIS . . . and 11.25b is v. close to Matt.
                            6.14. In other words, Griesbach Mark retains elements of the
                            framing of the prayer without including the prayer itself. To the
                            hearer familiar with Matthew, and giving this framing, I suspect one
                            would find the omission striking. But perhaps I am not succeeding
                            in attempting to think my way into the shoes of Griesbach Mark.

                            Thanks again for the helpful remarks
                            Mark
                            -----------------------------
                            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                            Birmingham B15 2TT
                            United Kingdom

                            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                            Homepage
                            http://NTGateway.com
                            The New Testament Gateway

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                            In a message dated 1/11/2001 4:55:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 11, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 1/11/2001 4:55:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                              M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                              << Thanks for this. When I said "used", I meant "copying it into his
                              Gospel". >>

                              I knew you meant that, and I apologize for deliberately misinterpreting your
                              meaning for rhetorical effect. (I should have made one more New Year's
                              resolution!)

                              << I like the thought of Jesus dramatically living out the
                              prayer in Mark -- that's a great turn of phrase. Yet if it is *so*
                              important to him, I still find it difficult to concede the likelihood that
                              he would have omitted it.>>

                              I think that Textpragmatik considerations would help here. In most of the
                              postings to this list, e.g., contributors have been alluding to the Our
                              Father without citing the entire text, which, for these purposes, would come
                              across as pedantic. I would by no means go so far as to say that I would have
                              been surprised if Mark had included the Our Father somewhere in his gospel,
                              assuming that he knew it, but I am not with you in finding a serious
                              difficulty his not having done so. Did the author of Hebrews, e.g., know the
                              Our Father? And if so, is there a serious difficulty in his not having
                              included it at several points in his text where it might have been eminently
                              appropriate?

                              The Markan passage which you have suggested would have been an ideal setting
                              for the prayer (Mark 11:19-25) is also one that is strikingly "late" in
                              formulation by comparison to the Matthean parallel, and clearly engages in
                              developing a catechesis on prayer and faith (with Pauline emphases) for a
                              general Christian audience. Not only does 11:25 echo Matt 6:14f, as well as
                              one of the petitions of the Our Father itself, but there are also allusions
                              in Mark 11:24 to the other passage on prayer from the great sermon (Matt 7:7;
                              and cf. 18:19). Note that Luke also employs Matt 7:7ff in connection with his
                              version of the Our Father (Lk 11:2-13), with only his parable developing the
                              "giving" (as opposed to the "forgiving") petition of the Lord's prayer coming
                              in between (11:5-8).

                              << The parallel of the Eucharistic words is
                              again instructive: Griesbach Mark has these too in the concurrent
                              testimony of his sources, can presume his audience knows them,
                              makes them a key part of the "existential drama in which Jesus
                              lives out these words" and yet he is "somewhat pedantic" in
                              actually recording them. So there's a problem with the
                              consistency of Griesbach Mark's redaction, isn't there?>>

                              The Eucharistic words, though, are more intimately part of the narrative
                              drama of Jesus' climatic moment of going to his death in obedience to his
                              Father, which is the very essence of Mark's Gospel. Even here, however, Mark
                              shows a reluctance to cite Matthew's text in full, and he abbreviates the
                              words of Jesus in a way that is reminiscent of Luke's abbreviation of the
                              Lord's Prayer, and of his own abbreviation of the prayer of Jesus in the
                              garden.

                              Leonard Maluf


                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Mark Goodacre
                              ... Thanks for your question, Brian, and also for the helpful quotation from Griesbach. The first part of your question relates to Michael Goulder s ingenious
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jan 11, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 9 Jan 2001, at 20:59, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                                > However perhaps we should also consider why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
                                > Mark does not contain the Lord's Prayer.
                                >
                                > Is it because (as I think Goulder supposes) Matthew used no source
                                > material other than the OT and Mark, and the prayer in Matthew was not
                                > the Lord's, but made up by Matthew out of his own head?
                                >
                                > On the other hand, if not, but if rather during the time of writing of
                                > the gospel of Mark the prayer was a short unit of oral tradition used
                                > and deeply respected as indeed basically the Lord's Prayer, why, on
                                > the Farrer Hypothesis, does Mark find no room for it?

                                Thanks for your question, Brian, and also for the helpful quotation
                                from Griesbach. The first part of your question relates to Michael
                                Goulder's ingenious 1964 (JTS) suggestion that Matthew created
                                the Lord's Prayer on the basis of a creative expansion of Mark
                                11.25 + 14.32-42. I find that theory appealing but not ultimately
                                convincing. In the 1964 article, Goulder could not explain "Give us
                                today our bread for the morrow" as an element taken over from
                                Mark, and he suggested that Matthew had taken it over from his
                                own oral tradition of Jesus' teaching. [The latter element,
                                interestingly, has dropped out of Goulder's work by 1974 when
                                _Midrash and Lection in Matthew_ comes out.] I reckon that the
                                presence of EPIOUSION here remains problematic for the
                                creativity theory. There is also a bit of a sleight of hand in
                                Goulder's discussion of MH EISENEGKHS hHMAS EIS
                                PEIRASMON, which I discuss briefly in _Goulder and the
                                Gospels_, Chapter 2, if I remember correctly (don't have a copy in
                                front of me). I think I argued there that Matthew conforms the
                                wording of his version of the Gethsemane prayer to his wording of
                                the Lord's Prayer.

                                The second part of your question is essentially the same question
                                that is faced by any adherent of Marcan Priority. If the Lord's
                                Prayer was well known orally in some circles, wouldn't we expect
                                Mark to have known it too? Perhaps; perhaps not. The fact that
                                Luke seems to be familiar with a shorter version of the same prayer
                                might incline us to think that Mark too, earlier on, might have
                                known some form of the same prayer, but it's not decisive.
                                Perhaps its inclusion in Matthew was the first major episode in its
                                trajectory towards widespread influence. One idea that occurs to
                                me -- don't know whether this has been argued elsewhere -- is that
                                the Lord's Prayer was known in some Christian circles before
                                Matthew but that Matthew was the first person to attribute it
                                directly to Jesus. But we are in the realm of (albeit interesting)
                                speculation here and I don't have a strong view about the matter.
                                I'd be interested to hear others' views.

                                The reason that I think the question is particularly focussed for the
                                Griesbach Hypothesis is that it appears in the combined witness of
                                the two literary sources on which Mark is dependent for the bulk of
                                his Gospel, featuring theological and literary motifs that are highly
                                congenial to him, with an obvious literary context available for its
                                insertion. Other correspondents apparently do not feel that this
                                constitutes a problem for Griesbach.

                                Mark
                                -----------------------------
                                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                Birmingham B15 2TT
                                United Kingdom

                                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                Homepage
                                http://NTGateway.com
                                The New Testament Gateway

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                Even if we consider Mark s omission of the Lord s Prayer under the theory of Markan Priority, it does not follow that Mark did not omit the Lord s Prayer from
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jan 13, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Even if we consider Mark's omission of the Lord's Prayer under the
                                  theory of Markan Priority, it does not follow that Mark did not omit the
                                  Lord's Prayer from a written source.

                                  I would suggest that the sheer complexity of the theory of Markan
                                  Priority should not be under-estimated. It comprises an infinite set of
                                  documentary hypotheses, and can be very difficult to pin down in
                                  practice.

                                  H. T. Fleddermann ("Mark and Q", 1995) puts forward the hypothesis that
                                  Mark was prior to Matthew and Luke, and that all three synoptists used
                                  the documentary source Q. Fleddermann's Hypothesis is therefore under
                                  the Markan Priority umbrella.

                                  On this view, since the Lord's Prayer was in writing in Q, and, since
                                  Mark knew and used Q, Mark therefore omitted the Lord's Prayer from his
                                  documentary source material. On Fleddermann's version of Markan
                                  Priority, therefore, the question arises why Mark omitted the Lord's
                                  Prayer from his *written* source material.

                                  The same applies to the hypothesis of D. Zeller who affirms that Matthew
                                  and Luke each used Mark, that Matthew and Luke used different modified
                                  versions of Q, and that Mark knew and used original Q directly. Zeller
                                  assumes Markan Priority but also that Mark knew and used Q, and that Q
                                  contained the Lord's Prayer. On Zeller's view of Markan Priority,
                                  therefore, the question again arises why Mark omitted the Lord's Prayer
                                  from his written source.

                                  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@...
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  Dear Brian Thanks -- yes -- if Mark knew Q then of course he omitted the Lord s Prayer from his written source. It s one of the reasons Sanders gives for
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jan 13, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Brian

                                    Thanks -- yes -- if Mark knew Q then of course he omitted the
                                    Lord's Prayer from his written source. It's one of the reasons
                                    Sanders gives for problems with the theory that Mark knew Q --
                                    there are times when one may as well say that Mark knew
                                    Matthew. I suppose that the differerence in this context between
                                    the Mark-knew-Q theory and Griesbach is that on the former, Mark
                                    omits the bulk of Q, just keeping bits and bobs here and there,
                                    whereas Griesbach Mark is actually quite keen on the concurrent
                                    testimony of Matthew and Luke -- there is more triple tradition
                                    (concurrent testimony of Matt. and Luke which Mark keeps) than
                                    there is double tradition (concurrent testimony of Matthew and
                                    Luke which Mark omits). So perhaps on balance there is a little
                                    more difficulty for the profile of Griesbach Mark than there is for
                                    Mark-knew-Q Mark, but it's a close call.

                                    Mark
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                    Birmingham B15 2TT
                                    United Kingdom

                                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                    Homepage
                                    http://NTGateway.com
                                    The New Testament Gateway

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Brian E. Wilson
                                    Dear Mark, ... I agree with much of your reasoning on this. But I would suggest that J. J. Griesbach s argument is strong -- that generally it seems that Mark
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jan 13, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear Mark,
                                      >
                                      >So perhaps on balance there is a little more difficulty for the
                                      >profile of Griesbach Mark than there is for Mark-knew-Q Mark, but it's
                                      >a close call.
                                      >
                                      I agree with much of your reasoning on this. But I would suggest that J.
                                      J. Griesbach's argument is strong -- that generally it seems that Mark
                                      disliked long sections of mostly (or entirely) discourse, that the
                                      Lord's Prayer is in long sections of mostly discourse in Matthew and in
                                      Luke, and that Mark may well therefore have omitted the Lord's Prayer
                                      from both Matthew and Luke as he deliberately omitted the long sections
                                      of mostly discourse containing them, as part of his general programme of
                                      omitting such long sections.

                                      I would suggest also that generally Mark disliking long sections of
                                      mostly discourse would account for Mark's omission of the Lord's Prayer
                                      on the Mark-knew-and-used-Q hypotheses of Fleddermann and Zeller.

                                      It seems to me that the problem of the omission of the Lord's Prayer in
                                      Mark exists in those documentary hypotheses which do not hold that Mark
                                      knew and used a written source containing it.

                                      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@...
                                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                                      ... I think one factor that lessens the difficulty for the Griesbach scenario, is that the Lord s Prayer is not found in same contexts in Matthew and Luke. If
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jan 13, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 06:02 PM 1/11/01 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                        >The reason that I think the question is particularly focussed for the
                                        >Griesbach Hypothesis is that it appears in the combined witness of
                                        >the two literary sources on which Mark is dependent for the bulk of
                                        >his Gospel, featuring theological and literary motifs that are highly
                                        >congenial to him, with an obvious literary context available for its
                                        >insertion. Other correspondents apparently do not feel that this
                                        >constitutes a problem for Griesbach.

                                        I think one factor that lessens the difficulty for the Griesbach
                                        scenario, is that the Lord's Prayer is not found in same contexts
                                        in Matthew and Luke. If the Lord's Prayer occurred in identical
                                        contexts in Matthew and Luke and Mark still omitted it, then there
                                        would be a serious problem for the Griesbach hypothesis. Such a
                                        passage would also be a problem for the Q hypothesis as well, e.g.
                                        Matt 3:7-10 // Luke 3:7-9 (preaching of John the Baptist).

                                        Stephen Carlson
                                        --
                                        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

                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Mark Goodacre
                                        ... In understand the point and I agree that there are problems for Griesbach in combined witness + same context passages in Matthew // Luke. But I wonder
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jan 16, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 13 Jan 2001, at 22:47, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                          > I think one factor that lessens the difficulty for the Griesbach
                                          > scenario, is that the Lord's Prayer is not found in same contexts in
                                          > Matthew and Luke. If the Lord's Prayer occurred in identical contexts
                                          > in Matthew and Luke and Mark still omitted it, then there would be a
                                          > serious problem for the Griesbach hypothesis.

                                          In understand the point and I agree that there are problems for
                                          Griesbach in combined witness + same context passages in
                                          Matthew // Luke. But I wonder whether this might actually focus
                                          my concern over the omission of the Lord's Prayer. It is material
                                          that occurs in both Griesbach Mark's predecessors in different
                                          contexts, so it is all the more striking when Griesbach Mark, in
                                          11.25, betrays his knowledge of thematically relevant material in
                                          Matthew 6.14 and makes a special effort to accommodate it in a
                                          new context. If Griesbach Mark knows Matthew 6.14 this well,
                                          then presumably he knew Matthew 6.9-13 on which Matthew 6.14
                                          would appear to be commenting. Given that Griesbach Mark has
                                          apparently been careful to create a fresh context for this material,
                                          the omission of the Lord's Prayer, so congenial in theme to Mark,
                                          is even more striking.

                                          > Such a passage would
                                          > also be a problem for the Q hypothesis as well, e.g. Matt 3:7-10 //
                                          > Luke 3:7-9 (preaching of John the Baptist).

                                          I agree. The Q hypothesis tends to cope with this (and all the Matt
                                          // Luke parallels as far as Luke 4.16) by invoking either or
                                          sometimes both (a) Mark-Q overlap and (b) the exception that
                                          proves the rule, neither of which, in my opinion, are satisfactory (for
                                          reasons given in my "Fallacies" paper).

                                          Mark


                                          -----------------------------
                                          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                          Birmingham B15 2TT
                                          United Kingdom

                                          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                          Homepage
                                          http://NTGateway.com
                                          The New Testament Gateway

                                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                                          ... If Mark 11:25 is an allusion to the Lord s Prayer (as some Griesbachians like Harold Riley maintain), then I suppose the issue cannot really be why did
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jan 16, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 11:47 AM 1/16/01 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                            >But I wonder whether this might actually focus
                                            >my concern over the omission of the Lord's Prayer. It is material
                                            >that occurs in both Griesbach Mark's predecessors in different
                                            >contexts, so it is all the more striking when Griesbach Mark, in
                                            >11.25, betrays his knowledge of thematically relevant material in
                                            >Matthew 6.14 and makes a special effort to accommodate it in a
                                            >new context. If Griesbach Mark knows Matthew 6.14 this well,
                                            >then presumably he knew Matthew 6.9-13 on which Matthew 6.14
                                            >would appear to be commenting. Given that Griesbach Mark has
                                            >apparently been careful to create a fresh context for this material,
                                            >the omission of the Lord's Prayer, so congenial in theme to Mark,
                                            >is even more striking.

                                            If Mark 11:25 is an allusion to the Lord's Prayer (as some
                                            Griesbachians like Harold Riley maintain), then I suppose
                                            the issue cannot really be why did Mark *omit* the Lord's
                                            Prayer, because the LP is indeed included--as an allusion.

                                            I suppose the issue now becomes: why did Mark not *recite*
                                            the LP instead of alluding to it? I have no ready answer
                                            to this, perhaps a real supporter of the GH can give it a
                                            shot. One factor that attenuates the Griesbach Mark's failure
                                            to set forth the LP expressly is that the LP is not set forth
                                            in Matthew's context parallel to Mark 11:25. Rather, the LP
                                            is presented in Matt 6. Thus, the Griesbach Mark is not so
                                            much faced with the stark choice at 11:25 to omit the LP,
                                            but to decide how much of it to include in a different
                                            context. These authorial decisions are as unique as the
                                            authors themselves and it seems futile to me to divine
                                            whether such as course would have been unacceptable for
                                            an author like Mark.

                                            It may also be the case that Matt's omission of Mark 11:25
                                            is equally if not more problematic. We do know from Matt
                                            6:14 that Mark 11:25 is congenial to Matt's interests.
                                            Matthew has not shied away from creating doublets with
                                            Markan material before, so did Matthew why not reproduce
                                            Mark 11:25?

                                            Therefore, I'm having a difficult time seeing how Mark's
                                            omission of the LP under the Greisbach hypothesis is a
                                            stronger objection to it than Mark's omission of the
                                            Sermon of the Mount as a whole. In fact, I might give
                                            the GH a slight edge in accounting for Mark 11:25, because
                                            Mark 11:25's reference to standing and appears to betray
                                            Matthew's readactional setting for the LP (not to mention
                                            the "Father in Heaven" Mattheanism) while there appear to
                                            be no compelling reasons to account for Mark 11:25's
                                            omission in Matthew at 21:22.

                                            Stephen Carlson
                                            Stephen C. Carlson
                                            scarlson@...

                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 1/16/2001 9:09:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jan 19, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 1/16/2001 9:09:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                              scarlson@... writes:

                                              << If Mark 11:25 is an allusion to the Lord's Prayer (as some
                                              Griesbachians like Harold Riley maintain), then I suppose
                                              the issue cannot really be why did Mark *omit* the Lord's
                                              Prayer, because the LP is indeed included--as an allusion.

                                              I suppose the issue now becomes: why did Mark not *recite*
                                              the LP instead of alluding to it? I have no ready answer
                                              to this, perhaps a real supporter of the GH can give it a
                                              shot. >>

                                              Just want to say that I think you correctly frame the issue here. Perhaps I
                                              would add just another example that could mitigate Mark Goodacre's problem
                                              with the omission of the LP in Mark. The author of Hebrews probably wrote
                                              some time at the end of the first century, and it is likely, therefore, that
                                              he knew the Lord's prayer too. It could even be argued that he alludes to it
                                              indirectly in 5:7 (though a more direct allusion is here made to Matt
                                              26:38-46); nevertheless, he never cites the prayer in full. To do so simply
                                              would not have fit well with the pragmatics of his communication. Perhaps the
                                              same could be said of Mark (even if it is true that the themes of the prayer
                                              are congenial to him).

                                              Leonard Maluf

                                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                            • Mark Goodacre
                                              ... I think the difficulty we have reached here is that neither of us accepts the Griesbach Hypothesis and that we are nevertheless trying to think of
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jan 19, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Stephen Carlson wrote:

                                                > I suppose the issue now becomes: why did Mark not *recite*
                                                > the LP instead of alluding to it? I have no ready answer
                                                > to this, perhaps a real supporter of the GH can give it a
                                                > shot. One factor that attenuates the Griesbach Mark's failure
                                                > to set forth the LP expressly is that the LP is not set forth
                                                > in Matthew's context parallel to Mark 11:25. Rather, the LP
                                                > is presented in Matt 6. Thus, the Griesbach Mark is not so
                                                > much faced with the stark choice at 11:25 to omit the LP,
                                                > but to decide how much of it to include in a different
                                                > context. These authorial decisions are as unique as the
                                                > authors themselves and it seems futile to me to divine
                                                > whether such as course would have been unacceptable for
                                                > an author like Mark.

                                                I think the difficulty we have reached here is that neither of us
                                                accepts the Griesbach Hypothesis and that we are nevertheless
                                                trying to think of potential arguments for and against that
                                                hypothesis. I think my difficulty is that I still find difficulty in
                                                conceptualising Griesbach Mark. Farmer in particular has
                                                stressed that Mark is a kind of ecumenical theologian, looking to
                                                unify in his document the diverging elements he finds in his literary
                                                sources Matthew and Luke. If I were this Mark, I'd be very
                                                interested in united testimony in those sources, apparently
                                                intended for corporate recitation, like the Lord's Prayer. But
                                                perhaps this Mark is bound too strongly by the constraints of the
                                                literary procedure he has decided upon? Yet he is not so
                                                constrained that he cannot help introducing an allusion to an
                                                element of it in 11.25, so that explanation won't do. So for me,
                                                what it comes down to is this: what kind of profile of Mark the
                                                redactor does the Griesbach theory imply?
                                                >
                                                > It may also be the case that Matt's omission of Mark 11:25
                                                > is equally if not more problematic. We do know from Matt
                                                > 6:14 that Mark 11:25 is congenial to Matt's interests.
                                                > Matthew has not shied away from creating doublets with
                                                > Markan material before, so did Matthew why not reproduce
                                                > Mark 11:25?

                                                Without working through all of Matthew and Mark, I couldn't offer an
                                                informed opinion on this, but the first thing that comes to mind is
                                                that there is an exact parallel for the procedure in Mark 9.50 ("Salt
                                                is good . . ."). Matthew's contextual parallel is Matt. 18 (Mark 9.42-
                                                48 // Matt. 18.6-9) but he has already included a version of this
                                                saying in the Sermon (5.13), so in Matt. 18 he omits it, just as in
                                                Matt. 21 he omits Mark 11.25, having already included a version of
                                                this saying in the Sermon.

                                                Let me finish by saying that I don't think that the omission of the
                                                Lord's Prayer in Mark is in any way a knock-down argument
                                                against Griesbach. Indeed I would only want to emply it as part of
                                                a broader case in which one looks at Mark's alleged omissions
                                                alongside his alleged additions, analysing carefully the relationship
                                                between them and the implied profile of Mark the redactor that
                                                emerges. Yet I do confess to some surprise that I am the only
                                                vocal one on Synoptic-L who feels that the omission of the Lord's
                                                Prayer might be a problem for the Griesbach Hypothesis. I wonder
                                                whether that says more about my abilities or about those who
                                                speak up on Synoptic-L (joke).

                                                Mark
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                                Birmingham B15 2TT
                                                United Kingdom

                                                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                                Homepage
                                                http://NTGateway.com
                                                The New Testament Gateway

                                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                              • Karel Hanhart
                                                ... Thus far I have concluded - on the Farrar hypothesis - that Mark s purpose for writing was more limited in scope than Matthew had in mind. In my theory,
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Mar 8 2:57 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

                                                  > Mark Goodacre writes --
                                                  > >
                                                  > >Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted the Lord's
                                                  > >Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?
                                                  > >
                                                  > In his Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae
                                                  > commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Gabler 1825 edition, page 406),
                                                  > J. J. Griesbach wrote that Mark omitted the Sermon on the Mount from
                                                  > Matthew because "Sermones tam longos fere semper Marcus transsilit" --
                                                  > "Mark almost always omits such long discourses". The Lord's Prayer in
                                                  > both Matthew and Luke is in a long section consisting mostly, if not
                                                  > entirely, of discourse. On this view, the Lord's Prayer is missing from
                                                  > Mark because Mark preferred narratives to sections of mostly discourse

                                                  > material.
                                                  >
                                                  > This would seem to me to be a satisfactory account of why Mark omitted
                                                  > the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach Hypothesis.
                                                  >
                                                  > However perhaps we should also consider why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
                                                  > Mark does not contain the Lord's Prayer.
                                                  >

                                                  Thus far I have concluded - on the Farrar hypothesis - that
                                                  Mark's purpose for writing was more limited in scope than
                                                  Matthew had in mind. In my theory, Mark - pressed by the
                                                  urgency of the day -, revised a pre-70 document, used as
                                                  a kind of Christian Judean seder for the season of Pesach.
                                                  David Daube already suggested that a kind of Christian seder
                                                  existed long before our present Gospels. It is logical I think
                                                  that in the ecclesia the prescribed passages of Scripture
                                                  for any synagogue were read for the Pesach season and
                                                  that alongside of this pre-70 document commemorating the words and deeds
                                                  of Jesus Messiah was read afterwards. It included a passion
                                                  story, probably followed by a baptism ceremony for initiates
                                                  One can well imagine that the Lord's Prayer was
                                                  well known in the ecclesia and that it had its place in proto - Mark
                                                  , part of which Mark revised. But Mark's purpose was to revise only
                                                  those parts of the haggadah especially the passion story proper that
                                                  were no longer adequate to meet the needs of the worshipers,
                                                  because after the fall of Jerusalem a new exile had begun and
                                                  an imminent parousia was no longer be expected.
                                                  Goulder's solution is also possible, of course. In that case
                                                  one would think Matthew may have composed the Lord's Prayer
                                                  prayer in the order we have it from short authentic sayings of Jesus.
                                                  However, on my theory of a post-70 revised edition, the Lord's Prayer
                                                  would not fall under the category "to be revised". There is not
                                                  a sentence in the Lord's Prayer that could not be prayed
                                                  in a pre- or in a post-70 setting. On the contrary, "Your kingdom come,
                                                  Your will be done" was as valid after as before the Judean
                                                  revolt.
                                                  yours cordially, Karel

                                                  >
                                                  > Is it because (as I think Goulder supposes) Matthew used no source
                                                  > material other than the OT and Mark, and the prayer in Matthew was not
                                                  > the Lord's, but made up by Matthew out of his own head?
                                                  >
                                                  > On the other hand, if not, but if rather during the time of

                                                  > writing of the gospel of Mark the prayer was a short unit

                                                  > of oral tradition used and deeply respected as indeed basically the Lord's
                                                  > Prayer, why, on the Farrer Hypothesis, does Mark find no

                                                  > room for it?

                                                  See the argument above. On the other hand, Griesbach
                                                  does not offer a reason why Mark omitted the LP other then stating
                                                  a fact we all know that Mark contains mostly narrative
                                                  material.

                                                  Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@...

                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > 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@...


                                                  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.