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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 of 24 , Mar 8, 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.
                >

                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.