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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.