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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Stumbling Stones

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
    The statement that Mt includes it in some manuscripts is misleading. It is missing in only 3, I believe. By far the majority of the important manuscripts do
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 8 9:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The statement that Mt includes it in some manuscripts is misleading.
      It is missing in only 3, I believe. By far the majority of the important
      manuscripts do include it and it is probably genuine.

      I would also attribute it to Q. This makes it almost unique in that it
      is inserted in the same Markan context by both Mt and Lk. The
      verse (Lk 20:18||Mt 21:44) presuposes the quotation from
      Psalms in Lk 20:18||Mt 21:42. I would suggest that both Mt and
      Lk independently placed the saying here because both Mk and Q
      quoted Psalm 118:22-23.

      Mt comes across strongly as being secondary to Mark/Q here in
      that he inserts yet another saying after quoting Mark but before
      qouting Q. Had Luke been his source for Q material, I would have
      expected Mt 21:43 to have come after Mt 21:44: in fact, it would
      make the passage read a lot better. Matthew comes across to
      me as rather mechanically cutting and pasting his sources (I think
      he had three: Mk, Q, and M).

      ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
      ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
      ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
      mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
      "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different stages of
      composition, but even of complete communities whose beliefs are
      accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens a naive
      willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing like Mark
      (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-synoptic-l@... [mailto:owner-synoptic-l@...]On
      > Behalf Of JFAlward@...
      > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 7:23 PM
      > To: Synoptic-L@...
      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Stumbling Stones
      >
      >
      > Mark's priority may be evident to others, but I’m having trouble
      > seeing it in
      > the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. First, Luke’s parable is far more
      > coherent; he places the allusion to Jesus as a stumbling stone where it
      > logically belongs, right after the capstone verse. Mark omits it, which
      > makes his capstone verse essentially pointless. Matthew
      > includes it in some
      > manuscripts, but it’s out of place.
      >
      > What are we to make of this?
      >
      >
      > Joe Alward
      >
      > 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@...
    • DaGoi@aol.com
      In a message dated 3/9/1 5:01:44 AM, you wrote:
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 9 12:25 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 3/9/1 5:01:44 AM, you wrote:

        <<
        >>

        Are you just saying that so the original poster would not be wise in his own
        eyes?

        Bill Foley
        Woburn, Ma

        "If you cannot bring good news then don't bring any." Bob Dylan, the Wicked
        Messanger

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • RSBrenchley@aol.com
        ... it ... some ... GMark ... work with, Matthew improves it, clumsily, and Luke gives it a final polish? ... Synoptic-L Homepage:
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 9 2:31 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          > >> Mark's priority may be evident to others, but I'm having trouble seeing
          it
          > > > in
          > > > the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. First, Luke's parable is far
          > more
          > > > coherent; he places the allusion to Jesus as a stumbling stone where it
          > > > logically belongs, right after the capstone verse. Mark omits it, which
          > > > makes his capstone verse essentially pointless. Matthew includes it in
          some
          > > > manuscripts, but it's out of place.
          > > >
          > > > What are we to make of this?
          > >
          > >
          > > That the GMark used by Matthew and Luke was not the Canonical Mark
          > > with which we are familiar.
          > >
          > > Jack
          >>
          > This begs the question, surely. Why would Canonical Mark abbreviate
          GMark
          > like this? I'm semi-convinced about the earlier version of Mark, but it
          > doesn't seem to fit easily here. Perhaps Mark has a garbled version to
          work with, Matthew improves it, clumsily, and Luke gives it a final polish?
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Robert Brenchley
          >
          > RSBrenchley@...
          >

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Karel Hanhart
          ... Canonical Mark was a revision of proto Mark with the specific purpose of rewriting the section dealing with Passover and Shabuot; it is a Passover Haggadah
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 9 7:43 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            RSBrenchley@... wrote:

            > > >> Mark's priority may be evident to others, but I'm having trouble seeing
            > it
            > > > > in
            > > > > the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. First, Luke's parable is far
            > > more
            > > > > coherent; he places the allusion to Jesus as a stumbling stone where it
            > > > > logically belongs, right after the capstone verse. Mark omits it, which
            > > > > makes his capstone verse essentially pointless. Matthew includes it in
            > some
            > > > > manuscripts, but it's out of place.
            > > > >
            > > > > What are we to make of this?
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > That the GMark used by Matthew and Luke was not the Canonical Mark
            > > > with which we are familiar.
            > > >
            > > > Jack
            > >>
            > > This begs the question, surely. Why would Canonical Mark abbreviate
            > GMark
            > > like this?

            Canonical Mark was a revision of proto Mark with the specific purpose of rewriting
            the
            section dealing with Passover and Shabuot; it is a Passover Haggadah to be read in
            the Greek speaking ecclesias during the Passover celebration. He did not repeat
            all the sections of proto-Mark - rather he wrote a first draft of a Passover
            document, which was taken over by Matthew almost in its entirety. Matthew enlarged
            it adding material of the earlier document. Luke used both. What of this solution?

            cordially

            Karel Hanhart.





            > I'm semi-convinced about the earlier version of Mark, but it
            > > doesn't seem to fit easily here. Perhaps Mark has a garbled version to
            > work with, Matthew improves it, clumsily, and Luke gives it a final polish?
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > >
            > > Robert Brenchley
            > >
            > > RSBrenchley@...
            > >
            >
            > 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@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/8/2001 7:27:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, JFAlward@aol.com writes:
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 9 9:30 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 3/8/2001 7:27:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              JFAlward@... writes:

              << Mark's priority may be evident to others, but Im having trouble seeing it
              in
              the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.  First, Lukes parable is far more
              coherent; he places the allusion to Jesus as a stumbling stone where it
              logically belongs, right after the capstone verse.  Mark omits it, which
              makes his capstone verse essentially pointless.   Matthew includes it in
              some
              manuscripts, but its out of place.

              What are we to make of this?  >>

              You will have serious problems with Markan priority when you read any of
              numerous triple tradition passages; especially if you read the texts
              themselves rather than the commentaries, which for the most part simply tell
              you what each evangelist did, assuming Markan priority. With regard to the
              passage you raise, it is clearly original in Matthew. If the story had not
              been found in any of the Synoptic Gospels that have come down to us, and one
              heard that a text of either Matt or Mark that included it had been
              discovered, one would certainly surmise that it was Matt.

              1. Matthew is the gospel that has shown a panoramic interest in the
              history of salvation in Israel from the beginning, starting with his
              genealogy, which traces the history of Israel in three segments and
              culminates with Israel's Messiah.

              2. Matthew, much more clearly than Mark, thinks of Jesus as being in the
              line of Israel's prophets sent by God to his people. This idea underlies this
              entire story, and only in Matt is Jesus referred to as a prophet both before
              (21:11) and after (21:46) this parable itself. Besides comparing Jesus with
              the prophets who came before him, this story in Matt also initiates a
              secondary contrast between Jesus and the preceding prophets, inasmuch as
              Jesus is also God's son. But Jesus in Matt is still very much part of the
              series of prophets sent to Israel who are rejected and killed by its leaders
              (following the scheme of 2 Chronicles 36:15; cf. 24:19-22) -- a series which
              will in fact continue after Jesus into the time of the church, as is clear
              from Matt 23:29-36 (and cf. 5:12, both of which with no parallel in Mark!).
              Later theology, such as that found in Heb 1:1-2, will tend to stress rather
              this secondary contrast of Jesus as Son with respect to the emissaries of the
              OT who were only prophets. They will also see Jesus as the last in line and
              its absolute culmination and final point. Both of these later developments
              have influenced the text of Mark (cf. 12:6, where the term "beloved"
              qualifies the son, highlighting his uniqueness, and the adverb eschaton
              [stronger than Matthew's husteron] is added to the text, modifying the
              sending of Jesus; and cf. Heb 1:2).

              3. Mark betrays the fact that he knew this parable belonged to a series
              of parables, as it does in Matt, when he opens his pericope with the words:
              "And he began to speak to them in parables..". That this plural form indeed
              implies a series of parables, and is not simply a way of referring to his one
              parable, is clear from the fact that the individual parable used by Mark is
              referred to in the singular in 12:12.

              4. The idea of "fruits" representing good works is a thoroughly Matthean
              concept and to the extent that this idea still survives in Mark's version of
              the story it should be regarded as a distinct Mattheanism in Mark, showing
              the secondariness of the latter.

              5. Finally, it is silly to argue that v. 43 proves the secondary
              character of Matthew. The words of Jesus it contains are a strongly pointed
              prophetic statement aimed directly at a very particular audience, the remote
              dialogue partner of Matt's gospel taken as a whole, but completely foreign to
              the likely audience of Mark. Hence the omission of the phrase by Mark at a
              late stage is entirely plausible.

              6. Finally, this parable fits neatly into a series of three parables in
              Matthew which have their own logical sequence and progression. A man
              (anqwpoj) who is first the father a family (sons one and two, in Matt
              21:28-32), and then the head of a larger economic unit, the household,
              complete with servants as well as sons (Matt 21:33-46), and finally a king
              (22:1-14), with all sorts of retainers and servants at his disposal. There is
              also a progression here in terms of the background symbolism: in the first
              parable we hear of work in the vineyard (presumably related to tending the
              vines early in the season); in the second we hear of the harvest time (the
              gathering of the "fruits"); and in the third parable we hear of a great
              banquet, which implies the presence of wine, the ultimate produce of the
              vineyard... To think that Matthew just happened to stumble on this parable in
              Mark when he needed precisely it so badly for his own evident and ongoing
              project strains credulity.

              Leonard Maluf

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • RSBrenchley@aol.com
              In a message dated 3/9/01 3:43:52 PM GMT Standard Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl ... Passover ... Any ideas about what proto-Mark may have been writing for? Has
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 9 9:40 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 3/9/01 3:43:52 PM GMT Standard Time, K.Hanhart@...
                writes:

                > Canonical Mark was a revision of proto Mark with the specific purpose of
                > rewriting
                > the
                > section dealing with Passover and Shabuot; it is a Passover Haggadah to be
                > read in
                > the Greek speaking ecclesias during the Passover celebration. He did not
                > repeat
                > all the sections of proto-Mark - rather he wrote a first draft of a
                Passover
                > document, which was taken over by Matthew almost in its entirety. Matthew
                > enlarged
                > it adding material of the earlier document. Luke used both. What of this
                > solution?
                >
                > cordially
                >
                > Karel Hanhart.

                Any ideas about what 'proto-Mark' may have been writing for? Has anyone
                tried to reconstruct it?

                Regards,

                Robert Brenchley

                RSBrenchley@...

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Karel Hanhart
                Dear Robert, In a former message, you questioned Jack s statement re. the stumblingstone that the GMark used by Mt and Lk was not the Canonical Mark with
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 10 6:39 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Robert,
                  In a former message, you questioned Jack's statement re. "the stumblingstone"
                  that the GMark used by Mt and Lk was not the Canonical Mark with which we are
                  familiar" as follows : "Why would Canonical Mark abbreviate GMark like this?"
                  I, for one, rather distinguish between proto-Mark and Canonical Mark (=GMark).
                  In fact I distinguish between an unknown pre-70 Mark I and our post-70
                  canonical Mark But I believe the omission of the stumbling block passage in
                  GMark can be explained because Mark wanted the passage of the vineyard to refer
                  literally to the new circumnstance, the trauma of 70.
                  1. David Daube rightly deduced from the order and genre of the four
                  questions, put to Jesus on the Temple square (ch 12) that even prior to 70
                  Christian Judeans had used a Passover Haggadah, a Seder for the people "of the
                  Way" in which the passion and death of Jesus was commemorated in the night of
                  Pesach!! Bowman likewise offered some telling arguments for reading Mark's Gospel
                  in terms of a Passover Haggadah. More can be said of this, of course. But, as I
                  see it, precisely the ending of GMark confirms that Mark wrote a Passover
                  Haggadah and not a religious bioghraphy of a 'theios aner'. The phrase " a tomb
                  hewn from the rock" shows, at any rate, that Mark was writing a midrash on LXX
                  Isa 22, 16 and therefore also on LXX 33,16 in their contexts. These chapters
                  offered him material for writing this new post-70 ending of the passion story: an
                  epilogue filled with hope for the future in the midst of despair.
                  Reading the epilogue of Mark as midrash in view of the destruction of the
                  Temple (the angel tells the women in their vision "behold the (Holy) Place" (-
                  that is the Maqom-), just as the women in LXX Isa 32,9ff see in a vision the
                  imminent disaster re. the first Temple). This in turn forces the interpreter to
                  decide for dating our GMark post-70.
                  2. Many scholars agree, however, that an editorial hand has been at work in
                  GMark. We are truly handicapped, of course, in that we don't possess any copy of
                  this hypothetical pre-70 document.
                  3. However, chapter 13 and especially the ending of Mark show that this
                  post-70 GMark, as we have it now, was written in the shadow so to speak of the
                  destruction of the Temple and of a new period of exile. The expectation of an
                  imminent parousia had been wrong, the eschatology needed re-assessment. Thus the
                  radical turn of events were both (1) the reason for (radically) re-writing the
                  earlier document. to incorporate a new view of the future and (2) the unforeseen
                  traumatic events must also have been the reason why the original pre-70 document
                  could no longer be of any use! At any rate, all four gospels took the open tomb
                  story over from Mark in one way or another.
                  4. It is legitimate to believe, however, that in the first century the
                  hypothetical pre-70 document was still studied in the various ecclesia's and that
                  Matthew and Luke made use of it - and not of Canonical Mark -, for correction or
                  improvement. Seen in this light, Jack was right.
                  5. Only after one has determined what passages should definitely be labeled
                  "post-70", can one venture to delineate the possible contents of the pre-70
                  document.
                  It is our common lot that as interpreters we have no ready access to pre-70
                  documents - we must do with what we have.

                  cordially, Karel




                  RSBrenchley@... wrote:

                  > In a message dated 3/9/01 3:43:52 PM GMT Standard Time, K.Hanhart@...
                  > writes:
                  >
                  > > Canonical Mark was a revision of proto Mark with the specific purpose of
                  > > rewriting
                  > > the
                  > > section dealing with Passover and Shabuot; it is a Passover Haggadah to be
                  > > read in
                  > > the Greek speaking ecclesias during the Passover celebration. He did not
                  > > repeat
                  > > all the sections of proto-Mark - rather he wrote a first draft of a
                  > Passover
                  > > document, which was taken over by Matthew almost in its entirety. Matthew
                  > > enlarged
                  > > it adding material of the earlier document. Luke used both. What of this
                  > > solution?
                  > >
                  > > cordially
                  > >
                  > > Karel Hanhart.
                  >
                  > Any ideas about what 'proto-Mark' may have been writing for? Has anyone
                  > tried to reconstruct it?
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > Robert Brenchley
                  >
                  > RSBrenchley@...
                  >
                  > 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@...
                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  ... Ummm, pardon me if I have misunderstood you here, but is it really your claim that the the place which the angel commands the women to behold in Mk
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 10 6:59 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Karel Hanhart wrote:

                    > Reading the epilogue of Mark as midrash in view of the destruction of the
                    > Temple (the angel tells the women in their vision "behold the (Holy) Place" (-
                    > that is the Maqom-), just as the women in LXX Isa 32,9ff see in a vision the
                    > imminent disaster re. the first Temple). This in turn forces the interpreter to
                    > decide for dating our GMark post-70.

                    Ummm, pardon me if I have misunderstood you here, but is it really your claim that
                    the "the place" which the "angel" commands the women to "behold" in Mk 16:6 is the
                    (destroyed) Temple?"

                    Yours,

                    Jeffrey Gibson
                    --
                    Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                    7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                    Chicago, Illinois 60626
                    e-mail jgibson000@...



                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Karel Hanhart
                    ... yours Jeffrey Gibson Yes, you did understand me right. I realize full well that at first sight this interpretation sounds contrived; as if I claimed to
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 12 1:47 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

                      > Karel Hanhart wrote:
                      >
                      > > Reading the epilogue of Mark as midrash in view of the destruction of the
                      > > Temple (the angel tells the women in their vision "behold the (Holy) Place" (-
                      > > that is the Maqom-), just as the women in LXX Isa 32,9ff see in a vision the
                      > > imminent disaster re. the first Temple). This in turn forces the interpreter to
                      > > decide for dating our GMark post-70.
                      >
                      > Ummm, pardon me if I have misunderstood you here, but is it really your claim that
                      > the "the place" which the "angel" commands the women to "behold" in Mk 16:6 is the
                      > (destroyed) Temple?"

                      yours
                      Jeffrey Gibson

                      Yes, you did understand me right. I realize full well that at first sight this
                      interpretation sounds contrived; as if I claimed to have found a solution like Columbus
                      who made an egg stand upright on the table by slightly cracking it.
                      But I did not reach this conclusion rashly. I have been trained in the University of
                      Amsterdam, the hub of Jewish learning in the Netherlands. Christian interpreters have
                      greatly benefited from it. It took me years of research to test this proposal by C.G.
                      Montefiore. The result I wrote down in a 600 p. book. In it I basically offer an
                      alternative to the classical hypothesis: the author of Mark's Gospel wanted his
                      readers to imagine that the angel made a sort of gesture to the women pointing to a
                      slab of stone inside the tomb on which the corpse [ptoma] of "Jesus was laid". The
                      fundamentalists are absolutely right with their claim that in that case Mark teaches an
                      EMPTY tomb - and likewise Mt, Lk and Jn.- in stead of a metaphor about a 'very large'
                      stone that mysteriously had been rolled away. But this basically 'biographical' and
                      quasi historical approach led us nowhere in the interpretation.
                      I believe that the midrashic approach leading us into a terra incognita, a revealing
                      light on the climactic ending of Mark and on the exegetical cruces interpretum it
                      poses. It stands to reason that only by means of internal evidence the promise of this
                      new approach can be demonstrated. To name but a few of the problems: the wordplay
                      "body-corpse" (soma-ptoma) in 15,43.45.; the silence and flight of the women- implying
                      the so-called 'Messianic Secret', the enigmatic "after three days" in 8,31; 9,31;
                      10,33 while the vision of the women takes place about 40 hours after Jesus' death -
                      and, of course! - the literal citation of :"a tomb hewn from the rock" of LXX Isa 22,16
                      (a hapax in the Septuagint; a sure sign Mark was writing a midrash!)
                      Thus far no one has questioned Montefiore's proposal, except, I believe, Ingo Broer in
                      SANT 31. However, Broer apparently did not realize that Mark's ending is indeed a
                      midrash, composed in view of the destruction of the temple. I am convinced it is high
                      time that interpreters begin to take this new approach seriously.
                      cordially

                      Karel Hanhart

                      > is
                      > Yours,
                      >
                      > Jeffrey Gibson
                      > --
                      > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                      > 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                      > Chicago, Illinois 60626
                      > e-mail jgibson000@...


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                      Brian (9 Mar 18:48:20) asked : # Any ideas about what proto-Mark may have been writing for? Has anyone # tried to reconstruct it? I would like to add to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 14 9:09 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Brian (9 Mar 18:48:20) asked :

                        # Any ideas about what 'proto-Mark' may have been writing for? Has anyone
                        # tried to reconstruct it?

                        I would like to add to Karel's mail (10 Mar 15:39:18) that
                        Boismard proposed a proto-Mark. I do not present any warrant
                        that you will be satisfied by his views...

                        L'Evangile de Marc, sa préhistoire
                        (Nouvelle série N° 26)
                        Par M.-É. BOISMARD O.P.

                        http://www.gabalda.com/


                        a+
                        manu

                        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.