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

[Synoptic-L] Aramaic Source & Markan Priority

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
    ... OK, here goes: Given the redactional techniques Mt uses on Mk, namely, trimming sentences and phrases to condense the passage, conflating with other
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 25, 2001
      <Maluflen@...> wrote:

      > While extending warmest feast-day wishes to Mark Goodacre, I announce a 24
      > hour truce on the question of Markan priority. Anyone who wishes may take
      > advantage of this period to propound, or simply to assume Markan priority,
      > without the usual interference from me.

      OK, here goes:

      Given the redactional techniques Mt uses on Mk, namely, trimming sentences and phrases to condense the passage, conflating with
      other versions or episodes, and paraphrasing from time to time, if the Author of Mt used the same techniques on an Aramaic narrative
      source, would we still be able to detect that the passages are translations of Aramaic, or would the redactional process possibly
      mask that fact?

      In an effort to provoke Maluflen into breaking his cease fire, here is my
      working hypothesis for the history of the Synoptic Gospels. :-)

      Q source(s) -- very early collection(s) of sayings. Lacks any reference
      to crucifixion. Very tempting to date to notebook(s) kept during Jesus'
      lifetime by one or more apostles.

      Aramaic Matthew -- a very Jewish narrative source written by Matthew
      that corresponds to Special Matthew. Written in the 30's or 40's.

      Mark -- Written by John Mark when Peter was in Rome during the
      reign of Claudius (Eusebius' History, Book II Chapter 14). Written
      in early 50's (after Peter was in Antioch -- perhaps on his way to Rome).
      It wasn't widely circulated in the early days and was nearly lost, being
      reduced to a single copy with the last leaf missing. A new ending
      was later composed.

      Luke-Acts -- completed when the work caught up with the events in
      62 AD in Rome by Luke the traveling companion of Paul. The Gospel
      text used Mark, Q source(s), and Luke's investigations as source

      Matthew -- an anonymous writer takes Aramaic Matthew, Mark, and the
      Q source(s) and produces a harmonized Gospel from them. Because it
      opens with material from Aramaic Matthew, the whole becomes attributed
      to Matthew and later writers mistakenly thing Aramaic Matthew, Greek
      Matthew, and one or more Apocryphal Matthews are the same book. Written
      before 70 AD (I don't think a post-70 AD writer would conflate Jesus'
      prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13 with eschatological
      material without more carefully distinguishing between the two as separate

      ><> 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

      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.