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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Griesbachian argument from order

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/6/2001 10:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes: ... first ... community ... elements ... Hegel would be
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 7, 2001
      In a message dated 12/6/2001 10:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      scarlson@... writes:

      << >The overall story goes as follows:
      > - The gospel began in Jewish territory and was directed to Jews. At this
      >stage, the story of the Messiah was appropriately written down for the
      >time by an evangelist with a Hebrew name: Matthew.
      > - The next stage was expansion into the Greek world, beginning with the
      >Hellenists in Palestine itself, and a new version of the gospel was
      >accordingly written by an evangelist with a Greek name: Lukas.
      > - Finally, the gospel arrived in Rome, a mixed Jewish-Hellenistic
      >containing adherents of the two earlier gospels. An evangelist with a Roman
      >name (Marcus) then created a gospel drama for popular appeal, using
      >of the two literary gospels already well known by his community.

      Hegel would be proud.>>

      If I can assume for the moment that Stephen's comment is intended to be
      serious as opposed to merely clever, I would respond that only in a very
      superficial sense can the above be viewed as Hegelian:

      1. It is intended to be a plausible framework for understanding the
      production of the existing gospels, based on empirical facts of the
      historical development of the early Christian movement. My scheme lacks,
      therefore, the a priori character of Hegel's system.

      2. The Hellenism with which Luke's Gospel is properly associated is hardly,
      and is not thought of as, the conceptual antithesis of the Gospel as preached
      to the Jews in Matthew. ALk merely adapts the story to a more Hellenized
      audience to whom the Gospel is now (i.e. at the time of Luke) being preached,
      and also reflects in his telling of the gospel story the existence of this
      new mission to the Gentiles itself (see esp. 5:1-11; [chaps] 9--10; [chap]

      3. Mark's gospel written in Rome is not thought of as a genuine synthesis of
      the two earlier moments. It is a pastoral application, more than a
      theoretical development or synthesis of the two preceding gospels (such a
      theoretical synthesis may perhaps be achieved more by John than by Mark).
      Conflation in Mark hardly amounts to profound theological synthesis. It is
      occasional, superficial, and not the purpose but rather a means of Mark's

      Leonard Maluf

      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.