Re: [Synoptic-L] Thesis: Mark Used Cross Gospel in 15:42-16:8, Pt.1
- Maluflen@... wrote:
Ted Weeden wrote"
> However, I think Mark did draw upon another major source which he used toLeonard replied:
> terminology and motifs for his burial story, as well as his empty-tomb story.
> My thesis is that the source was a pre-Markan Gospel >>
> Brilliant insight! But of course you don't have to go any further than theDear Leonard,
> Gospel of Matthew to identify this source. Everything you say about the
> improbability of Mark's doing the kind of research in LXX implied by Karel's
> theory is precisely what could NOT be said of Matthew. Also, Brown's argument
> of a common source behind Matthew's scene of guards at the tomb and that
> found in Gospel of Peter is very weak. And of course one would have to add
> Daniel 6:18 to the collection of OT texts cited as background for Matthew's
> midrash. I enjoyed reading your post, though, as I usually do watching people
> struggling to make sense of the Gospel of Mark without realizing that he is
> copying from Matt.
How would you respond to my objection that Matthew knew Mark: "After the day of
Preparation" (! comp Mk 15,42) the high priests (plural) and Pharisees "gathered
before Pilate" and said, "Sir, we remember that what that impostor [sc. Jesus]
said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again'. Only in Mark
8,31; 9,31; 10,33f this claim has been made. Matthew himself followed Mark almost
to the letter in his passion predictions except with regard to the time span. As
you well know, Mt has "on the third day". It seems to me a strong indication that
Mt follows and corrects Mark and not the other way around.
> Leonard MalufSynoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...