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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mark Used CG in 15:42-16:8, Pt. 2-Fatigue in 16:6

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    ... The assumption is then that Mark would have had in mind that the burial was communal and that his hearers/readers would have known that to be the case.
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 10, 2002
      John Lupia wrote on Friday, February 01, 2002:

      > Stephen Carlson has aptly pointed out that the 3rd person plural
      > can be construed to not signify plurality. If this were indeed the
      > case then the continuity maintaining the emphasis of Joseph of
      > Arimathea's role as the principle character would be in keeping
      > with appropriate cultural custom of honoring Joseph of
      > Arimathea for his generosity for the various expenses of the
      > burial, which I pointed out in my original response to you.
      > Furthermore, the fact that he was a prominent member of the
      > "BOULEUTHS" was very important and had a persuasive impact
      > since it showed that not all of the Jewish élite were opposed to
      > Jesus, but rather, that even among the cognoscenti key men
      > recognized Jesus as the Messiah and were his disciples. This
      > was an artful manner to balance out the picture as a whole
      > showing that Jews from all classes were drawn to him, not just
      > simple folk that might not have known better and were easily
      > duped. This would be true even if EQHKAN did not convey
      > singularity but plurality. Therefore, I would like to examine this in
      > the other direction of plurality. For even when "synecdoche of the
      > part" is employed reversion to the plural is often used. Again, an
      > example: "Germanicus conquered the Gauls, and "they"
      > slaughtered 30,000.
      > But, your question to me here still begs the question regarding
      > (1) the high improbability of Joseph of Arimathea accomplishing
      > all of these things in such a brief period of time singlehanded,
      > as Lane, whom you cited has made as a valid point. (2)
      > summarily dismissing out of hand the use of "synecdoche of the
      > part" and reading the text anachronistically without giving ancient
      > literary forms any consideration. (3) summarily dismissing out of
      > hand that Jewish burial was always understood as a communal
      > responsibility, not that of a single individual, since you make no
      > reply in any of these regards.

      The assumption is then that Mark would have had in mind that the burial was
      communal and that his hearers/readers would have known that to be the case. Yet
      Mark has to explain Judean cultic practices to his hearers/readers (Mk. 7:3-4).
      How can you be sure, if they did not know these Judean cultic practices and
      regulations, that they would have known about Judean or even Jewish communal
      burials? You, in my judgment, presume information on the part of the
      hearers/readers for which we have no way of verifying.
      > Ted Weeden wrote:
      > And following the logic of your argument, it would be expected
      > that Matthew and Luke, contemporaries of Mark, would have
      > recognized that when Mark wrote EQHKEN AUTON he was
      > referring to a collective burial.
      > To this I must say that it is evident you have assumed Marcan
      > priority without giving any solid evidence to support this claim.
      > Even if proponents of this assumption could somehow muster
      > one shred of evidence to support it the answer would be "yes"
      > they would have recognized that Mark was referring to a collective
      > burial.

      John, you and I have very different views about the chronological ordering and
      the question of dependency of one gospel on another. I accept the arguments
      for the priority of Mark. If you do not, I do not know how to resolve the
      conflict in our position, and I cannot give time now to do so. I am sorry, but
      I cannot.

      > A second underlying assumption of your question is that neither
      > Matthew nor Luke had any knowledge about these events nor the
      > details of the circumstances other than what they had learned
      > from Mark, an assumption that has absolutely no evidence to
      > support it.

      That is my reading of the evidence, which is guided by my methodological
      presuppositions which I have posted.

      > Ted Weeden wrote:
      > If that be the case, why did Matthew avoid rendering Mark's
      > EQHKAN AUTON in his version of Mk.16:6 and replace the
      > Markan EQHKAN AUTON with EKEITO (Mt. 28:6)?
      > Now you have taken your assumptions of Markan priority to the
      > point of risibility, asserting them dogmatically, again without the
      > slightest shred of evidence. Once more, even if this could be
      > proved to be true, I am not a psychiatrist nor a mind reader as to
      > why any author adapts their material the way they do from the
      > genius of their artistic creative individuality. "Ludwig Richter
      > together with three other oil painters while at Tivoli set out to
      > paint a landscape where each resolved not to deviate a
      > hair's-breadth from nature but render it in verisimilitude; and
      > although the subject was the same, each creditably reproducing
      > what their eyes have seen, the result was four totally different
      > pictures." (see Heinrich Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, any
      > edition, taken from the opening paragraph.). How striking this is
      > to the four Gospels!

      That is certainly the possibility, I draw my conclusions upon the characteristic
      ways Matthew and Luke treat the Markan texts as they appropriate it via their
      own respective patterns of redaction.


      > However, your question regarding EKEITO I fail to grasp.
      > EKEITO is the imperfect of CEIMAI, used as the perfect passive
      > of TIQHMI, where "he was laid" (see Max Zerwick, SJ, A
      > Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 5th ed.
      > (Rome, 1996):98). I cannot see what it is you are asking. I can
      > only assume that you might be thinking about translations that
      > read: "where they laid him",

      No, I am not thinking of translations.

      > but this is not the import of EKEITO,
      > since it only points to "place" and does not involve any of the
      > details as to how he got to lay there, which is what I think you are
      > driving at.

      That is precisely the import of EKEITO which is central to my point. Matthew
      avoids, from my point of view, Mark's compositional error by rewriting the
      Markan focus on the act of laying Jesus in the tomb by the undesignated "they,"
      whose antecedent is to be found in 15:46. Matthew avoids Mark's error by
      shifting the attention from the act of Jesus being buried to the place where
      Jesus once lay.

      Ted Weeden

      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.