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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man a Therapeutae?

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/8/2002 3:00:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... No, I hadn t thought of that at all. Interesting. In the Lk 9:46-48 passage, the important
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
      In a message dated 3/8/2002 3:00:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


      ).  If so John, who echoes much
      Lukan material, retrojected this same paidion (Paul) in his gospel in
      his rendition of the feeding of the 5000. He emphasizes the diminutive:
      paidarion (6,9). In that case Paul would have fitted in John's view of
      the ecclesia. Have you also included John 6,9 in your line of thought?


      No, I hadn't thought of that at all. Interesting. In the Lk 9:46-48 passage, the important thing is to read correctly the question Luke says was being entertained within the minds of the (twelve) disciples: "who might be greater than they?", instead of: "who among them might be the greatest" (as in Lk 22). If our theories are correct, then Matt is the only non-Pauline gospel of the four. And of course some would even go further and describe it as anti-Pauline, in light of 5:19. If this text is indeed an allusion to Paul, then all four gospels may allude to Paul in one way or another.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Karel Hanhart
      ... Leonard, Amen. I agree with your conclusion. I wouldn t call Matthew anti-Pauline. I rather think her was writing for a wider public, some of whom would
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
        Maluflen@... wrote:

        > In a message dated 3/8/2002 3:00:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        > K.Hanhart@... writes:
        >
        >
        >
        >> ). If so John, who echoes much
        >> Lukan material, retrojected this same paidion (Paul) in his gospel
        >> in
        >> his rendition of the feeding of the 5000. He emphasizes the
        >> diminutive:
        >> paidarion (6,9). In that case Paul would have fitted in John's view
        >> of
        >> the ecclesia. Have you also included John 6,9 in your line of
        >> thought?
        >
        > No, I hadn't thought of that at all. Interesting. In the Lk 9:46-48
        > passage, the important thing is to read correctly the question Luke
        > says was being entertained within the minds of the (twelve) disciples:
        > "who might be greater than they?", instead of: "who among them might
        > be the greatest" (as in Lk 22). If our theories are correct, then Matt
        > is the only non-Pauline gospel of the four. And of course some would
        > even go further and describe it as anti-Pauline, in light of 5:19. If
        > this text is indeed an allusion to Paul, then all four gospels may
        > allude to Paul in one way or another.
        >
        > Leonard Maluf

        Leonard,
        Amen. I agree with your conclusion. I wouldn't call Matthew
        anti-Pauline. I rather think her was writing for a wider public, some of
        whom would not accept the high credit Mark gave to Paul.
        So Matthew decided not to include the 'neaniskos' in his passion story.


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • dgentil@sears.com
        Karel, If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there was a proto-Mark? I also tend to think there was a proto-Mark. However, the last
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
          Karel,

          If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there
          was a proto-Mark?
          I also tend to think there was a proto-Mark. However, the last statistical
          study seemed to limit how much it
          could differ from cannon Mark. It seems Matthew and Luke must have engaged
          in a fair amount
          of omission, for example. Also, if Luke knew and used Matthew some other
          arguments seem
          less effective. I'm left with a handful of features that suggest a
          proto-Mark, but nothing fully convincing.

          Two ideas I'm considering are that cannon Mark might have only a few
          omissions, addition and some minor
          minor rearrangements compared to proto-Mark, or that Mark may be the first
          Greek language gospel,
          but that there may have been a gospel in another language, that was
          available to at least Mark and Luke.

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, Illinois
          M.S. Physics
          Ph.D. Management Science






          As you may
          know, I argue from the position canonical Mark is a post-70 revision of
          proto-Mark (perhaps including a form of Q).

          your
          Karel




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Emmanuel Fritsch
          ... If you read french, you may have a look on reasons for Boismard thinking there was a proto-Mark : http://archeboc.free.fr/lect/notice_promarc.html or
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
            > If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there
            > was a proto-Mark?

            If you read french, you may have a look on reasons for Boismard thinking
            there was a proto-Mark : http://archeboc.free.fr/lect/notice_promarc.html

            or directly the book :
            "L'Évangile de Marc - sa Préhistoire", M.E. Boismard, Gabalda 1994.

            a+
            manu

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Karel Hanhart
            ... Dave, I have little time indeed. As to your musings of a possible proto-Mark in a different language, I would suggest you first try out a few examples
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 11, 2002
              dgentil@... wrote:

              > Karel,
              >
              > If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there
              > was a proto-Mark?
              > I also tend to think there was a proto-Mark. However, the last statistical
              > study seemed to limit how much it
              > could differ from cannon Mark. It seems Matthew and Luke must have engaged
              > in a fair amount
              > of omission, for example. Also, if Luke knew and used Matthew some other
              > arguments seem
              > less effective. I'm left with a handful of features that suggest a
              > proto-Mark, but nothing fully convincing.
              >
              > Two ideas I'm considering are that cannon Mark might have only a few
              > omissions, addition and some minor
              > minor rearrangements compared to proto-Mark, or that Mark may be the first
              > Greek language gospel,
              > but that there may have been a gospel in another language, that was
              > available to at least Mark and Luke.
              >
              > Dave Gentile
              > Riverside, Illinois
              > M.S. Physics
              > Ph.D. Management Science
              >
              > As you may
              > know, I argue from the position canonical Mark is a post-70 revision of
              > proto-Mark (perhaps including a form of Q).
              >
              > your
              > Karel
              >
              > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

              Dave,

              I have little time indeed. As to your musings of a possible proto-Mark in a
              different language, I would suggest you first try out a few examples that would
              demonstrate this possibility. But I doubt it would work. It would contradict
              the fact that throughout the Gospel Mark makes allusions to and ( in a sizable
              number of passages) actually cites the Greek Septuagint. This manner of
              "searching the Scriptures" in order to interpret the present would not be
              possible if proto-Mark were a document in a different language. The readers
              wouldn't have been able to make head or tail of it. I cannot do full justice to
              your first question in a brief post. But here goes:
              1. That Mark was written after the destruction of the temple is clear from his
              last midrash in 15,42 - 16,8 on LXX Isa 22,16; 13,16 and Gn 29,2.3. Relatively
              few scholars, debating the dating of canoncal Mark are taking in the great
              impact of the fall of Jerusalem on the Judean population in the motherland and
              throughout the diaspora. It was far worse and with a longer lasting effect than
              - say - the fall of Budapest under the Russian tanks in our times. If there
              ever was a need for a revision of a document whose author believed the kingdom
              of God was at hand, that was the one.
              2. In commentaries it is generally admitted (a) that a "mystery" or "secret"
              (called by Wilhelm Wrede the Messianic Secret) is conveyed in canonical Mark
              and (b) that this "secret" was revealed to the women and (c) that this
              "mystery" was first announced in 4, 10-12. It stands to reason that at least
              part of this "secret" had something to do with this turn of events.
              3. Many believe that 4,10-12 has been inserted in the seed/harvest chapter.
              Some say it was inserted by a later copyist, but that is unlikely. Because
              features of this 'secret' are found throughout Mark. So it appears Mark himself
              was dealing with a pre-70 document in which he was inserting these verses in
              it. Since the passage is concerned with the "mystery of the kingdom/kingship of
              God"
              the mystery may well include the delay of the coming of that kingdom at the
              End of time
              4. Commentators have noted the hand of a so-called "redactor" with the
              introduction of the "twelve" apostoloi next to Mark's mentioning the mathetai.
              There is a good article by Ernest Best in ZNW 69 (1978), "Mark's use of the
              Twelve" in which he is defending that 'the Twelve' belonged to original Mark.
              He doubts that the appointment of the twelve were added by a later 'redactor'.
              However, fact of the matter is that the hand of a redactor is found in the
              clumsy addition of the dodeka (Twelve) in 4,10 "those around him with the
              twelve": the sudden mention of "the twelve" when discussing the future, while
              normally Mark mentions disciples with a broader meaning. Especially the
              emphatic epithet of Judas "one of the twelve" in chapter 14, his crucial kiss
              in Getsemane and the large place Judas' deed receives in the section of the
              Last Supper, makes it clear to me that Mark was working with a proto-Mark in
              which there was no Judas Iscariot and no mention of the Twelve but a story
              about Jesus and his disciples among whom people like Simon, James and John
              played a role. There are good reasons that proto-Mark too contained a passion
              story. In fact, I concluded for other reasons that Christian Judeans in the
              ecclesia had used this pre-70 document for their liturgy of Pesach and the
              "first day" (of Shabuot).
              5. Stories such as the fate of John the Baptist can be lifted out of the
              context without great problems. Mark retained it, I believe, for both the
              Baptist and Jesus are the protagonists of his drama and he refers specifically
              to John horrible death at the juncture of 1,14.
              6. In a former post I already interpreted another midrash at the beginning of
              Mark. Quoting Malachi 3 (in a passage on judgment on the temple priest) Mark
              doesn't mention the name of the book. It seems to have been inserted by the
              author of Mark II in order to alert the readers, used to proto-Mark: 'Here
              follows the same story of Jesus' preaching, his Passion, Death and Resurrection
              but told now that the temple has been destroyed'. In other words, a post-70
              revision.
              This is far too short. Sometimes I wonder if a fast means of communication
              like the internet is suitable for our work. Exegetes ought to do their work
              slowly and carefully analysing each passage within the composition as a whole.
              It is diffcult to summarize earlier work..
              Still, I hope that you have gained a little insight into my thinking.

              your,

              Karel




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • David Gentile
              ... communication ... work ... whole. ... Thank you for this. It was useful. I have a couple of points to look at more closely. I have one more quick question.
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 12, 2002
                > This is far too short. Sometimes I wonder if a fast means of
                communication
                > like the internet is suitable for our work. Exegetes ought to do their
                work
                > slowly and carefully analyzing each passage within the composition as a
                whole.
                > It is difficult to summarize earlier work..
                > Still, I hope that you have gained a little insight into my thinking.
                >
                > your,
                >
                > Karel

                Thank you for this. It was useful. I have a couple of points to look at more
                closely. I have one more quick question. In your opinion was proto-Mark
                likely used by Matthew and/or Luke or just by Mark?

                About the internet - I think the internet can compliment more traditional
                communication. I've read authors who speculate that paradigm shifts are the
                result of a sort of "critical mass". The analogy is made to slime molds.
                These single cell creatures group together when conditions get tough, and
                can move together to a different location, then disband under good
                conditions. The only difference is the strength of the trail each cell
                leaves behind for other cells to follow.
                Once the trails are strong enough, spontaneous clustering occurs. This is
                just a long way of saying that the most brilliant research in the world is
                useless, if no one, or only a handful of people are aware of it. Groups are
                almost always better at problem solving than even the most specialized
                individual. Obviously this format can not cover material at the depth of a
                PhD thesis, or a book. But it can still communicate important points, and if
                necessary other sources can be referenced.

                Thanks again,

                Dave Gentile
                Riverside, Illinois
                M.S. Physics
                Ph.D. Management Science candidate


                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.