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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 11 , Mar 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 11 , Mar 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > 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.