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

[Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Proto Mark: Who Was the Young Man...?

Expand Messages
  • Goodell, Donald (Donald)
    Group: My first posting to this group--- As many of you already know, there are many sound reasons to suppose (as my former professor C K Barrett still does)
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Group:

      My first posting to this group---

      As many of you already know, there are many sound reasons to suppose (as my
      former professor C K Barrett still does) that there once existed an
      Ur-Markus (or "proto-Mark") at one time which probably was much longer than
      the present "shorter" Gospel of Mark in the modern Canon, (which shows signs
      of being "censored" down to its present size by later post-Iraneus church
      "authorities" )...

      In support of this possibility, I reference the infamous "Carpocracian"
      version of the socalled Secret Gospel of Mark, in a small snippet of a Greek
      quotation of a Secret Gospel of Mark in a letter of Clement to "Theodore"
      of which came to light in 1958 (published by Morton Smith, and which he
      places between our modern Mark 10:34 and 10:35). Interestingly Clement warns
      Theodore: "Remember, not all True Things are to be spoken aloud to all
      men..."

      The passage here does not seem to be a forgery to those who have spent time
      studying Mark's primitive Greek in his gospel: the snippet below is in the
      same Aramaically-clumsy "Markan" Greek present tense "storytelling"
      style/vocabulary/syntax of the writer(s) of the Gospel which we know today
      as "Mark", and seems, when read with an open mind, to be eerily part of an
      original Markan text--------but clearly contains material the post-Iraneus
      "church" might have thought doctrinally unorthodox (i.e. some of the Greek
      may have been falsly interpreted as having possible sexual undercurrents,
      e.g. "and the young man begged that he might be with him", a phrase which
      actually is rooted in the Hebrew of the Torah, where Moses selects 12 men
      "that they might be with him, one per tribe", and is echoed in J.'s calling
      of the disciples "to be with him" Mark 3:14)

      UR MARKUS: 10:34b (notice the "linen cloth over his naked [body]" which
      echoes the Markan Passion narrative Mk 14:51/52)
      QUOTE

      And they come to Bethany. And there was a woman there whose brother had
      died. She comes and prostrates herself before J. and says to him, Son of
      David, have mercy upon me! But the disciples began to rebuke her. And J.
      being wroth, went along with her into the garden where there was a tomb.
      Immediately a great cry was heard from inside the tomb. And going up to it,
      J. rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb, and immediately went
      inside where the YOUNG MAN was. And stretching forth his hand, [J.] lifts
      him up and takes hold of his hand. And the YOUNG MAN looking at him
      intently, loves him, and starts begging to let him be with him [as a
      disciple]. And going out from the tomb, they come to the house of the YOUNG
      MAN, for he was rich.

      And AFTER SIX DAYS, J. gave him an Instruction. And when it was evening, the
      YOUNG MAN COMES TO HIM WEARING NOTHING BUT A LINEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED
      [BODY]. And he remained with [J.] all night, because J. was teaching him the
      Musterion of the Kingdom of God. And when [J.] left him, he went back to the
      other side of the Jordan.

      UNQUOTE

      Regardless of what some scholars have written about the authenticity of the
      Carpocratian material, the inevitable parallels with the Raising of Eleazar
      ("Lazarus") in the 4th gospel are instructive and problematic to say the
      least...

      Perhaps a deeper discussion of the various forms in which Mark circulated
      might be appropriate in another thread, particularly in view of the Great
      Ommision (roughly 1600 hundred Greek words, = 800 words x 2 sheets?--which
      suggests a sheet had fallen out of his copy) in Luke's present day
      "canonical" gospel (which omits Mark 6:49 to 8:27a except one verse) all of
      which would have blended well with Luke's theology (including the Walking on
      Water, the Yeast of the Pharisees and the Herodians and SyroPhoenician
      woman's retort etc.)and the obvious clue that 16:8 truncates the canonical
      gospel of Mark in mid-sentence ("the women were afraid because..."=
      ephobounto gar) with all of its 2nd century spurious additions from 16:9
      onwards...

      I only mention this curiosity in view of your previous threads on the YOUNG
      MAN, the LINEN CLOTH and the possible existence of an UR Marcus which was
      later censored or adapted by later "pious" (!) hands.

      Any opinion out there on the possible existence of an UR-Markus, or some
      good references on this subject in English?


      DG
      dgoodell@...






      -----Original Message-----
      From: dgentil@... [mailto:dgentil@...]
      Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:17 AM
      To: Synoptic-L@...
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man a Therapeutae?





      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@...

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • dgentil@sears.com
      Thank you for your reply. The points you mention are things I have consisdered. It seems unlikely to me that the author of Luke caused the great ommission ,
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you for your reply. The points you mention are things I have
        consisdered. It seems unlikely
        to me that the author of Luke caused "the great ommission", but the reason
        for it could be, as you say, as simple as a missing page.

        Thanks again,

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






        Group:

        My first posting to this group---

        As many of you already know, there are many sound reasons to suppose (as my
        former professor C K Barrett still does) that there once existed an
        Ur-Markus (or "proto-Mark") at one time which probably was much longer than
        the present "shorter" Gospel of Mark in the modern Canon, (which shows
        signs
        of being "censored" down to its present size by later post-Iraneus church
        "authorities" )...

        In support of this possibility, I reference the infamous "Carpocracian"
        version of the socalled Secret Gospel of Mark, in a small snippet of a
        Greek
        quotation of a Secret Gospel of Mark in a letter of Clement to "Theodore"
        of which came to light in 1958 (published by Morton Smith, and which he
        places between our modern Mark 10:34 and 10:35). Interestingly Clement
        warns
        Theodore: "Remember, not all True Things are to be spoken aloud to all
        men..."

        The passage here does not seem to be a forgery to those who have spent time
        studying Mark's primitive Greek in his gospel: the snippet below is in the
        same Aramaically-clumsy "Markan" Greek present tense "storytelling"
        style/vocabulary/syntax of the writer(s) of the Gospel which we know today
        as "Mark", and seems, when read with an open mind, to be eerily part of an
        original Markan text--------but clearly contains material the post-Iraneus
        "church" might have thought doctrinally unorthodox (i.e. some of the Greek
        may have been falsly interpreted as having possible sexual undercurrents,
        e.g. "and the young man begged that he might be with him", a phrase which
        actually is rooted in the Hebrew of the Torah, where Moses selects 12 men
        "that they might be with him, one per tribe", and is echoed in J.'s calling
        of the disciples "to be with him" Mark 3:14)

        UR MARKUS: 10:34b (notice the "linen cloth over his naked [body]" which
        echoes the Markan Passion narrative Mk 14:51/52)
        QUOTE

        And they come to Bethany. And there was a woman there whose brother had
        died. She comes and prostrates herself before J. and says to him, Son of
        David, have mercy upon me! But the disciples began to rebuke her. And J.
        being wroth, went along with her into the garden where there was a tomb.
        Immediately a great cry was heard from inside the tomb. And going up to it,
        J. rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb, and immediately went
        inside where the YOUNG MAN was. And stretching forth his hand, [J.] lifts
        him up and takes hold of his hand. And the YOUNG MAN looking at him
        intently, loves him, and starts begging to let him be with him [as a
        disciple]. And going out from the tomb, they come to the house of the YOUNG
        MAN, for he was rich.

        And AFTER SIX DAYS, J. gave him an Instruction. And when it was evening,
        the
        YOUNG MAN COMES TO HIM WEARING NOTHING BUT A LINEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED
        [BODY]. And he remained with [J.] all night, because J. was teaching him
        the
        Musterion of the Kingdom of God. And when [J.] left him, he went back to
        the
        other side of the Jordan.

        UNQUOTE

        Regardless of what some scholars have written about the authenticity of the
        Carpocratian material, the inevitable parallels with the Raising of Eleazar
        ("Lazarus") in the 4th gospel are instructive and problematic to say the
        least...

        Perhaps a deeper discussion of the various forms in which Mark circulated
        might be appropriate in another thread, particularly in view of the Great
        Ommision (roughly 1600 hundred Greek words, = 800 words x 2 sheets?--which
        suggests a sheet had fallen out of his copy) in Luke's present day
        "canonical" gospel (which omits Mark 6:49 to 8:27a except one verse) all of
        which would have blended well with Luke's theology (including the Walking
        on
        Water, the Yeast of the Pharisees and the Herodians and SyroPhoenician
        woman's retort etc.)and the obvious clue that 16:8 truncates the canonical
        gospel of Mark in mid-sentence ("the women were afraid because..."=
        ephobounto gar) with all of its 2nd century spurious additions from 16:9
        onwards...

        I only mention this curiosity in view of your previous threads on the YOUNG
        MAN, the LINEN CLOTH and the possible existence of an UR Marcus which was
        later censored or adapted by later "pious" (!) hands.

        Any opinion out there on the possible existence of an UR-Markus, or some
        good references on this subject in English?


        DG
        dgoodell@...






        -----Original Message-----
        From: dgentil@... [mailto:dgentil@...]
        Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:17 AM
        To: Synoptic-L@...
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man a Therapeutae?





        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@...

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...




        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.