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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: No Gezerah Shavah-Leonard

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/1/2002 11:18:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, Notley@optonline.net writes:
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/1/2002 11:18:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      Notley@... writes:

      << I have no clue what your reference to "an ideological opposition" to
      analogy is
      in reference to.>>

      It would take me too far afield from the topic of this list to explain. But
      the reference would be understood by systematic theologians. Actually, I
      doubt my comment is really pertinent to the discussion anyway, especially if
      you are unaware of the theological commonplace to which I allude.

      << I am only asking that we be careful in our terminology. My
      fear/concern about the improper use of gezerah shavah was precisely the next
      step that you tookósuggesting that Matthew was regarded by Luke as "akin to
      the Hebrew Scriptures." I know of no basis for such a quantum leap. Can you
      give me a single occasion where we have a clear CITATION of Matthew akin to
      his CITATIONS of the Hebrew Scriptureóthat would suggest that Luke understood
      both to be Scripture.>>

      This is a good point, I must concede. Luke does not cite Matthew formally as
      he, on occasion - or, more often, the characters in his story - do the
      Prophets and Writings. However, the fact remains that Luke never, to my
      knowledge, cites Torah in this way, and more often than not he cites from OT
      sources in very much the same way that he cites from Matthew (on my
      hypothesis). Look, e.g., at the way Torah is cited throughout the entire
      first part of Acts 7. Perhaps the more apt comparison would be to say that
      Luke cites Matthew very much the way he cites Torah. But I am not sure you
      will take this as much of a concession on my part.

      > I want to state this delicately, but these paragraphs seem to reveal an
      > agenda. In any case, though you affirm this with great vigor, you have said
      > nothing to persuade a "non-believer" that the examples of gezerah shavah
      > found in the Gospels go back to Jesus (as opposed to Matt, e.g.). It seems
      > clearer to me that Matthew himself is a product of scribal training than
      that
      > Jesus was. But I admit that opinions on this question are related to very
      > general principles regarding the proper interpretation of Gospel texts.
      And I
      > am less than certain that my own are necessarily valid.

      <<What agenda? It is nothing more nor less than an evaluation of the
      linguistic
      make-up and quality of the hermeneutical examples that are reported on the
      lips
      of Jesus and the pen of Paul. I am not sure what you are suggesting by the
      use
      of "non-believer" but I reiterate that the assessment that the genius in the
      example of gezerah shavah in Luke 22:69 was not a creation of the Early
      Church is that of a "non-Christian" namely David Flusser who was an
      orthodox Jew.>>

      The quotations marks surrounding "non-believer" suggest that I did not mean
      it as an allusion to a Jewish scholar like David Flusser, but rather to a
      skeptic like myself who wonder whether what Jesus is made to say in the
      Gospels of either Matthew or Luke might not sometimes rather be more properly
      the discourse of the Evangelist himself, with perhaps no more than a remote
      foundation in the teaching of Jesus. It is clear that you oppose this type of
      scepticism, but you have not successfully argued against it in my view.

      <<As for the scribal ability of Matthew, I find his a mixed report card. I
      do not
      think he was as nearly capable of "creating" these examples as you assume.>>

      I suspect you underestimate Matthew, and perhaps overestimate some of your
      teachers in this regard. But this is just a hunch (with minimal scientific
      value).

      <<Moreover, I am faced with examples where the gezerah shavah is better
      preserved in Luke than in Matthew [e.g. Luke 10:27 and parr.] (whom you
      suggest created these and from whom supposedly Luke derived them). How is
      this to be explained if these are Matthean creations? >>

      They could possibly be explained as Lukan creations that are superior to
      Matthean creations. At a macro level Luke is imitating Matthew, not copying
      him. And imitation in antiquity routinely involved the factor of emulation,
      as has been discussed at length by T. L. Brodie, among others. Moreover, your
      language "better preserved" is itself loaded in favor of a certain
      fundamental position with reference to the interpretation of Gospel texts.

      Leonard Maluf




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John Lupia
      ... Dear Leonard & All: I do realize that at least two members of the list: you and Thomas Longstaff currently hold to Matthean priority. It would be rather
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Maluflen@... wrote:
        > Perhaps the more apt
        > comparison would be to say that
        > Luke cites Matthew very much the way he cites Torah.

        > They could possibly be explained as Lukan creations
        > that are superior to
        > Matthean creations. At a macro level Luke is
        > imitating Matthew, not copying
        > him.

        Dear Leonard & All:

        I do realize that at least two members of the list:
        you and Thomas Longstaff currently hold to Matthean
        priority. It would be rather nice to see Thomas take
        more of an active role in discussions. It might be
        very helpful and useful to carry on discussions along
        the thesis of Matthean priority. The same would go
        for Markan prioritists to discuss the "so-called solid
        foundation for it" they claim, but cannot
        demonstrate. To discuss both Matthean and Markan
        priority using pericopae as examples is a very helpful
        and useful form of discussion.

        Having done so for many years it has led me to
        seriously doubt either and conclude that Lukan
        priority has merit far more than that of both Matthew
        or Mark. This is not empty rhetoric on my part since
        I always back it up with evidence of the texts. I
        have already posted several postings over the past
        year that have refuted Mark Goodacre's "Fatigue"
        thesis and have shown Lukan priority over that of
        Matthew and Mark. I realize it is something very new
        to all to see such demonstrations., and it will
        probably take some time for it to sink in. I only
        hope everyone keeps an open mind, an essential quality
        for an academic.

        Discussions can help all of us to clarify our thoughts
        and use solid scholarship rather than tossing around
        empty rhetoric: "Luke copies, or, perhaps, rather,
        imitates Matthew"; "Many believe in the priority of
        Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it.",
        "the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time;
        it provides a sound basis for convincing
        redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke" "We
        are fairly certain that Mark was first"; "two
        centuries of Markan priority shows it has merit." None
        of these rhetorical statements is ever helpful, but
        indicate an emotional and personal bias that fails to
        demonstrate and support such claims. Scholarly
        discussions are drawn from the texts and their careful
        analysis. So, the list should be very welcome and open
        to such discussions, which is one of the essential
        characters of a list called Synoptic-L.

        With best regards,
        John

        =====
        John N. Lupia
        501 North Avenue B-1
        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
        http://greetings.yahoo.com/

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • R. Steven Notley
        Thanks Leonard! I only have a few comments: ... Let me just clarify a point and say that I am not suggesting a fundamentalist attitude to the text. I have no
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Leonard!

          I only have a few comments:

          Maluflen@... wrote:
           

           (snip) ...a skeptic like myself who wonder whether what Jesus is made to say in the
          Gospels of either Matthew or Luke might not sometimes rather be more properly
          the discourse of the Evangelist himself, with perhaps no more than a remote
          foundation in the teaching of Jesus. It is clear that you oppose this type of
          scepticism, but you have not successfully argued against it in my view.
          Let me just clarify a point and say that I am not suggesting a fundamentalist attitude to the text.  I have no problem with critical analysis of the material and identifying the "discourse of the Evangelist himself" as distinct from more primitive material (if it exists) that may (historical certainty is always elusive) originate from the historical Jesus.  I will confess that I have been influenced by my study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem—where there was on the whole a more positive attitude regarding the historical material we have.  Again, this is not a simplistic naïveté, it is just that Descartes' influence is not as great there as in the west.

          My approach is fundamentally philological.  My statements about the primitive nature of the examples of gezerah shavah are based primarily upon the fact that they are a Hebrew language environment—a language I find little evidence the Evangelists themselves knew (e.g. all of the Evangelists fail to get the play on "summer" [QYZ] in the Parable of the Fig Tree).  Thus, my difficulty assuming that the Evangelists themselves were responsible for what are sophisticated linguistic plays in Hebrew.

          In our Cartesian world there will never be a place for historical certainty regarding the Gospel material—and whether it originates with Jesus.  My years of study in Jerusalem have brought me to the conclusion (and I think this is the best we can hope for) that there is primitive material in the Gospels that has retained (against the flow of linguistic and cultural currents) unmistakable Hebraisms and reflect  well known trends of developing thought that was current at the time of Jesus.   Neither the linguistic traits nor the concerns reflected in this material do I find attributable to the Evangelists.  Taken together I find it difficult to conclude that the Gospels are a compilation of late creations by the Evangelists well removed from the historical Jesus himself.

          I think the examples of gezerah shavah are a good example of primitive material that has survived.

           
          <<Moreover, I am faced with examples where the gezerah shavah is better
          preserved in Luke than in Matthew [e.g. Luke 10:27 and parr.] (whom you
          suggest created these and from whom supposedly Luke derived them).  How is
          this to be explained if these are Matthean creations? >>

          They could possibly be explained as Lukan creations that are superior to
          Matthean creations. At a macro level Luke is imitating Matthew, not copying
          him. And imitation in antiquity routinely involved the factor of emulation,
          as has been discussed at length by T. L. Brodie, among others. Moreover, your
          language "better preserved" is itself loaded in favor of a certain
          fundamental position with reference to the interpretation of Gospel texts.

          Luke's "imitation" of Matthew as you claim in the matter of examples of gezerah shavah are consistently more Hebraic and Jewish.  I have sat in countless situations with Jewish scholars who were examining this material with always the same conclusion.  Luke's material is more primitive, and Mark and Matthew represent poor secondary forms (linguistically and culturally) of the saying.

          This analysis does not support your contention that these are "Matthean creations" that are imitated by Luke.

          Shalom,
          Steven Notley
          Nyack College NYC
           
           

           

          Leonard Maluf
           
           

        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/1/2002 5:01:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, jlupia2@yahoo.com writes:
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 4/1/2002 5:01:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
            jlupia2@... writes:

            << Dear Leonard & All:

            I do realize that at least two members of the list:
            you and Thomas Longstaff currently hold to Matthean
            priority. It would be rather nice to see Thomas take
            more of an active role in discussions. It might be
            very helpful and useful to carry on discussions along
            the thesis of Matthean priority.>>

            I would certainly like to see this too.


            << Discussions can help all of us to clarify our thoughts
            and use solid scholarship rather than tossing around
            empty rhetoric: "Luke copies, or, perhaps, rather,
            imitates Matthew"; >>

            John, you could argue that the statement in quotation marks (my statement, I
            believe) is empty rhetoric, and you would be right if that were the only kind
            of writing I did on this list. If, on the other hand, the statement
            represents merely a quick reminder or summary of a position which I
            frequently illustrate with detailed analyses of texts on this and other
            scholarly lists, then your qualification is a bit unfair. I don't know if you
            follow the Johannine list-discussions, but I posted there this morning the
            following continuation of a discussion with Professor Hofrichter. Perhaps you
            could begin by explaining how you think this series of Synoptic parallels
            (Matt 18:1-5 pars.) is better seen as exhibiting Lukan priority. I would find
            this difficult to fathom, and I think I make a good case (though you would
            have to read my published article on the topic for a detailed argument) for a
            development here going from Matthew, through Luke, to Mark. Here follows what
            I wrote earlier today for the Johannine list, but which is really more
            pertinent to the topic of this list:


            In a message dated 4/2/2002 5:16:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:

            << You agree that Jn 13,20 is more primitive than Mk 9,37. But you think
            that John has taken his idea from Mt or Lk.>>

            What I suggested is that Jn took the idea from Matt 10:40.

            << But in Mt 18,1-5 there is
            nothing at all said concerning the disciples or being sent, and Lk
            9,46-48 has in shorter form all essentials common with Mk.>>

            Why does it matter (for this discussion) what Matt 18:1-5 has? In my article
            on Lk 9:46-48 I of course show clearly how Lk uses and rewrites this text,
            removing entirely the theme of a child's humility and introducing the theme
            of the small one (Paulus) who is accepted by some communities as Jesus
            Christ, and ultimately as a messenger of God himself (cf. Gal 4:14b). The
            combination of the fact that Luke has his echo of Matt 10:40 at this point in
            his narrative, and the fact that he has no parallel of it during the sending
            out of the 12 at the beginning of his chapter 9 (but cf. 10:16!) suggests to
            me that Luke writes at a time and place where receiving the 12 as messengers
            of God was no longer an issue, but receiving Paul and his fellow missionaries
            was. Thus the entire hybrid of the issue of the child and the reception of a
            missionary did not exist when Matt wrote (that is why there is no trace of it
            in Matt 18), but was originally an invention of Luke, with a clearly
            intelligible motive (to legitimate the Pauline mission). A late Mark shows
            evidence of the Lukan tradition, but because he is trying to conflate with
            the pre-Lukan Matthean text, Mk's text becomes even more confused, and it
            actually speaks of receiving children (generically) in terms that originally
            belong to the Sitz im Leben of receiving the messengers of Jesus (the 12 in
            Matt, Paul by allusion in Lk). So this sequence of Gospel composition (Matt
            -> Lk -> Mk) illuminates precisely the data you present in your statement.

            << So I think
            it is more verisimilar that Mt was fascinated by the issue of
            children brought in by Mark and skipped all the strive among the
            apostles and the sending-motive which does no longer fit in this
            context.>>

            It is very difficult to believe that Matt 18:1-5 is secondary to all the mess
            we find in the Markan parallel. It is of complete lucidity in itself, and
            does not involve at all the issue of an originally apostolic messenger
            statement applied to a child. Mark's text, on the contrary, looks like an
            attempt to conflate the perspectives of Matt and Lk's rather different
            parallels.

            << Luke being the last one tries as he does often to shorten
            and harmormonize but to keep the essentials of his predecessors. Why
            should Luke have introduced here the sending-motive by his own, which
            then would have been further developped by late John?>>

            I hope you understand now why Luke's text works better here as Die Mitte der
            Schriften.

            Leonard Maluf

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • John Lupia
            Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Leonard wrote: Why does it matter (for this discussion) what Matt 18:1-5 has? In my article on Lk 9:46-48 [snip] Thank you Leonard for
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Synoptic-L@...

              Leonard wrote:
              Why does it matter (for this discussion) what Matt
              18:1-5 has? In my article on Lk 9:46-48 [snip]

              Thank you Leonard for drawing attention to this
              particular parallel. I think a good discussion on it
              should be very helpful and quite useful for those who
              hold to different positions regarding Gospel priority.


              Who is the Greatest? (Mt 18:1-5//Mk 9:33-37//Lk
              9:46-48) [Mohammed Ali's question to the magic-mirror
              on the wall]

              1. The Setting

              Lk 9:46-48 Jesus and the disciples are still in the
              vicinity outside of Bethsaida, north on the Sea of
              Galilee, on the east bank in Herod-Philip's territory.
              It is their tenth day there (Lk 9:28 + 37) and they
              have just descended the mountain after the
              transfiguration. Immediately preceding this narrative
              of Lk 9:46-48 Jesus cast out a demon of a sick boy
              which the disciples could not do on the father's
              request. Jesus rebukes both the demon in the boy to
              expel it, and the disciples for their lack of faith.
              Jesus predicts that he will be betrayed (Mt
              17:22-23//Mk 9:30-32//Lk 9:43b-45), but the disciples
              do not understand what he is saying in this regard.
              Then Lk describes a quarrel among the disciples as to
              which among them is greatest. (Note: Joseph Fitzmyer,
              The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB 28; Doubleday,
              N.Y., 1979):815-18 is clearly dated especially
              regarding the analysis of the geography and of little
              or no use.)

              Mt 18:1-5 takes place at Capernaum. What is
              interesting is the previous itinerary: they had left
              Galilee (Mt 14:34) to go to Tyre and Sidon (Mt 15:21)
              then moved on to some unidentified place to a mountain
              there (Mt 15:29); then they went to Magadan (Mt
              16:39) a place unidentifiable somewhere perhaps along
              the Golanian Bethsaida plain on the western bank of
              the Sea of Galilee, and not identifiable with either
              Megiddo too far to the SW, nor with Magdala on the
              west bank side in Galilee. In Mt 16:5 they cross over
              to the other side apparently still on foot and go to
              Caesarea-Philippi (Mt 16:13//Mk 8:27). However,
              Magadan might have been a scribal corruption in MS
              transmission of Magdala in Galilee and Mt 16:5
              crossing over would then signify going back to the
              east bank where they arrive in Caesarea-Philippi (Mt
              16:13). In Mt 17:22 they are in Galilee and reach
              Capernaum (Mt 17:24). No text is given regarding the
              sojourn from the east to the west bank of the Sea of
              Galilee. We must assume it and extrapolate it from
              the Matthean text. Once at Capernaum the question
              arises of the temple tax and Peter's miraculous catch
              of the fish with a coin for the tax payment takes
              place (Mt 17:24-27). Then there is a question posed
              to Jesus by the disciples about who is greatest in
              heaven.

              Mt's itinerary starts (1) on the west Galilean shore
              and then (2) goes north to the Sidonian region then
              (3) SE to some unidentified place (4) to Magadan, (5)
              to Caesarea-Philippi, (6) return to Galilee, (7) to
              enter Capernaum.

              Mk 9:33-37 Jesus and the disciples pass from
              Caesarea-Philippi (Mk 8:27) then go into Galilee (Mk
              9:30) and arrive in Capernaum. In Galilee, Jesus'
              prediction of his betrayal, death and resurrection (Mt
              17:22-23//Mk 9:30-32//Lk 9:43b-45), which they could
              not understand, precedes their arrival into Capernaum.
              Mk 2:1 states that Jesus lived in a house there (EN
              OIKWN ESTIN) which signifies in Mk 9:33 (EN TH OIKIA
              GENOMENOS) that they were in Jesus' house in
              Capernaum. Jesus asks them what they were arguing
              about on their way to his home.


              SYNOPSIS OF SETTING

              The Synoptics disagree where the "Who is the
              Greatest?" question takes place. It is near
              Julias-Bethsaida in Luke and at Capernaum in Galilee
              in Mt and Mk.

              Luke has it occur on the tenth day in the region of
              Golanian Bethsaida, (not the same place as Andrew,
              Peter and Philip's home town in Galilee in Jn 1:44;
              12:21 nor identified with the Galilean city which
              Jesus condemns (Mt 11:21//Lk 10:13). This region east
              of the Jordan belonged to Herod-Philip (Josephus,
              Antiq. 17, 189). Golanian Bethsaida was given legal
              status as a city in AD 30, about 7 years before Lk's
              Gospel, and also given the Gentile name Julias,
              honoring Tiberius' mother (see Josephus, Antiq. 18,
              2.1,28 saying correctly that it was Augustus' [and of
              Scribonia] daughter; see also H. W. Kuhn and R. Arav,
              "The Bethsaida Excavations: Historical and
              Archaeological Approaches," in the Festschrift-- The
              Future of Christianity, Essays in Honor of Helmut
              Koester. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). If a
              coherence is seen between Lk and Jn on this score
              identifying the Galilean Bethsaida then some of the
              apostles were very familiar with the region
              surrounding the city and would help account for the
              prolonged stay there having some rationale and
              practicality. However, I do not hold to this view.
              One must keep in mind that the archaeological evidence
              points to two Bethsaidas: Julias or the Golanian
              Bethsaida and the Galilean Bethsaida. (See B. Pixner,
              "Searching for the New Testament Site of Bethsaida,"
              BA 48 (1985):207-16. However, Pixner gets the
              applications wrong in the NT narratives. R. Arav and
              R. Freund, eds., Bethsaida (Kirksville, MO, 1995)
              however get it correct as modern et-Tell (208255)
              which was first excavated in 1987). Lk 8:26 has them
              opposite Galilee supporting that the Bethsaida
              identified is in Herod Philip's territory on the east
              bank of the Sea of Galilee. Lk 9:7-9 indicates that
              the news of Jesus' activities in Herod-Philip's
              territory had already spread in Galilee so that Herod
              Antipas knew about what was happening there.

              Whereas, Mt and Mk have Jesus and the disciples return
              from the territory of Herod-Philip back to Galilee
              where they enter the city of Capernaum. More
              particularly, Mk 2:1;6:1; 9:33 has Jesus back in his
              hometown, Capernaum.

              The "deserted place" in Mk 6:31ff is apparently in
              Galilee, on the western plain of Genneserat, whereas,
              in Luke and Mt it is opposite Galilee (see Mt 14:34)
              on the eastern plain of the Sea of Galilee known as
              the plain of Golanian Bethsaida. Mk 6:45 has them
              take a boat to Galilean Bethsaida (see Mk 6:53// Mt
              14:34) which necessitates sailing parallel along the
              western Galilean shoreline. Since the crowds follow
              on foot and arrive ahead of them (Mk 6:33) he must be
              speaking of a "deserted place" in Galilee consistent
              with this parallel to the shore sailing. It would
              further complicate the narrative in Mk had they
              actually been in the right place on the Golanian
              Bethsaida plain. Yet, Mk has them cross the lake
              (copying from Mt) to Bethsaida in Mk 6:45 as the
              Galilean city by that name (see Mk 6:53) giving us an
              extraordinarily confused geography and a conundrum
              apodictically demonstrating "fatigue" and perhaps one
              of the best examples.

              According to Luke, regarding the location of the
              question "Who is the Greatest?" they had been in
              Capernaum earlier (Lk 7:1), not now when the question
              is posed. The confusions by the later writer Mk on
              the geography point to his writing in the late 60's
              and less knowledgeable about Palestine, not one like
              Matthew who wrote a decade earlier or Luke who wrote
              30 years earlier who like Matthew knew Palestine and
              Judaism very well.

              2. The Question

              Lk 9:46-48 a discussion among them concerns who is the
              greatest among them. Jesus could read their hearts.
              He takes a "little child" (PAIDION) and places it at
              his side. Then Jesus says something rather curious.
              He says, "Whoever receives this child in my name
              receives me, and having received me receives the one
              who sent me. So, even the least among you is great."
              Lk's narrative shows that greatness has nothing to do
              with any attribute or quality any disciple might have.
              Jesus placing the child next to himself paints the
              picture of a canon [measure] of physical proportion.
              This is especially apparent since the adjective of the
              question is MEIZON the comparative degree. The height
              of Christ is now compared to the physical height of
              the little child to draw the analogy. Jesus is
              obviously the one who is great. There is also an
              obvious sense of humor being demonstrated here. A
              deliberate pun on physical height and being great is
              clearly made. The punchline that even the least or
              physically smallest (or on another level of language
              having less attributes or qualities) is irrelevant
              since they are all great due to Jesus giving them
              authority and dignity as his representatives. Jesus is
              what makes them great. On a literary level one gets
              the sense that Jesus was relieving the tension in the
              air and mood (since he knew their hearts) by his use
              of levity. However, on another level of language a
              philosophical principle is being demonstrated. What
              makes them [the disciples] great is the authority and
              the dignity that goes with it that Jesus equally gives
              to all of them. People will receive them because of
              the authority of Jesus, and doing so they receive them
              as vicars of Christ and so receive Jesus and the
              Father who sent him. The narrative's imagery is
              clean and clear and simple like First through Third
              Style period painting. It is interesting that the boy
              (PAIDA) in Lk 9:42 is contrasted to the "little child"
              (PAIDION) in this narrative.

              Mt 18:1-5 poses a different question. The disciples
              ask Jesus who is the greatest in the kingdom of
              heaven? Jesus takes a "little child" (PAIDION) and
              places it in their midst. Then Jesus says "unless you
              become like children you will never enter the kingdom
              of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is
              the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever may
              receive such a child in my name receives me. Mt has
              Jesus place a little child in their midst as a canon
              [measure] among them. The saying, "unless you become
              like children you will never enter the kingdom of
              heaven." addresses this canon of comparison, but does
              not address the question. It is a negative answer
              since it demonstrates "being little" or "not great" is
              a criteria to enter heaven. In this sense the analogy
              has disarmed the question and shows that their
              thoughts were misdirected criticizing the form of the
              question. Then Jesus says, Whoever becomes humble
              like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of
              heaven. Now, this second statement is a bit puzzling.
              If one must be like a "little child" in order to
              enter the kingdom of heaven then emulating the
              humility of the child must be part of that criteria to
              begin with. So, to single out that feature "humility"
              makes little sense in the narrative since it is
              implied and understood from the previous verse. The
              third statement of Jesus, " Whoever may receive such a
              child in my name receives me." is now even far more
              puzzling and does not fit into the flow of the
              narrative at all. It is a true howler showing fatigue
              that Mt's changes to Lk slip him up and creates an
              unsustained narrative riddled with inconsistencies.
              The narrative's imagery is cluttered and frilly like
              Fourth Style period painting.

              Mk 9:33-37 after entering Capernaum and then into
              Jesus' house there he asks the disciples: "What were
              you arguing about along the way?" Mk says they became
              silent since they were debating about which among them
              was greatest. Without being told what they were
              arguing about Jesus sits down and says, "Whoever wants
              to be first must be last and servant of all." Then he
              took a "little child" (PAIDION) and put it in their
              midst. Then he picks up the child and holds it in his
              arms and says, "Whoever receives one such as "these
              children" in my name receives me and whoever receives
              me receives not [only] me but [also] the one who sent
              me. Mk 9:35 starts with a fatigue blunder where he
              now calls the disciples "the twelve". Mk copies from
              Lk clearly having known "Jesus could read their
              hearts" but abbreviates the text omitting it. The
              text reads that Jesus is never told what they were
              discussing yet Jesus knows, clearly indicating fatigue
              resulting from changes to Lk. (See Moses Aberbach,
              "The Relations Between Master and Disciple in the
              Talmudic Age" in Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi
              Israel Brodie on the Occasion of His Seventieth
              Birthday (London: Soncino, 1965) The first
              development in Mk's narrative is more like a maxim or
              adage: "Whoever wants to be first must be last and
              servant of all." This focuses on their "humility"
              found in Mt, and adds the service aspect where each
              must serve the rest. Then Mk has Jesus begins to
              exhibit odd behavior. He puts a little child in their
              midst. He says nothing. Howler, howler, howler! Mk
              is clearly using Mt here making very odd changes.
              Then Jesus picks up the little child and holds it in
              his arms and says something strange: "Whoever receives
              one such as "these children" in my name receives me
              and whoever receives me receives not [only] me but
              [also] the one who sent me. It seems as though
              placing the little child in their midst
              ritualistically and magically made the disciples like
              little children. Jesus picks up the "real little
              child" and then says referring to the disciples "these
              children". Howler!! Mk's narrative is suffering from
              obvious fatigue resulting from changes to Lk and Mt.
              The narrative's imagery like Mt's is also cluttered
              and frilly like Fourth Style period painting. Mann
              correctly staes: "Mark, following the Matthean order ,
              severely condensed material he gathered from Matthew
              and Luke and made of that condensation the results
              before us." (C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Doubleday, N.Y.,
              1986):375.

              Best regards,
              John


              =====
              John N. Lupia
              501 North Avenue B-1
              Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
              http://taxes.yahoo.com/

              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.