In a message dated 4/30/2002 3:46:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< Leonard wrote:
>Mark alone of the three Synoptic Evangelists uses the term PWRWSIS and
its verbal cognate, and he uses them three times. The terms are not found in
the LXX but are used by both Paul (Rom 11:7, 25; 2 Cor 3:14; Eph 4:18) and
John (12:40) in the New Testament. Two of Mark's uses are found in double
tradition passages (Mk 6:52; 8:17), and one in a triple tradition text (Mk
3:5). I would argue that this phenomenon is more consistent with Markan
posteriority than with Markan priority. In other words, the use of these
terms seems to argue for purposeful additions made by Mark to existing
stories, rather than for removal of the term by Matthew and Luke, or by
Matthew alone, from an original text that contained them.>
<<Sorry, Leonard, but I fail to see why "this phenomenon is more
consistent with Markan posteriority than with Markan priority". In fact,
to me it is an argument in favor of Mark's post-70 adoption of Paul's
view of the 'musterion' re. the 'porosis' of Israël.>>
This is fully consistent with view that Mark wrote later than Matt and Luke,
depended on them, and was also influenced by Paul and/or John.
<< And Mark's revision is the oldest gospel we have.>>
You seem to know this for a fact, independently of the evidence. How in fact
do you know?
<< This temporary 'hardening' of a 'part' of
Israël served the purpose that all Israël will be saved. Mark used both
terms in what IMO is his post-70 revision of his earlier pre-70 gospel.
After the catastrophe of 70, Mark found in Paul's vision of the future
an answer to the question that had become all the more desperate: "has
God rejected his people?" (Rm 11,1). Mark took over the term
'musterion', the citation of Isai 6,9.10 (Mc 4,11.12) and in 3,5 (cmp v
6), 6,52 and 8,17. John followed suit.
For these (and other even stronger reasons) I believe Mark was
deeply influenced by Paul.>>
I think you are right here, and it is good that it is so, because the Pauline
influence on Mark often shows up in what Mark adds to the gospel tradition
that came to him from Matthew and Luke, and especially Matthew which
represents a stage of the gospel tradition as yet relatively untouched by
<< His is a Roman Gospel and Paul's letter was written to the
Romans. The predicament for the young ecclesia was severe and Paul's
answer appeared to him relevant.
I join many others in the view that Matthew, (though following
Mark's theme (8,31; 9, 31; 10,33f)) of his passover hagada, toned down
Mark's emphasis on Paul's views as much as possible. So he removed this
typical Pauline verdict 'porosis'- 'hardening' of a part of Israël!>>
It is difficult in the extreme to accept this scenario, in view of Matt
13:14-15; 15:13-14; 23:16, 24, and numerous other passages. I understand that
you accept Markan priority as a kind of dogma, but you say nothing to
persuade me that the theory has any validity.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...