Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: PWRWSIS: piecemeal and cumulative solutions to the Synoptic Problem
- Oops. I omitted some words in this last post. Please, note the omission.
Karel Hanhart wrote:
> Leonard wrote:Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> Mark alone of the three Synoptic Evangelists uses the term PWRWSIS and
> verbal cognate, and he uses them three times. The terms are not found in
> LXX but are used by both Paul (Rom 11:7, 25; 2 Cor 3:14; Eph 4:18) and
> (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
> 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. And Mark's revision
> is the oldest gospel we have. 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 [from Paul]
> the term 'musterion' [plus] the citation of Isai 6,9.10 (Mc
> 4,11.12) and
> [ the term 'posoris 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. 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!
> After all, Mark wrote at first for his own community; but Matthew,
> adopting much of Mark and 'correcting' him at some points and improving
> his style at other points, wrote for a wider audience (e.g. those
> questioning Paul's dealing with Torah) and added much catechetical
> material including the sermon on the Mount.
> Karel Hanhart
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...