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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: PWRWSIS: piecemeal and cumulative solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Oops. I omitted some words in this last post. Please, note the omission. Karel. ... Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner:
    Message 1 of 3 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Oops. I omitted some words in this last post. Please, note the omission.
      Karel.

      Karel Hanhart wrote:

      > 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. 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.
      >
      > cordially,
      >
      > Karel Hanhart
      >
      > 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.