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

[Synoptic-L] Did Mark reject the Lord's Prayer ?

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Thomas R. W. Longstaff But if Mark wrote to supplement rather than replace, to address a different audience with different concerns but with the knowledge and
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Thomas R. W. Longstaff
      But if Mark wrote to supplement rather than replace,
      to address a different audience with different
      concerns but with the knowledge and understanding that
      Matthew and Luke would continue to exist and to be
      read there is no reason to believe that he would be
      under any constraint to include everything in his
      sources (few authors, after all, do so).

      Dear Thomas,

      I have reasoned along similar lines. Mark's Gospel
      seems to be a compendium of the previous Gospels that
      suited some purpose, perhaps, as a an inexpensive
      portable compact edition published for those in
      missionary activity. Those engaged in this activity
      were churchmen who already knew the Our Father and
      would certainly teach it as part of basic instruction.
      This is a basic prayer that everyone learned during
      their early years for those born into Christianity.
      Marks' historical context would include the first and
      second generation cohorts of those born Christian.
      The same can be said for the Beatitudes, a set of
      theologically poetic sayings that address the core of
      the Christian spirit which were certainly learned by
      rote coupled with catechetical instructions. Once the
      proselytes entered the Church they heard read the
      other three Gospels developing their knowledge of the
      teachings of Jesus from the platform provided by Mark
      and the additional instructions given by their first
      catechetical teachers.

      With warm regards,
      John


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

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
      http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ken Olson
      ... predecessors so that the rather complicated redactional practices of Luke can be unravelled!)
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thursday, June 13, Dr. Peter M. head wrote:

        >>(Perhaps the FGH needs the continued existence of the
        predecessors so that the rather complicated redactional practices of Luke
        can be unravelled!)<<

        Peter,

        What "complicated redactional practices" are these? On the level of
        physical techniques of
        composition, it seems to me that the FGH does not have to assume the
        evangelists used any techniques
        beyond those assumed by, e.g., Streeter on the 2DH. The reverse, however,
        is not true.

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        kaolson@...

        Kenneth A. Olson
        Graduate Teaching Assistant
        University of Maryland
        Department of History
        2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
        College Park, MD 20742-7315


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Peter M. Head
        At 03:04 PM 6/12/02 -0400, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote: I think it far more likely that, on any solution to the synoptic problem, the later authors probably
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 03:04 PM 6/12/02 -0400, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:
          "I think it far more likely that, on any solution to the synoptic problem,
          the later authors probably understood that the earlier gospels would be
          available to the church."

          I doubt this is true. There have been significant GH positions which see
          Mark as reactionary (against Matt and Luke). It is certainly not obvious
          (assuming 2SH) that Matthew would think of the continued need for Mark; and
          the fact that Q faded out so quickly after its incorporation into Matt and
          Luke suggests (to those convinced of its original existence) that it was no
          longer required (or its community lost influence or was incorporated into
          the M group). (Perhaps the FGH needs the continued existence of the
          predecessors so that the rather complicated redactional practices of Luke
          can be unravelled!)

          Peter


          Peter M. Head, PhD
          Research Fellow
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
          566607
          Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
          http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
          ... Well that might well be true but there is another option as well. I admit that the process is simpler if you can posit a document that you don t have (like
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:53 AM 6/13/2002 +0100, Peter M. Head wrote:

            >(Perhaps the FGH needs the continued existence of the predecessors so that
            >the rather complicated redactional practices of Luke can be unravelled!)

            Well that might well be true but there is another option as well. I admit
            that the process is simpler if you can posit a document that you don't have
            (like Q) and then just adjust the definition of that document to simplify
            the hypothesis in which it is a key element. It has been fascinating to
            watch Q grow from a hypothetical document to explain the agreements between
            Matthew and Luke in material not found in Mark into a document that we can
            now cite by chapter and verse and on which redaction critical studies can
            be conducted. We can now even discuss the way Mark modified Q. If, as some
            have noted, Q is what you make it, it does mean that there are far less
            complicated processes to unravel. Maybe Peter prefers prefer weaving a new
            fabric of his own to unraveling rather complicated redactional practices.
            That works too.


            Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
            Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
            Director, Jewish Studies
            Colby College
            4643 Mayflower Hill
            Waterville, ME 04901
            Telephone: (207) 872-3150
            FAX: (207) 872-3802
            Email: tlongst@...


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ron Price
            ... Jeffrey, True. But neither has Mark Goodacre s premise that Luke recited the Lord s Prayer in his own tradition. My argument here is simply that *if* it is
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I wrote:

              >> In _The Case Against Q_, p.30, Mark Goodacre argues that every part of
              >> this prayer was congenial to Mark, so he wouldn't have omitted it, so
              >> this supports the view that Mark was not dependent on Matthew.
              >>
              >> One problem here is that if Luke recited the prayer in his own
              >> tradition (as Mark Goodacre claims on p.64), surely Mark would have at
              >> least known it from other people's recitation in *his* tradition. In
              >> that case, he must have rejected at least an oral version.

              Jeffrey Gibson replied:

              >Umm .. this seems to me to be petitio principii in that the premise
              >beginning with "surely" has not been established, has it?.

              Jeffrey,
              True. But neither has Mark Goodacre's premise that Luke recited the
              Lord's Prayer in his own tradition. My argument here is simply that *if*
              it is reasonable to posit recitation in Luke's tradition, it is also
              reasonable to posit recitation in Mark's tradition. Actually I doubt
              whether either was the case.

              >> But more important is the question of whether Mark really would have
              >> accepted it in its original (approx. Lukan) form.

              >But **is** the Lucan form original?

              By "original" I meant the form in which it appeared in the early
              sayings source. In this sense Q scholars usually take the Lukan form as
              more original.

              >> ..... [Mark] understood its original meaning, which was in effect
              >> a plea that God would intervene to destroy Roman power and give freedom
              >> to Israel.

              >Excuse me, but what? How do you get this as the meaning of the LP

              Apologies for my wording above, which was imprecise. I meant to refer
              to the meaning of one clause only, namely: "May your kingdom come". My
              argument is that because of this clause, Mark didn't incorporate the
              prayer as it stands.

              In a recent Corpus-Paul posting, Hyam Maccoby, describing one of two
              types of eschatology in Judaism, wrote: "The 'days of the Messiah' will
              take place on
              earth, and will represent the fulfilment of the potentialities of this
              world
              and of the human race. Its leader will therefore be a human being, the
              Messiah son of David."
              The label "Messiah" (Christ) is closely associated with Jesus in the
              earliest indisputable testimony (Paul's letters), and the phrase
              "kingdom of God" was frequently on the lips of Jesus. Thus we can
              reasonably assume there is a connection between kingdom and Messiah, and
              the phrase "kingdom of God" is an apt label for what Hyam described. To
              first century Jews, the establishment of God's kingdom on earth ruled by
              a Messiah-king must necessarily have involved the overthrow of the Roman
              authorities occupying Israel. Hence the political implications of "May
              your kingdom come".

              > ..... why must you
              >follow the bifurcating line laid out by Eisler and Brandon that to be
              >political, Jesus and the intent of the LP must be "zealotic"?

              I'm not saying that it's necessarily "zealotic". I doubt whether Jesus
              expected the kingdom to be established by an army of Zealots, for there
              is little evidence that he himself was a Zealot. It seems more likely
              that he had in mind some divine intervention which would miraculously
              establish the kingdom.

              >> So did Mark omit the Lord's Prayer altogether?
              >> Certainly not! He knew a useful saying when he saw one. Firstly he
              >> summarized what he saw as its most important message in 11:25. Then he
              >> incorporated the bit about temptation in Jesus' instruction to Peter in
              >> 14:38.

              >All this may indicate is, as Goulder and Taussig have argued, that the LP as
              >we know it is a **post Jesus construction**, put together by a later
              >redactor from individual and originally separate petitions that Jesus
              >uttered not as we have them now in the LP, but on different occasions.

              That's possible.
              But I'm consciously reversing Goulder's argument. For whereas he
              suggested that Matthew created the LP from assorted verses in Mark
              (_Luke: A New Paradigm_, p.496), I'm suggesting that Mark broke up the
              LP he found in the early sayings source, rejecting part of it and
              splitting up the rest to suit his narrative. However I concede that on
              my hypothesis the LP may have been redacted prior to its incorporation
              in the early sayings source. Thus I wouldn't necessarily deny that the
              LP is a "post Jesus construction".

              Ron Price

              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

              e-mail: ron.price@...

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              ... Thomas, We agree that Mark knew the Lord s Prayer, yet declined to incorporate it in his gospel. But that s about as far as the agreement goes. If Mark had
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I wrote:

                >> In _Studying the Synoptic Gospels_, p.82, Sanders and Davies wrote:
                >>
                >>"One of the principal objections to the view that Mark copied Matthew is
                >>that he would not have omitted the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes just
                >>to give space for verbal expansion of pericopes. But if he knew Q, that
                >>is just what he did."

                Thomas Longstaff replied:

                >There is a problem here that I've written about often (and Ed Sanders and I
                >have debated since we were graduate students together) and that is the
                >assumption that if Mark copied Matthew (and or Luke) he intended to replace
                >those earlier gospels with his own. But if Mark wrote to supplement rather
                >than replace, to address a different audience with different concerns but
                >with the knowledge and understanding that Matthew and Luke would continue
                >to exist and to be read there is no reason to believe that he would be
                >under any constraint to include everything in his sources (few authors,
                >after all, do so). Indeed, this applies to any synoptic solution. .....

                Thomas,

                We agree that Mark knew the Lord's Prayer, yet declined to incorporate
                it in his gospel.

                But that's about as far as the agreement goes.
                If Mark had access to a copy of the Lord's Prayer and respected it, he
                could easily have fitted it in if space was limited by omitting or
                abbreviating a healing or a feeding. The suggestion that Mark wrote to
                supplement previous gospels just doesn't hold water when we observe that
                only 6% of Mark is not in either Matthew or Luke. So only 6% of Mark is
                supplementary in the Griesbach scenario. Moreover the omission of that
                6% is relatively easy to explain on the basis that Mark was the source
                for the other two synoptics (Davies & Allison, _Matthew 1_ pp.108-109).

                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                In a message dated 6/13/2002 10:59:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Ron, you can t seem to get beyond the point of viewing Synoptic stuff in purely material
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 6/13/2002 10:59:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ron.price@... writes:


                  If Mark had access to a copy of the Lord's Prayer and respected it, he
                  could easily have fitted it in if space was limited by omitting or
                  abbreviating a healing or a feeding. The suggestion that Mark wrote to
                  supplement previous gospels just doesn't hold water when we observe that
                  only 6% of Mark is not in either Matthew or Luke. So only 6% of Mark is
                  supplementary in the Griesbach scenario. Moreover the omission of that
                  6% is relatively easy to explain on the basis that Mark was the source
                  for the other two synoptics (Davies & Allison, _Matthew 1_ pp.108-109).


                  Ron, you can't seem to get beyond the point of viewing Synoptic stuff in purely material terms. Don't you see that "supplementary" need not have to do with the idea of supplying material not found in another gospel? Can you for a moment stop being a pedantic source critic and allow entrance to a slightly broader view of literary criticism? If Mark had not added a single material item to the tradition, a late Mark could still make perfectly good sense from a literary point of view. Mark may well have intended to "supplement" Matthew and Luke by adding, for example, a dramatic dimension to the story of Jesus' ministry (as it moved inexorably toward a climactic death on the cross) and a street language feel to a previously literary tradition for the benefit of a less educated audience. These are all perfectly valid and perfectly reasonable justifications for a late Mark that function at a text-pragmatic level and have nothing at all to do with supplementation at the level of material contribution. The fact that the point is entirely missed by so many standard New Testament introductions does not a thing to diminish its validity.

                  Leonard Maluf
                • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                  At 06:31 PM 6/13/2002 +0100, Ron Price wrote: Without including all of the previous discussion, let me respond to Ron. ... True. ... Almost true but not quite.
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 13, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 06:31 PM 6/13/2002 +0100, Ron Price wrote:

                    Without including all of the previous discussion, let me respond to Ron.

                    >Thomas,
                    >
                    > We agree that Mark knew the Lord's Prayer, yet declined to incorporate
                    >it in his gospel.

                    True.

                    > But that's about as far as the agreement goes.

                    Almost true but not quite.

                    > If Mark had access to a copy of the Lord's Prayer and respected it, he
                    >could easily have fitted it in if space was limited by omitting or
                    >abbreviating a healing or a feeding. The suggestion that Mark wrote to
                    >supplement previous gospels just doesn't hold water when we observe that
                    >only 6% of Mark is not in either Matthew or Luke. So only 6% of Mark is
                    >supplementary in the Griesbach scenario. Moreover the omission of that
                    >6% is relatively easy to explain on the basis that Mark was the source
                    >for the other two synoptics (Davies & Allison, _Matthew 1_ pp.108-109).

                    As I have argued in several publications there are a plurality of reasons
                    why a secondary author will undertake to write again something that has
                    already been written. The secondary author might write to replace, to
                    supplement, to correct, to set the materials in a different context or to
                    use them to address different issues, to address a different audience, etc.
                    While I do think that Mark wrote to supplement the earlier gospels I don't
                    think that he wrote only to supplement them.

                    And we agree on one more point. We agree that "if Mark had access to a copy
                    of the Lord's Prayer and respected it, he could easily have fitted it in if
                    space was limited by omitting or abbreviating a healing or a feeding." But
                    this does little more than suggest that Mark's reason for omitting the
                    Lord's Prayer was not due to limited space. As I said, I agree with that.
                    But all that follows is that, if Mark knew the Lord's Prayer he had some
                    other reason for omitting it. As an aside, I am not sure why you suggest
                    only this reason, shortage of space, as a possible explanation for Mark's
                    omission. Do you have some reason for highlighting that possible reason
                    among the many that might be suggested?

                    I think that the suggestion that Mark wrote to supplement the other Gospels
                    does, in fact, "hold water," despite the evidence that you offer to the
                    contrary. If one understands the concept of "supplementing," as I would, to
                    include setting the materials in a different context for a different
                    audience then I think that the idea does make sense. To consider only one
                    example (of far too many to list here but which have been discussed many,
                    many times) let me refer to the so-called "Why do you call me good?"
                    pericope (a title which assumes the Markan form of this narrative). In
                    Matthew a person comes to Jesus with a question about the Torah, "Teacher,
                    what good must I do to inherit eternal life?" In the subsequent dialogue
                    Jesus addresses the issue of Torah observance and what more is required.
                    Most people recognize that Christological concerns are an important element
                    in the gospel of Mark. When we turn to the Markan version of the story we
                    find that Mark treats two questions. The first is a Christological
                    question. Jesus is addressed as "Good Teacher" and the issue becomes that
                    of who is properly called "good." No one is good but God. Then Jesus
                    changes the subject (almost abruptly) and turns to the issue of Torah
                    observance and what more might be required. In Mark it is not clear, as it
                    is in Matthew, that the questioner has asked about Torah. He has simply
                    asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus' further response in
                    Mark seems to assume the question that the person raised explicitly in
                    Matthew. Here your calculation of the percentage of agreement does not take
                    account of the significant differences between these two narratives.
                    Admittedly there is a high percentage of verbal agreement here. Does this
                    mean that supplementation is out of the question? Only if you interpret
                    "supplement" very narrowly. The point is that, despite the high percentage
                    of verbal agreement the questions are very different. "Teacher, what good
                    must I do to have eternal life?" and "Good teacher, what must I do to
                    inherit eternal life?" are not the same question despite the high
                    percentage of agreement.

                    I think that it is entirely possible that Mark has supplemented the
                    Matthean narrative and transformed a simple and straightforward story about
                    Torah observance into one that adds another concern, the Christological
                    motif. Advocates of the Two Gospel (Griesbach) Hypothesis might well argue
                    that it was Luke who introduced the change and that, because of his
                    Christological interests, Mark preferred the Lukan version of the question
                    to the Matthean version. Your use of "statistical evidence" to conclude
                    that the suggestion that Mark supplements Matthew does not hold water does
                    not adequately deal with the very real possibility that Mark (or Luke) has,
                    in fact, supplemented the Matthean narrative by adding a Christological
                    motif to a simpler narrative about Torah observance. Now we have two issues
                    rather than one. That's supplementing no matter how you count the words. It
                    seems to me that one has to pay attention to the content as well.

                    Or, I suppose, it might be a happy coincidence that Matthew (for whom the
                    relationship of Christianity to the Torah of Israel is a very important
                    motif) found in Mark's rather convoluted narrative, with two questions
                    intertwined, exactly what he needed for a nicely structured and more
                    unified narrative about Torah and Christianity, including just the right
                    word to allow the Jewish reference to the Torah as "the good."

                    Now I am not suggesting that advocates of Markan priority could not offer
                    cogent suggestions about how Mark has modified the Matthean narrative here
                    (although none of those that I have read so far have convinced me). I am
                    not suggesting that the alternate analysis that I have offered above
                    renders the Two Document Hypothesis false. That would be to draw
                    conclusions far beyond those that can be supported by the evidence or
                    argument that I've offered. But to assert, as you have, the falsity of the
                    view that Mark might have been written to supplement Matthew does seem to
                    me to draw a conclusion far beyond what can be supported by the evidence
                    that you provide. This is, as we all recognize, a very complex issue and I
                    think that cogent arguments can be offered for different solutions to the
                    problem. In some ways that's the challenge - and I like the synoptic
                    problem for the same reason that I like meteorology, for its complexity. I
                    must say that I found your dismissal of the idea that Mark might have been
                    written to supplement earlier gospels just a bit too simplistic and facile.
                    In fact, if anything doesn't hold water, it's the "statistical" argument
                    that you offer above. And why you add "shortage of space" to the equation,
                    giving special weight to this possible explanation, still eludes me.

                    Finally, your statement that "the omission of that 6% is relatively easy to
                    explain on the basis that Mark was the source for the other two synoptics"
                    blurs the fact that the number is higher than 6% if you compare Matthew and
                    Luke individually with Mark and a somewhat problematic number to use if you
                    look at them together and wish to maintain their independence of each other
                    as well.

                    Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                    Colby College
                    Waterville, ME



                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Ron Price
                    ... Thomas, On my synoptic theory (the 3ST), Mark decided not to include the complete Lord s Prayer from the early sayings source ( sQ ) because he realized
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 14, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thomas Longstaff wrote:

                      > ..... I am not sure why you suggest
                      >only this reason, shortage of space, as a possible explanation for Mark's
                      >omission. Do you have some reason for highlighting that possible reason
                      >among the many that might be suggested?

                      Thomas,

                      On my synoptic theory (the 3ST), Mark decided not to include the
                      complete Lord's Prayer from the early sayings source ('sQ') because he
                      realized the clause "May your kingdom come" had political overtones, and
                      he was anxious to present a gospel which would not unduly offend the
                      Roman authorities.
                      The most obvious alternative reason to my mind is shortage of space,
                      so I disposed of that argument. Now I await your explanation, for in
                      spite of your lengthy reply, you didn't suggest a reason why Mark
                      declined to incorporate the Lord's Prayer in particular.

                      >I think that the suggestion that Mark wrote to supplement the other Gospels
                      >does, in fact, "hold water," despite the evidence that you offer to the
                      >contrary. If one understands the concept of "supplementing," as I would, to
                      >include setting the materials in a different context for a different
                      >audience .....

                      It's clear that my disagreement with you and Leonard on the matter of
                      "supplementing" is merely a matter of semantics. I take the word in its
                      most obvious sense of adding material. You both take it in a broader
                      sense of adjusting the message to a different audience. I simply think
                      you're using the wrong word here.

                      > ..... In
                      >Matthew a person comes to Jesus with a question about the Torah, "Teacher,
                      >what good must I do to inherit eternal life?"

                      The problem I see with Matthew's version is that "There is only one
                      who is good." appears to be at best irrelevant and at worst pedantic. It
                      doesn't help the questioner.

                      > ..... In Mark it is not clear, as it
                      >is in Matthew, that the questioner has asked about Torah.

                      I don't see that's the case in Mark's story. The man asked an innocent
                      and open question. The fact that Jesus is presented as immediately
                      turning to the Torah should be no surprise, for this was meant to be a
                      Jewish scene.

                      To return to the subject of the title, I think my synoptic theory fits
                      better here for several reasons:
                      (1) the Lord's Prayer was put in written form in sQ ca. 45 CE (and given
                      a prominent position as the opening saying in the third section - see my
                      Web site).
                      (2) I'm not under any constraint to think that Matthew's version was
                      earlier than Luke's, nor do I have to invoke oral tradition.
                      (3) Mark 11:25 and 14:38 incorporate Markan adaptations of parts of the
                      prayer. This explains the doublet Mt 6:12 (taken from sQ) and 6:14
                      (taken from Mk 11:25, which in turn came from sQ).
                      (4) I have a clear reason why Mark declined to copy the prayer in full.

                      Ron Price

                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 6/14/2002 10:29:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I m willing to withdraw my use of the term supplementing . Are you willing to admit that
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jun 14, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 6/14/2002 10:29:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ron.price@... writes:




                          It's clear that my disagreement with you and Leonard on the matter of
                        "supplementing" is merely a matter of semantics. I take the word in its
                        most obvious sense of adding material. You both take it in a broader
                        sense of adjusting the message to a different audience. I simply think
                        you're using the wrong word here.



                        I'm willing to withdraw my use of the term "supplementing". Are you willing to admit that my arguments for a late Mark, at least in theory, are valid? That it in no way follows logically from the fact that Mark is materially shorter than Matthew and Luke that Mark is prior to those two Gospels? This is the question that is not "merely a matter of semantics".

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                        ... But if Mark wanted to be so careful not to offend Roman authorities, why omit this reference (which might have a firm place in tradition) and include such
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 14, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 06:36 PM 6/14/2002 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
                          >Thomas Longstaff wrote:
                          >
                          > > ..... I am not sure why you suggest
                          > >only this reason, shortage of space, as a possible explanation for Mark's
                          > >omission. Do you have some reason for highlighting that possible reason
                          > >among the many that might be suggested?
                          >
                          >Thomas,
                          >
                          > On my synoptic theory (the 3ST), Mark decided not to include the
                          >complete Lord's Prayer from the early sayings source ('sQ') because he
                          >realized the clause "May your kingdom come" had political overtones, and
                          >he was anxious to present a gospel which would not unduly offend the
                          >Roman authorities.

                          But if Mark wanted to be so careful not to offend Roman authorities, why
                          omit this reference (which might have a firm place in tradition) and
                          include such texts as Mark 9:1, 11:10, 14:25 and other references to the
                          kingdom, not to mention Mark 12:17 which might easily be read to mean
                          render to Caesar what is Caesar's (i.e., Rome) and to God what is God's
                          (i.e., Palestine)?

                          And I do understand that you were explaining your synoptic theory. I was
                          not, however, not limiting my comments to a discussion your synoptic theory
                          alone but was addressing your dismissal of other options as well. It seems
                          to me that there are other reasonable perspectives on the synoptic problem
                          than your theory.

                          > The most obvious alternative reason to my mind is shortage of space,
                          >so I disposed of that argument. Now I await your explanation, for in
                          >spite of your lengthy reply, you didn't suggest a reason why Mark
                          >declined to incorporate the Lord's Prayer in particular.

                          Actually, your decision to highlight this argument seemed to me something
                          of a smoke screen. You introduced what I would agree is a very weak
                          alternative to your view and then, as you say, "disposed of that argument,"
                          evidently thinking that this, somehow, strengthened your own. It was,
                          however, not an argument that I, or anyone else, had proposed. You then say
                          that I didn't suggest a reason why Mark declined to incorporate the Lord's
                          Prayer in particular. But in a sense I did. I suggested that if Mark were
                          late and believed that the earlier gospels would continue to exist and to
                          be available in the churches, then he was under no compulsion to include
                          everything - and need not have included the Lord's Prayer since it was
                          already available in the other gospels and, presumably, well known in the
                          community for which he wrote. His reason for omitting it is that it did not
                          have an important place in the narrative he was writing. If Mark is late
                          there is a lot that he omits and I think it incorrect to conclude that Mark
                          believed that material would be lost forever.

                          > >I think that the suggestion that Mark wrote to supplement the other Gospels
                          > >does, in fact, "hold water," despite the evidence that you offer to the
                          > >contrary. If one understands the concept of "supplementing," as I would, to
                          > >include setting the materials in a different context for a different
                          > >audience .....
                          >
                          > It's clear that my disagreement with you and Leonard on the matter of
                          >"supplementing" is merely a matter of semantics. I take the word in its
                          >most obvious sense of adding material. You both take it in a broader
                          >sense of adjusting the message to a different audience. I simply think
                          >you're using the wrong word here.

                          Thank you for that correction. Although the Oxford Dictionary of the
                          English Language seems to include the sense in which I used the term I am
                          happy to know when I am wrong, even though I still find it difficult to see
                          how my suggestion that Mark (or Luke) has ADDED a second motif, the
                          question of who is properly called good, falls outside the most obvious
                          sense of ADDING MATERIAL. Perhaps you are suggesting that we should use the
                          term "supplement" only for the 6% of words and phrases that you referred to
                          earlier. That's possible but then you and I do have a different
                          understanding of what the most obvious sense of the term is.

                          > > ..... In
                          > >Matthew a person comes to Jesus with a question about the Torah, "Teacher,
                          > >what good must I do to inherit eternal life?"
                          >
                          > The problem I see with Matthew's version is that "There is only one
                          >who is good." appears to be at best irrelevant and at worst pedantic. It
                          >doesn't help the questioner.

                          I have a problem here too. It seems to me that you can only translate
                          Matthew's EIS ESTIN O AGATHOS as "There is only one who is good," if you
                          allow your translation of Matthew to be influenced by your knowledge of
                          what Mark has written and the presumption that Matthew has copied Mark. A
                          more reasonable, and accurate, translation of Matthew's Greek here would be
                          the straightforward "The good is one," emphasizing the unity of the Torah
                          and stressing the word "one" by placing it first in the clause - note, too,
                          that AGATHOS is definite, and, it seems to me, used in the absolute rather
                          than the attributive sense. To then call this "at best irrelevant and at
                          worst pedantic" is to miss the point of Matthew's narrative and to malign
                          that author unfairly in defense of Markan priority. I suggest that
                          Matthew's answer does help the questioner. The dialogue reflects a
                          discussion of Torah observance such as we find frequently in Jewish
                          tradition. Now it may be that Mark, Luke (and many modern readers) did not
                          understand the nuances of the dialogue in a Jewish context but that lack of
                          understanding (and the accompanying mistranslation of Matthew that it
                          produces in some English versions of the Bible) does not make Matthew's
                          account irrelevant or pedantic as you assert. If Mark is the earliest
                          gospel, a possibility that I am willing to entertain, the imposition of
                          that source theory on a reading of Matthew here obscures the Matthean
                          version of the story. On either source theory Matthew's narrative seems to
                          me coherent, unified and understandable. I do not see Jesus' answer (in
                          Matthew) as either irrelevant or pedantic.

                          > > ..... In Mark it is not clear, as it
                          > >is in Matthew, that the questioner has asked about Torah.
                          >
                          > I don't see that's the case in Mark's story. The man asked an innocent
                          >and open question. The fact that Jesus is presented as immediately
                          >turning to the Torah should be no surprise, for this was meant to be a
                          >Jewish scene.

                          Again, your reading of the story is affected by the source theory that you
                          want to defend. You are quite right when you say that in Mark "the man
                          asked an innocent and open question." You are not quite right when you say
                          that Jesus immediately turns to the Torah. He doesn't. He immediately
                          informs the questioner, who has called him "Good Teacher," that no one
                          except God can be called "good." Then, and only then, does he turn to the
                          Torah. I repeat. There are two motifs in the Markan story, only one in
                          Matthew - unless you are suggesting that the principle "no one except God
                          can be called good" is found in the Torah.

                          > To return to the subject of the title, I think my synoptic theory fits
                          >better here for several reasons:
                          >(1) the Lord's Prayer was put in written form in sQ ca. 45 CE (and given
                          >a prominent position as the opening saying in the third section - see my
                          >Web site).
                          >(2) I'm not under any constraint to think that Matthew's version was
                          >earlier than Luke's, nor do I have to invoke oral tradition.
                          >(3) Mark 11:25 and 14:38 incorporate Markan adaptations of parts of the
                          >prayer. This explains the doublet Mt 6:12 (taken from sQ) and 6:14
                          >(taken from Mk 11:25, which in turn came from sQ).
                          >(4) I have a clear reason why Mark declined to copy the prayer in full.

                          We can agree that you think that your synoptic theory is better.

                          I think that your theory does have some real strengths here but that you
                          draw conclusions about the synoptic problem that go far beyond the
                          evidence. Further, it seems to me that you do not deal very well with
                          objections or alternatives to the view that you assert. In defending the
                          theory you make very questionable use of the "statistical evidence" and
                          seem to me in some cases to misrepresent the evidence by imposing your
                          theory upon it. I have given two examples of that above, namely your use of
                          a mistranslation of Matthew and the assertion that Mark immediately turns
                          to the Torah.

                          Finally, if I agree with you that Mark wants to be very careful not to
                          offend Roman authorities (and I'm not sure that I do) that would better fit
                          a context during Domitian's reign than any earlier period.



                          Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                          Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
                          Director, Jewish Studies
                          Colby College
                          4643 Mayflower Hill
                          Waterville, ME 04901
                          Telephone: (207) 872-3150
                          FAX: (207) 872-3802
                          Email: tlongst@...


                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Thomas, Mark put the saying of 9:1 in a context which suggested that the Transfiguration fulfilled the prophecy about the kingdom of God coming with
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 15, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I wrote:

                            >>the clause "May your kingdom come" had political overtones, and
                            >>he [Mark] was anxious to present a gospel which would not unduly offend
                            >>the Roman authorities.

                            Thomas Longstaff replied:

                            >But if Mark wanted to be so careful not to offend Roman authorities, why
                            >omit this reference (which might have a firm place in tradition) and
                            >include such texts as Mark 9:1, 11:10, 14:25 and other references to the
                            >kingdom,

                            Thomas,

                            Mark put the saying of 9:1 in a context which suggested that the
                            'Transfiguration' fulfilled the prophecy about the kingdom of God coming
                            with power. In other words he here found a way of keeping a kingdom-come
                            saying whilst rendering it innocuous.
                            A clarification of "he who comes" in 11:9 is essential to point out
                            the significance of the story about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a
                            donkey, so presumably Mark felt obliged to attempt it. Curiously the
                            "kingdom .... that is coming" in 11:10 looks like a watered down version
                            of an original "king who is coming", which would have been even more
                            likely to offend the Roman authorities. Thus Luke's "king" was probably
                            more accurate, though he immediately countered any military overtones by
                            adding: "Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven."


                            > not to mention Mark 12:17 .....

                            The crucial question here is whether the Palestinians should pay
                            taxes. The saying in v.17 is subtly ambiguous. But Mark's context
                            ("Whose likeness and inscription is this?" "Caesar's") makes it clear
                            that he thought the taxes should be paid.

                            So by omission, alteration, choosing suitable contexts, and also the
                            literary device of the 'Messianic secret' (8:29-30), Mark contrived to
                            play down the political side of the Messiah-king.

                            > ..... You ... say
                            >that I didn't suggest a reason why Mark declined to incorporate the Lord's
                            >Prayer in particular. But in a sense I did. I suggested that if Mark were
                            >late and believed that the earlier gospels would continue to exist and to
                            >be available in the churches, then he was under no compulsion to include
                            >everything .....

                            That's not a reason relating to the LP *in particular*.

                            > ..... - and need not have included the Lord's Prayer since it was
                            >already available in the other gospels

                            Ditto.

                            > and, presumably, well known in the
                            >community for which he wrote.

                            I doubt it. But as there's no evidence, I suppose we'll have to agree
                            to differ.

                            > A
                            >more reasonable, and accurate, translation of Matthew's Greek here [Mt 19:17]
                            >would be the straightforward "The good is one," ..... I suggest that
                            >Matthew's answer does help the questioner. The dialogue reflects a
                            >discussion of Torah observance .....

                            But does it help to answer the question? If so, I don't see how.

                            > I do not see Jesus' answer (in
                            >Matthew) as either irrelevant or pedantic.

                            Then perhaps you would explain the relevance of "The good is one"
                            (accepting your translation for the sake of argument) to the question
                            about eternal life.

                            >Finally, if I agree with you that Mark wants to be very careful not to
                            >offend Roman authorities (and I'm not sure that I do) that would better fit
                            >a context during Domitian's reign than any earlier period.

                            Not necessarily. If Mark was written ca. 70 CE in Rome, as I and many
                            others believe, then Nero's vicious persecution would still have been
                            quite fresh in the readers' minds. They couldn't be sure there wouldn't
                            be a recurrence. Vespasian had just taken over as emperor, so the
                            Christian citizens of Rome wouldn't have had much time to assess the
                            likely consequences of his rule.

                            Ron Price

                            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                            e-mail: ron.price@...

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                            At 08:56 PM 6/15/2002 +0100, Ron Price wrote (in part): Because this discussion will soon become tedious to other subscribers on the list I think that this
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jun 15, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 08:56 PM 6/15/2002 +0100, Ron Price wrote (in part):

                              Because this discussion will soon become tedious to other subscribers on
                              the list I think that this will be my last comment on the matter. I will
                              try to restrain myself. As I said in a previous message, Ron makes some
                              very good points and his theory has some real strengths. On the other hand,
                              he seems unwilling to entertain the idea that any other point of view could
                              have merit or that his view could, in any regard, be challenged. He does
                              not respond to those points where his views are most vulnerable - to choose
                              one example he does not respond at all (nor even acknowledge), that at one
                              point he rested his argument on an inaccurate and biased translation of
                              Matthew, expressing the very bias that he was attempting to defend by using
                              that translation. Furthermore, he makes assertions without taking any
                              account of the extensive discussion in which alternate points of view have
                              been carefully developed. With respect to the question of paying taxes to
                              Caesar, whether one accepts the point of view or not, one should at least
                              consider that this might represent a statement of zealot idealism.
                              Similarly with respect to the persecution of Nero. Is there good evidence
                              to suggest that this was a continuing persecution rather than short-lived
                              one or that it extended significantly beyond Rome and its environs? I don't
                              think so. Now let me address myself to Ron.

                              > > ..... You ... say
                              > >that I didn't suggest a reason why Mark declined to incorporate the Lord's
                              > >Prayer in particular. But in a sense I did. I suggested that if Mark were
                              > >late and believed that the earlier gospels would continue to exist and to
                              > >be available in the churches, then he was under no compulsion to include
                              > >everything .....
                              >
                              > That's not a reason relating to the LP *in particular*.

                              Not is the reason *in particular* that you demand required unless one is
                              willing grant that the alternatives I have suggested are all impossible or
                              improbable ones which should be summarily dismissed.

                              > > ..... - and need not have included the Lord's Prayer since it was
                              > >already available in the other gospels
                              >
                              > Ditto.

                              This is a good example of what I mean when I suggest that you are unwilling
                              even to consider the merits of any view other than your own.

                              > > A
                              > >more reasonable, and accurate, translation of Matthew's Greek here [Mt
                              > 19:17]
                              > >would be the straightforward "The good is one," ..... I suggest that
                              > >Matthew's answer does help the questioner. The dialogue reflects a
                              > >discussion of Torah observance .....
                              >
                              > But does it help to answer the question? If so, I don't see how.

                              If you ask the same question, you should anticipate the same answer.

                              As I said above, yes it does help to answer the question. Further, I
                              suggested that the dialogue in Matthew reflects a discussion of Torah
                              observance. Your simple statement that you don't see how is not a very
                              strong argument to the contrary nor does it serve to support your view that
                              Jesus' response is irrelevant or pedantic.

                              > > I do not see Jesus' answer (in
                              > >Matthew) as either irrelevant or pedantic.
                              >
                              > Then perhaps you would explain the relevance of "The good is one"
                              >(accepting your translation for the sake of argument) to the question
                              >about eternal life.

                              Yes, I'll try, but first, please don't accept my translation "for the sake
                              of argument." I have suggested that the translation that you used in your
                              argument was, in fact, a mistranslation revealing a bias in favor of the
                              very view that you were defending by using it. At best your comments were
                              circular. If you think that the translation that you offered is not
                              affected by a presumption of Markan priority and that it better represents
                              Matthew's EIS ESTIN O AGATHOS, then make your case for that translation.
                              Show me what, in the Greek, supports the inclusion of "only," and what
                              justifies the translation of O AGATHOS as an adjective used in the
                              attributive sense and not in the absolute sense. Don't accept my
                              translation "for the sake of argument." Support the argument that you have
                              made for the conclusion that in Matthew Jesus' response is irrelevant or
                              pedantic. I will, in fact, try to make my case that it is not. I hope that
                              you will do the same for your view.

                              So, turning to your question about the relevance of the answer "The good is
                              one" to the question about eternal life, I hope that we can agree that
                              Matthew makes frequent references or allusions to the Hebrew Bible (Old
                              Testament). May I assume that you are familiar with Proverbs 4 and the idea
                              in Proverbs 4:4 that those who keep the commandments will live (one might
                              say have eternal life)? Indeed, Jesus' answer to the question about eternal
                              life is the same answer that we find in Proverbs 4. Keep the commandments.
                              (As an aside, note that the context in Proverbs sets this in the context of
                              teaching and Jesus is addressed by the questioner as "Teacher" - not as
                              "Good Teacher."). It has been argued that the structure of Matthew 19:16
                              ff. is influenced by the structure of Proverbs 4 and I think that the case
                              for this is very strong. You might disagree but you should, at least,
                              consider the arguments to the contrary.

                              Another relevant text here is Pirke Aboth 6:3 (are you familiar with Pirke
                              Aboth?). In Pirke Aboth 6:3, there are significant references to Proverbs.
                              Here we find that one who learns even a single chapter, or a single
                              Halakah, or a single verse, or a single expression or even a single letter
                              gains honor. And what is honor? It is Torah, for it is written that the
                              wise shall inherit honor and the perfect shall inherit good. Simple
                              syllogisms show that honor equals good and good equals Torah (and the Pirke
                              Aboth in fact explicitly concludes that "the good is naught else than the
                              Law," referring to Proverbs 4:2). Therefore honor equals Torah and the
                              Torah can be (and is) referred to as "the good" [Note Danby's comments
                              about these syllogisms in his translation of the Mishnah].

                              So, if the Torah can be referred to as "the good" then the questioner in
                              Matthew comes with a question about Torah. "What good (what Torah, what
                              commandment) must I do to have eternal life?" The question is not unlike
                              one that we find in rabbinic dialogues and elsewhere in the gospels. What
                              is the greatest commandment? By keeping which commandment do I become Torah
                              observant and, therefore, have eternal life? The questioner asks about
                              Torah, "What good must I do....?" Jesus responds with a statement about
                              Torah, stressing its unity (and, perhaps, the centrality of the decalogue),
                              "The good is one." The questioner asks about the Torah. Jesus responds by
                              talking about the Torah. Both question and response use "good" in the same
                              way, to refer to Torah. In my view the answer is neither irrelevant nor
                              pedantic. Indeed the question and answer open a dialogue about Torah
                              observance which concludes with a Christian statement about what more is
                              required for faithful discipleship. As I have said, it seems to me that
                              Matthew's narrative is both unified and coherent.

                              The questioner asks about the good (Torah). Jesus responds by talking about
                              the good (Torah). I am not sure how that answer is irrelevant or pedantic
                              and the ball is now in your court to support your conclusion that it is.

                              If you would bear with me for a moment and consider that it might be
                              possible that Matthew is the earliest gospel (and I know that your synoptic
                              theory rejects this point of view; I have visited your web site), then a
                              unified dialogue about the Torah and eternal life in Matthew is broken up
                              in Mark and Luke. It may be that the later authors (on this scenario) did
                              not understand, as many have not, that the Torah could be referred to as
                              the "Good" nor the nuances of Jewish dialogues about Torah observance and
                              the way Matthew's account reflects the structure of Proverbs 4. And so a
                              new theme is introduced (I will avoid talking about this as something
                              added, i.e., a supplement). The referent of the term "good" is different.
                              Jesus is called "Good Teacher" and the Christological motif (important to
                              Mark and perhaps well understood in the Gentile communities for which Mark
                              and Luke wrote) is combined with a question about Torah observance and the
                              close structural connection to Proverbs is lost. In these gospels we have
                              two issues, albeit combined, rather than one, despite your assertion that
                              Mark immediately turns from the "open and honest question" about eternal
                              life to comments about Torah (another critique of the way you argue your
                              case to which you do not respond).

                              On the Two Document (or Three Document) Hypothesis you must admit that it
                              is a happy coincidence that Matthew found in Mark just the right term,
                              "good," to refer to Torah and just the right words (with few changes) to
                              compose a dialogue intimately related in its structure to Proverbs 4 and to
                              other rabbinic discussions about Torah observance as we find them in Pirke
                              Aboth and elsewhere. Do I think it impossible that Matthew did this? No. As
                              I have said before, I think that there are strengths, and weaknesses, in
                              each of the proposed solutions to the synoptic problem. In this case I
                              think that the evidence weighs more heavily in favor of Matthean priority.
                              I think that you have made some good points about the Lord's Prayer. Do I
                              think that your analysis constitutes convincing evidence that his gospel
                              was written first? I confess that I do not nor do I think that you have
                              made that case very well.

                              Tom Longstaff



                              Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                              Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
                              Director, Jewish Studies
                              Colby College
                              4643 Mayflower Hill
                              Waterville, ME 04901
                              Telephone: (207) 872-3150
                              FAX: (207) 872-3802
                              Email: tlongst@...


                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 6/15/2002 5:13:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Tom, for obvious reasons I would like to accept the validity of your interpretation here,
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jun 16, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 6/15/2002 5:13:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tlongst@... writes:


                                The questioner asks about
                                Torah, "What good must I do....?" Jesus responds with a statement about
                                Torah, stressing its unity (and, perhaps, the centrality of the decalogue),
                                "The good is one." The questioner asks about the Torah. Jesus responds by
                                talking about the Torah. Both question and response use "good" in the same
                                way, to refer to Torah.


                                Tom, for obvious reasons I would like to accept the validity of your interpretation here, but I have a few problems with it which perhaps I could get you to expand on for the list. My main problem is with the gender of ho agathos in Matt 19:17b. Why is it masculine and not neuter if it is a reference to the Law? If "the good"in this phrase were a reference to the Law, I would expect to read "hen estin to agathon". I agree with you (or at least with what I think you said in a previous post) that ho agathos should be read as subject and heis as predicate of the phrase, but the gender of both does not seem to me to support your reading. You also do not seem to incorporate 19:17a very well into your overall interpretation of the text: "why do you ask ME...?". And in this phrase, the gender of "the good" is ambiguous, because it is in the genitive case and could be either neuter or masculine (whatever one might make of this). It does seem to me that even reading Matthew as not dependent here on Mark, Matthew intends to have Jesus change the topic somewhat in his initial response to the questioner, raising it to another level perhaps, as he very often does in Matthew. But perhaps there is something I am not getting here. Also, even in the initial question, it seems to me exaggerated to take "to agathon" as simply a reference to the Law. It might be language deliberately used because of its connection to traditional Jewish discussions regarding the Law as the good, but an initial simple reading of the text must understand agathon here not as a substantive (and therefore a simple reference to the Law) but rather as an adjective modifying the interrogative particle ti, meaning "what thing". So as I read the text neither the questioner nor Jesus in his response really use the term "good" as a direct reference to the Law. Am I wrong here?

                                Leonard Maluf
                              • Ron Price
                                ... Tom, I was trying to find out why you are so keen on your translation of hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS (Mt 19:17) before deciding whether to challenge it. All I had
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jun 16, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thomas Longstaff wrote:

                                  > ..... he does not respond at all (nor even acknowledge), that at one
                                  >point he rested his argument on an inaccurate and biased translation of
                                  >Matthew, expressing the very bias that he was attempting to defend by using
                                  >that translation.

                                  Tom,

                                  I was trying to find out why you are so keen on your translation of
                                  hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS (Mt 19:17) before deciding whether to challenge it.
                                  All I had done was to go to the nearest translation at hand at the time,
                                  which happened to be the NRSV. I've since checked all the other English
                                  translations on my bookshelf, including the RC "Jerusalem Bible", and
                                  they all say something similar to the NRSV. You would appear to be way
                                  out on a limb here, though I accept that doesn't *in itself* prove
                                  you're wrong.

                                  > ..... With respect to the question of paying taxes to
                                  >Caesar, whether one accepts the point of view or not, one should at least
                                  >consider that this might represent a statement of zealot idealism.

                                  Far from not considering it, I actually agree here, though only in
                                  regard to the core saying in Mk 12:17 when it was (supposing it once
                                  was) an isolated saying. I've already explained why I think the Markan
                                  setting of the saying transforms it into advice that the taxes should be
                                  paid.

                                  >>> I suggested that if Mark were
                                  >>> late and believed that the earlier gospels would continue to exist and to
                                  >>> be available in the churches, then he was under no compulsion to include
                                  >>> everything .....

                                  >> That's not a reason relating to the LP *in particular*.

                                  >>> ..... - and need not have included the Lord's Prayer since it was
                                  >> >already available in the other gospels

                                  >> Ditto.

                                  >This is a good example of what I mean when I suggest that you are unwilling
                                  >even to consider the merits of any view other than your own.

                                  I don't consider a general reason, which works for any pericope, to be
                                  as good an explanation as a reason directed at the particular pericope
                                  in question, i.e. the LP.

                                  > ..... [ much snipped ] .....
                                  >So, if the Torah can be referred to as "the good" then the questioner in
                                  >Matthew comes with a question about Torah. "What good (what Torah, what
                                  >commandment) must I do to have eternal life?"
                                  > ..... Jesus responds with a statement about
                                  >Torah, stressing its unity (and, perhaps, the centrality of the decalogue),
                                  >"The good is one." The questioner asks about the Torah. Jesus responds by
                                  >talking about the Torah. Both question and response use "good" in the same
                                  >way, to refer to Torah. In my view the answer is neither irrelevant nor
                                  >pedantic.

                                  Thanks for explaining your viewpoint in such detail.
                                  Firstly, I admit that I'm not familiar with Pirke Aboth, nor any
                                  Rabbinic writings (assuming that's what it is). Looking at the crucial
                                  text hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS, I see that its normal translation involves a
                                  subtlety which my level of Greek is not up to assessing directly.
                                  However this does not disqualify me from making the following
                                  observations.
                                  (a) I'm wary of a position which apparently accuses the translators of
                                  both the standard English English NTs (NEB, REB) and the standard
                                  American English NTs (RSV, NRSV) of bias.
                                  (b) The idea that Mt 19:16 ff. is influenced by the structure of Prov 4
                                  seems inherently unlikely, if only because (according to the UBS3 index)
                                  Proverbs is never quoted in the gospels.
                                  (c) I still don't see why stressing the unity of the Torah has any
                                  relevance to the question.
                                  (d) The whole point of the pericope in all the synoptics is Jesus'
                                  follow-up, which indicates that keeping the Torah is not enough. So why
                                  on earth would the Torah be described as "good" in this context? All
                                  three synoptics are running it down by saying, in effect, that it is not
                                  good enough.

                                  > ..... In these gospels we have
                                  >two issues, albeit combined, rather than one,

                                  It is true that Mark and Luke include an extra issue, namely whether
                                  Jesus should be called "good". But as their conclusion is that he
                                  shouldn't, it's more likely the issue was removed by Matthew in order to
                                  enhance the image of Jesus. For if it had been added by Mark or Luke it
                                  would have tended to tarnish the image of Jesus. The general trend over
                                  time was to enhance his image.

                                  > despite your assertion that
                                  >Mark immediately turns from the "open and honest question" about eternal
                                  >life to comments about Torah (another critique of the way you argue your
                                  >case to which you do not respond).

                                  O.K., so I should have written "almost immediately" for v.18
                                  intervenes between vv. Mk 10:17 and Mk 10:19.

                                  >On the Two Document (or Three Document) Hypothesis you must admit that it
                                  >is a happy coincidence that Matthew found in Mark just the right term,
                                  >"good," to refer to Torah

                                  If "good" in Matthew *did* refer to the Torah, then yes.
                                  But there's yet another problem here. For if many of today's the best
                                  educated scholars don't see this reference, I doubt whether Matthew
                                  could have expected his audience to understand it.

                                  > and just the right words (with few changes)

                                  But here you let your enthusiasm run away with itself. They clearly
                                  weren't "just the right words" if any changes were needed.

                                  > ..... In this case I
                                  >think that the evidence weighs more heavily in favor of Matthean priority.

                                  Our assessment of the evidence is radically different.

                                  >I think that you have made some good points about the Lord's Prayer.

                                  Thanks.

                                  > Do I think that your analysis constitutes convincing evidence
                                  > that his gospel was written first? I confess that I do not ...

                                  Ah well, it was worth a try. ;-)


                                  Ron Price

                                  Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                  e-mail: ron.price@...

                                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Stephen C. Carlson
                                  ... The Greek of Matthew 19:17 hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS is notoriously obscure. Literally, it means the good is one or possibly there is one who/that is good,
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jun 16, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 06:02 PM 6/16/02 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
                                    > Thanks for explaining your viewpoint in such detail.
                                    > Firstly, I admit that I'm not familiar with Pirke Aboth, nor any
                                    >Rabbinic writings (assuming that's what it is). Looking at the crucial
                                    >text hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS, I see that its normal translation involves a
                                    >subtlety which my level of Greek is not up to assessing directly.
                                    > However this does not disqualify me from making the following
                                    >observations.
                                    >(a) I'm wary of a position which apparently accuses the translators of
                                    >both the standard English English NTs (NEB, REB) and the standard
                                    >American English NTs (RSV, NRSV) of bias.

                                    The Greek of Matthew 19:17 hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS is notoriously
                                    obscure. Literally, it means "the good is one" or possibly
                                    "there is one who/that is good," but what that means in its
                                    context is not clear at all. Rather than presenting the
                                    readers with an obscure text, translators have had to impose
                                    some kind of interpretation, generally by referring to the
                                    clearer parallels in Mark and Luke. In fact, this behavior
                                    is not limited to English-language translators, for the Byzantine
                                    scribes have replaced hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS with OUDEIS AGAQOS
                                    EI ME hEIS, ho QEOS ("No one is good but one, God.").

                                    The interpretive nature of the rendering is openly acknowledged
                                    in the NASB ("New American Standard Bible") text, which employs
                                    italics around the word "only": "There is /only/ One who is good."
                                    Translations such as the NRSV do not employ italics and do not
                                    generally footnote their interpretive decisions. (The AV does
                                    not use italics here because it follows the Byzantine text.)

                                    O. Lamar Cope and TRWL here have proposed a plausible meaning
                                    of the Greek and Matthew's pericope as a whole, but you can
                                    never see it in the usual translations. You have to go to Greek.

                                    Personally, I've been disappointed with the standard source
                                    critical treatments of this passage. They exaggerate the
                                    Christological problems in Mark's text, while ignoring the
                                    lack of clarity in Matthew's text. Peter Head's discussion
                                    on this passage in his book is a welcome but rare, balanced
                                    treatment.

                                    Stephen Carlson
                                    --
                                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                    Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    ... Two problems here, I think. One, on your thesis it would be difficult to explain then why Mark has Jesus not only use **any** BASILEIA TOU QEOU language,
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jun 18, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ron Price wrote:

                                      > Thomas Longstaff wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > ..... I am not sure why you suggest
                                      > >only this reason, shortage of space, as a possible explanation for Mark's
                                      > >omission. Do you have some reason for highlighting that possible reason
                                      > >among the many that might be suggested?
                                      >
                                      > Thomas,
                                      >
                                      > On my synoptic theory (the 3ST), Mark decided not to include the
                                      > complete Lord's Prayer from the early sayings source ('sQ') because he
                                      > realized the clause "May your kingdom come" had political overtones, and
                                      > he was anxious to present a gospel which would not unduly offend the
                                      > Roman authorities.

                                      Two problems here, I think.

                                      One, on your thesis it would be difficult to explain then why Mark has Jesus not
                                      only use **any** BASILEIA TOU QEOU language, but begin his ministry with the
                                      programmatic announcement HGGIKEN hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU.

                                      Two, it would also be difficult to explain why Mark chooses to summarize what
                                      Jesus preaches as the EUAGGELION TOU QEOU since EUAGGELION is a term with roots
                                      in the propaganda of the Imperial Cult, and the addition of the phrase TOU QEOU
                                      makes Jesus' message a **direct competitor** to the EUAGGELION of Caesar. (on
                                      this, see Craig A. Evans "MARK’S INCIPIT AND THE PRIENE CALENDAR INSCRIPTION:
                                      FROM JEWISH GOSPEL TO GRECO-ROMAN GOSPEL" at http://www.jgrchj.com/page67)

                                      Then there is the problem that you have assumed what needs to be proven, namely,
                                      that the Kingdom petition in the LP is a call for God to bring in his BASILEIA
                                      in the near future and therefore has political overtones. I have argued in my
                                      recent BTB article on problems with seeing the LP as an eschatological prayer
                                      that this is simply **not** the focus of this petition. Rather, the aim of the
                                      petition is to secure divine aid against apostasy.

                                      I hope you'll forgive me for taking the liberty of quoting myself on this
                                      matter:

                                      *********
                                      Surely, the eschatologists argue, [the Kingdom] petition stands as conclusive
                                      proof that for Matthew and Luke the LP is an eschatological prayer. For is it
                                      not self evident, they ask, given (a) the import of the language of Matt.
                                      6:10a//Lk. 11:2c, and (b) the formal parallelism of the Kingdom petition with
                                      those in the Amidah and the Kaddish which speak of the hastening of God's
                                      kingdom and which (it is claimed) have eschatological intent, that what we have
                                      here is a plea for God to act now to do something he was expected to do only in
                                      the future, namely, establish decisively his sovereignty on earth?
                                      Well, no, it is not self evident, and for two reasons. First, to say that
                                      the petition is a plea for God soon to usher in his BASILEIA (reign/rule)
                                      implies that, at the time the prayer was given, Jesus believed that God not only
                                      had not yet done so, but, more importantly had no intention of doing so, at
                                      least in the foreseeable future (on this, see A. Polag, 60; Beasely Murray,
                                      150). And yet nothing is more certain in the portrait of Jesus that both Matthew
                                      and Luke paint than that Jesus knew God's kingdom to be a powerfully present
                                      reality. Indeed, in the contexts in GMatt and GLuke in which the giving of the
                                      LP takes place, the prevailing assumption about God's BASILEIA is that it and
                                      the opportunity it offers for the salvation of God's people has already arrived
                                      (cf. Matt. 4:16; Lk. 4:16-21; 19:44). In the light of this, it seems unlikely
                                      that the petition in Matt. 6:10a//Lk. 11:2c is a plea for God to act now to do
                                      something he was expected to do only in the (distant?) future. Why urge anyone
                                      to pray for the accomplishment of a fait accompli?
                                      Second, there is the observation that insofar as the wording of petitions in
                                      Jewish prayers wherein God is clearly urged to bring about the early dawning of
                                      his Kingdom stands as any kind of evidence for what prayers with this intent
                                      should look like or be worded, then taking Matt. 6:10a//Lk. 11:2c as having the
                                      intent that "eschatologists" say it has is ruled out. As these Jewish prayers
                                      evince, the standard practice when invoking God to hasten the arrival of his
                                      kingly rule was to use the expression "cause to reign" or a form of the verb "to
                                      reveal", not "to come". Thus if what Jesus actually intended his disciples to
                                      pray in the Kingdom petition for was God's speeding up the timetable for the
                                      arrival of the BASILEIA TOU THEOU (reign/rule of God), he should have urged them
                                      to say not ELTHETW hH BASILEIA SOU (Let your reign/rule come) but something more
                                      along the lines of APOKALUPSATW (be revealed) or (EM)FANEROUTW hH BASILIEA SOU
                                      (let your reign be manifested). And when we add to this observation the fact
                                      (acknowledged even by such staunch advocates of the eschatological
                                      interpretation of the LP as Meier [298], and Davies and Allison, [1:604]; see
                                      also Chilton, 37) that "kingdom" or the expression "God's Kingdom" cannot be
                                      found anywhere in the entire corpus of the literature of formative Judaism (let
                                      alone that of Jewish petitionary prayers, or for that matter that of the NT) as
                                      the subject of the verb "to come", we have good reason to doubt that the
                                      expression ELTHETW hE BASILEIA SOU means what the proponents of the
                                      eschatological interpretation of the LP claim is does.
                                      In fact what it seems to mean is "may we be made worthy of your reign by
                                      being conformed not to our own will but to yours". Three things indicate this.
                                      First, as we have seen, the petition is set by both Matthew and Luke within the
                                      context of Jesus' larger proclamation not only that the Kingdom has arrived but
                                      that both those who seek the Kingdom and those who think they have it as their
                                      heritage must turn and conform themselves to its demands if it is ever to be
                                      theirs. With this as its immediate background, ELTHETW hE BASILEIA SOU echoes
                                      the calls in Rabbinic literature (cf. Yoma 86b; Sanhedrin 97b) for Israel to
                                      seek God's aid to be conformed to charity, obedience, justice, and repentance in
                                      order to be rendered worthy of the deliverance that was faithful Israel's
                                      inheritance (so G.E. Moore, 2:350-352).
                                      Second, there is the implication of the fact, noted by George Caird, that
                                      in the formal and material parallel to the Kingdom petition (Matt. 6:10a//Lk.
                                      11:2c) found in Rev. 22:20c --namely, the petition ERCHOU, KURIE IESOU (Come,
                                      Lord Jesus!), which, like Matt. 6:10a//Lk. 11:2c, is (a) a prayer consisting of
                                      a form of ERXOMAI (to come) in the imperative + subject, and (b) also is uttered
                                      in the context of an announcement of the dawning of a divine visitation (cf.
                                      Rev. 22:20a,b "He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon."
                                      (compare Matt. 4:17; Lk. 4:16-21)--the function ERCHOMAI has there is to express
                                      the desire to be turned from disobedience and conformed to what is called upon
                                      to "come". As Caird notes, Rev. 22:20c is "... a prayer that Christ will come
                                      again to win in his faithful servant the victory which is both Calvary and
                                      Armageddon. It is the prayer which says. 'All I ask is to know Christ and the
                                      power of his resurrection, to share his sufferings and conform to the pattern of
                                      his death, if only I may arrive at the resurrection of the dead’ (Phil. iii.
                                      10-11). It is a prayer that the Christian, confronted by the great ordeal, may
                                      'endure as one who sees the invisible' (Heb. xi. 27), and may hear above the
                                      harsh sentence of the Roman judge the triumph song of heaven" (288, italics
                                      mine). This being the case, then, mutatis mutandis, what the ELTHETW (let come)
                                      in the petition ELTHETW hE BASILEIA SOU does is to express the wish to be made
                                      worthy of God's Kingdom and to be protected from all that would prevent this
                                      end.
                                      And third, there is the implication of Matthew's expansion and explication
                                      of the petition ELTHETW hE BASILEIA SOU with the phrase "May your will be done,
                                      on earth as it is in heaven" (GENETHETW TO THELHMA SOU, hWS EN OURANW KAI EPI
                                      GES, Matt. 6:10b,c). If we assume, as I think we should (especially given how
                                      its conformity with the Matthean version of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane, where
                                      God's enabling of obedience in the face of a desire to be otherwise is exactly
                                      what is expressed, makes the ethical interpretation of Matt. 6:10b,c certain) ,
                                      that the concern of this explicatory phrase is God's enabling of the disciples'
                                      obedience in the face of a desire to be otherwise , we have early testimony that
                                      the objective of the petition which the phrase explicates (ELTHETW hE BASILEIA
                                      SOU) was known to be something other than having God decisively manifest himself
                                      ahead of the time he intended to so do. Quite the contrary, it is to have God
                                      insure that the will of his people is co-ordinate with and not antithetical to
                                      God's own purposes for them.
                                      In the light of all this, the eschatological interpretation of Matt.
                                      6:10a//Lk. 11:2c seems forced. Indeed, the evidence shows that rather than its
                                      being an imploration to God to make his kingdom arrive, ELTHETW hE BASILEIA SOU
                                      is actually a plea for divine aid for obedience and against engaging in apostasy
                                      as Jesus defines it.

                                      ****
                                      Given this, it then seems to me that if we grant for the sake of argument that
                                      Mark did indeed know the LP and chose to leave it out of his Gospel, it simply
                                      cannot be for the reasons you give.

                                      Yours,

                                      Jeffrey Gibson
                                      --
                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                      Floor 1
                                      Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                      e-mail jgibson000@...
                                      jgibson000@...



                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Ron Price
                                      ... Jeffrey, The concept of the kingdom of God , like the role of Messiah , was too well-established in the tradition to be removed altogether. ... I ve not
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jun 19, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I wrote:

                                        >> On my synoptic theory (the 3ST), Mark decided not to include the
                                        >> complete Lord's Prayer from the early sayings source ('sQ') because he
                                        >> realized the clause "May your kingdom come" had political overtones, and
                                        >> he was anxious to present a gospel which would not unduly offend the
                                        >> Roman authorities.

                                        Jeffrey Gibson replied:

                                        >Two problems here, I think.
                                        >
                                        >One, on your thesis it would be difficult to explain then why Mark has
                                        >Jesus not
                                        >only use **any** BASILEIA TOU QEOU language, but begin his ministry with the
                                        >programmatic announcement HGGIKEN hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU.

                                        Jeffrey,

                                        The concept of the "kingdom of God", like the role of "Messiah", was
                                        too well-established in the tradition to be removed altogether.

                                        >Two, it would also be difficult to explain why Mark chooses to summarize what
                                        >Jesus preaches as the EUAGGELION TOU QEOU since EUAGGELION is a term with roots
                                        >in the propaganda of the Imperial Cult, and the addition of the phrase TOU QEOU
                                        >makes Jesus' message a **direct competitor** to the EUAGGELION of Caesar. (on
                                        >this, see Craig A. Evans "MARK’S INCIPIT AND THE PRIENE CALENDAR INSCRIPTION:
                                        >FROM JEWISH GOSPEL TO GRECO-ROMAN GOSPEL" at http://www.jgrchj.com/page67)

                                        I've not yet had time to study this article in detail, but certainly
                                        an initial look leaves me unconvinced that Mark had in mind any
                                        background other than the Tanak, and Isaiah in particular.

                                        >Then there is the problem that you have assumed what needs to be proven,
                                        >namely,
                                        >that the Kingdom petition in the LP is a call for God to bring in his BASILEIA
                                        >in the near future and therefore has political overtones.

                                        In a previous reply to you (dated Jun 13) I had already presented a
                                        case for seeing political overtones in the kingdom petition. You may not
                                        accept my case, but it is gratuitous to say that I "assumed what needs
                                        to be proven".

                                        >I hope you'll forgive me for taking the liberty of quoting myself on this
                                        >matter:

                                        Do proceed.

                                        >*********
                                        >Surely, the eschatologists argue, [the Kingdom] petition stands as conclusive
                                        >proof that for Matthew and Luke the LP is an eschatological prayer.

                                        Already you seem to be attacking a different target. Or are you, by
                                        quoting these words in the present context, assuming that if Matthew and
                                        Luke didn't take the petition as eschatalogical, then neither would
                                        Mark?

                                        > ..... And yet nothing is more certain in the portrait of Jesus that both
                                        >Matthew
                                        >and Luke paint than that Jesus knew God's kingdom to be a powerfully present
                                        >reality.

                                        This may be the dominant impression, but there remains a certain
                                        ambivalence. For both writers included the saying about the kingdom of
                                        God being "near" (Matthew twice, Luke three times), in addition to the
                                        kingdom petition itself.

                                        > ..... it seems unlikely
                                        >that the petition in Matt. 6:10a//Lk. 11:2c is a plea for God to act now to do
                                        >something he was expected to do only in the (distant?) future. Why urge anyone
                                        >to pray for the accomplishment of a fait accompli?

                                        It was presumably a matter of timing. In other words, a "soon" seems
                                        to be implied, as you appear to acknowledge in the quotation below.

                                        > Second, there is the observation that insofar as the wording of
                                        >petitions in
                                        >Jewish prayers wherein God is clearly urged to bring about the early dawning of
                                        >his Kingdom stands as any kind of evidence for what prayers with this intent
                                        >should look like or be worded .....
                                        > ..... Thus if what Jesus actually intended his disciples to
                                        >pray in the Kingdom petition for was God's speeding up the timetable for the
                                        >arrival of the BASILEIA TOU THEOU (reign/rule of God) .....
                                        > ..... "kingdom" or the expression "God's Kingdom" cannot be
                                        >found anywhere in the entire corpus of the literature of formative Judaism (let
                                        >alone that of Jewish petitionary prayers, or for that matter that of the NT) as
                                        >the subject of the verb "to come", we have good reason to doubt that the
                                        >expression ELTHETW hE BASILEIA SOU means what the proponents of the
                                        >eschatological interpretation of the LP claim is does.

                                        The argument here is that formative Judaism expressed its
                                        eschatalogical hope using certain phraseology. Jesus didn't use that
                                        phraseology. Therefore Jesus is unlikely to have been expressing an
                                        eschatalogical hope. But the Christian interest in Jesus is precisely
                                        because he *didn't* conform to all the norms of Judaism. He introduced
                                        both new ideas and new phraseology. We cannot therefore assume that in
                                        this particular case he would have been a conformer. In painting a
                                        picture of the "kingdom of God", Jesus was clearly using his paints in
                                        an original way to produce an original overall effect.

                                        > In fact what it seems to mean is "may we be made worthy of your reign by
                                        >being conformed not to our own will but to yours" .....
                                        > [much snipped]
                                        >****

                                        The synoptic context of the kingdom petition is being invoked here.
                                        But even if your interpretation of this context is correct, Mark may
                                        still have worried that his readers might interpret "May your kingdom
                                        come" in isolation and take it (as I think it was originally intended)
                                        as a plea for the early restoration of the Davidic kingdom.

                                        Ron Price

                                        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                        e-mail: ron.price@...

                                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                        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.