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

[Synoptic-L] Karel's suggestion

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/9/2003 8:25:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... I don t remember this at all (selective memory?), so I would be happy to see the statement
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/9/2003 8:25:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, k.hanhart@... writes:


      Concerning Fritsch's request. We could start with the summary on "The
      Synoptic Problem" by Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. It
      was reproduced in the Synoptic-L list on 9-11-98 21:35. 


      I don't remember this at all (selective memory?), so I would be happy to see the statement reposted. Either I was asleep at the wheel at the time, or I am presently entering advanced stages of senility. (Or perhaps both!)


      He offered a good and relatively lengthy statement in favor of Markan priority. I wonder if the directors of this list could reproduce it again. The next step could be
      that opponents would make clear, point by point, where amd why Daniel
      went wrong. It might be helpful to identify scholars who support
      one theory or another.


      It would certainly reanimate an almost defunct discussion, I would think.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA

    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I haven t checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel Wallace s article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site -- see
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9 Nov 2003 at 12:50, Maluflen@... wrote:

        > In a message dated 11/9/2003 8:25:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
        > k.hanhart@... writes:
        >
        > > Concerning Fritsch's request. We could start with the summary on
        > > "The Synoptic Problem" by Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological
        > > Seminary. It was reproduced in the Synoptic-L list on 9-11-98 21:35.
        >
        > I don't remember this at all (selective memory?), so I would be happy
        > to see the statement reposted. Either I was asleep at the wheel at the
        > time, or I am presently entering advanced stages of senility. (Or
        > perhaps both!)

        I haven't checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel
        Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site --
        see http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm . I'd not be
        averse to seeing discussion of his arguments, which are all taken
        from Robert Stein's recently re-issued _The Synoptic Problem: An
        Introduction_. There are one or two things since Stein that might be
        worth taking into consideration, though, like Peter Head's
        _Christology and the Synoptic Problem_ and, if I may be so bold, my
        _Case Against Q_, Chapter 2, cf. _The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through
        the Maze_, Chapter 3.

        Mark


        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
        Dept of Theology
        University of Birmingham
        Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
        Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
        http://NTGateway.com


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        ... I would prefer to start with one of these, but in manageable bite sizes. I just recall being singularly umimpressed with the arguments rehearsed by Robert
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/9/2003 2:48:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

          > There are one or two things since Stein that might be
          > worth taking into consideration, though, like Peter Head's
          > _Christology and the Synoptic Problem_ and, if I may be so bold, my
          > _Case Against Q_, Chapter 2, cf. _The Synoptic Problem: A
          > Way Through
          > the Maze_, Chapter 3.

          I would prefer to start with one of these, but in manageable bite sizes. I just recall being singularly umimpressed with the arguments rehearsed by Robert Stein when I looked at them a couple of years ago. Maybe you could post one or two paragraphs of your own or of Peter Head's arguments for discussion. Both you and he deserve credit for definitely acknowledging the need for new approaches and arguments to bolster the Markan priority hypothesis, given the demonstrated inadequacy of the standard ones.

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... OK. Let me get things rolling on this. I have an initial demurrer on Wallace/Stein s argument for Markan priority on methodological grounds: they only
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            At 07:48 PM 11/9/03 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >On 9 Nov 2003 at 12:50, Maluflen@... wrote:
            >> In a message dated 11/9/2003 8:25:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
            >> k.hanhart@... writes:
            >> > Concerning Fritsch's request. We could start with the summary on
            >> > "The Synoptic Problem" by Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological
            >> > Seminary. It was reproduced in the Synoptic-L list on 9-11-98 21:35.
            >> I don't remember this at all (selective memory?), so I would be happy
            >> to see the statement reposted. Either I was asleep at the wheel at the
            >> time, or I am presently entering advanced stages of senility. (Or
            >> perhaps both!)
            >
            >I haven't checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel
            >Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site --
            >see http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm . I'd not be
            >averse to seeing discussion of his arguments, which are all taken
            >from Robert Stein's recently re-issued _The Synoptic Problem: An
            >Introduction_.

            OK. Let me get things rolling on this. I have an initial demurrer
            on Wallace/Stein's argument for Markan priority on methodological
            grounds: they only consider direct dependence of one gospel on
            another and do not consider the possibility that Matthew and Mark
            are dependent on a common source. Thus, listing all the reasons
            why Mark cannot be dependent on the text of Matthew is not sufficient
            to distinguish between Matthew's dependence on Mark directly or
            dependence on Mark's source. Before pure Markan priority can be
            concluded, the arguments of Matthean priority have to be canvassed,
            weighed, and dismissed -- preferably on the standard for which the
            common source Q is upheld. (Supporters of Lukan priority, please
            substitute Luke for Matthew, mutatis mutandi.)

            At any rate, here's a passage from Wallace's article, followed by my
            comments starting with my initials (SCC).

            |(1) Mark’s Gospel is not really an abridgment: “whereas Mark is considerably
            |shorter in total length than Matthew and Luke, when we compare the
            |individual pericopes that they have in common, time and time again we find
            |that Mark is the longest!”14 In other words, Mark’s Gospel, where it has
            |parallels with Matthew and Luke, is not an abridgment, but an expansion. Not
            |only this, but the very material he omits would have served a good purpose
            |in his gospel. For example, Mark attempts to emphasize Jesus’ role as
            |teacher (cf. 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2; 8:31; 12:35, 38, etc.), yet he omits much of
            |what he actually taught. The best explanation of this would seem to be that
            |he was unacquainted with some of these sayings of Jesus, rather than that he
            |intentionally omitted so much—in particular, the Sermon on the Mount. “An
            |abridged work becomes shorter by both eliminating various materials and
            |abbreviating the accounts retained.”15 But the material which Mark
            |eliminates is quite inexplicable on the assumption of Markan posteriority;
            |and the accounts which he retains are almost always longer than either
            |Luke’s or Matthew’s.

            SCC: This is the first of Wallace's reasons, in two parts, that
            Mark is not an abridgement of either Matthew or Luke (the second,
            not quoted here, is specific to the Griesbach Hypothesis), as Mark
            would have to be under any theory that does not involve Mark priority.

            1. Wallace argues that an abridgement would not involve expansion of
            the text abridged while cutting out entire sections. This argument,
            as far I can tell, goes back to Streeter, FOUR GOSPELS (1924), who
            did not cite any authority for this premise--either to an example
            involving primary sources with known dependence or a study in the
            secondary literature that investigated this practice. On the other
            hand, Thomas Fischer, "Second Maccabees," THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY
            (Cryer trans.; 1992) 4:442 stated:

            |The somewhat verbose epitomizer (or abridger), who modestly remained
            |anonymous, abbreviated the five books of Jason . . . into a single book
            |. . . . This redactor organized and partly expanded the contents, as was
            |the current practice . . . . (Parentheticals omitted).

            Unfortunately, Fischer, who works with texts other than the synoptics, did
            not provide any cites either, but not unexpectedly in an encyclopedia entry.

            Therefore, my assessment of this argument is that it currently lacks a
            factual basis, so it cannot be used, no matter how self-evident it appears
            until studies are done (or cited) that look at the textual behavior of
            epitomizers.

            2. The other argument argument that Mark would not have omitted the
            contents of Jesus's teaching because he regularly emphasized Jesus's
            role as a teacher. As far as I can tell, Stein did not cite any
            predecessor for this argument (nor am I aware of any), nor did Stein
            list any of a suite of scholars (Jameson, Chapman, Butler, and Parker)
            who drew the opposite conclusion from the same data, namely that most
            of the explicit references to Jesus's role as teacher in Mark are in
            fact the redactional suture of Mark's abridging the teaching material.

            In fact, of the six Markan passages cited by Wallace above for showing
            a redactional interest in Jesus as a teacher, 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2; 8:31;
            12:35, 38, only one (6:2) retains the reference to "teaching" in Matthew
            (similar statistics for Luke). Thus, the argument is reversible: if
            Matthew liked Jesus's teaching so much, shown by inclusion of much
            teaching material, why did Matthew so often delete Mark's mentionings
            of teaching?

            In sum, (a) it is currently unclear what direction, if any, the synoptic
            phenomena appealed to for the first argument (Mark shorter in content,
            but longer in wording) indicates, but future studies may help us decide;
            and (b) the redactional interest in Mark of Jesus's role as a teacher
            is inconclusive, being consistent with both Markan priority and Markan
            posteriority.

            Mark Goodacre:
            > There are one or two things since Stein that might be
            >worth taking into consideration, though, like Peter Head's
            >_Christology and the Synoptic Problem_ and, if I may be so bold, my
            >_Case Against Q_, Chapter 2, cf. _The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through
            >the Maze_, Chapter 3.

            If you didn't suggest it, I would have.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
            "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@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/9/2003 4:10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... I would have little to add to your argument, Steven, as you well demonstrate that no great
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/9/2003 4:10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, scarlson@... writes:


              In sum, (a) it is currently unclear what direction, if any, the synoptic
              phenomena appealed to for the first argument (Mark shorter in content,
              but longer in wording) indicates, but future studies may help us decide;
              and (b) the redactional interest in Mark of Jesus's role as a teacher
              is inconclusive, being consistent with both Markan priority and Markan
              posteriority.


              I would have little to add to your argument, Steven, as you well demonstrate that no great gain for Markan priority results from this particular argument of Wallace. I do also think that some of the evidence he alludes to is even slightly more favorable to Markan posteriority, but for the moment, I would only draw attention to the logical chink in his reasoning: Wallace tries to make an argument against Mark as an abridger equivalent to an argument against Mark as dependent on Matthew or Luke. I think this is unfair. It saddles every defender of a late Mark with a remark made casually by Augustine seventeen hundred years ago -- Augustine, who was clearly commenting on the phenomena of Synoptic relationships at a macro level. There is nothing intrinsically contradictory about someone abridging a prior document in one respect, while at the same time treating other materials borrowed from the same document in an expansive manner. The phenomenon is not even seriously problematic at a psychological level. One need only hypothesize that Mark intended to create an action-packed Gospel drama, telling the story of Jesus moving rapidly from his baptism to his death in order to adequately account both for the omission of lengthy speeches found in Mark's sources and the dramatic expansion of narrative parts of the story in the same sources. Furthermore, as many have rightly argued, there is no reason whatever to believe that a late Mark's audience would have been unfamiliar with or without access to the sermons of Jesus already published in the other Gospels. They simply were not serviceable to Mark for the limited purposes of his own pragmatic communication, which there is no good reason to suppose was intended to suppress or simply replace other sources on the life of Jesus known to Mark's community.

              Leonard Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Weston, MA
            • Richard H. Anderson
              ... RHA Actually I think Augustine was the first to suggest that Mark was an abridger. According to Augustine, Mark combines the kingly office which Matthew
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                |(1) Mark’s Gospel is not really an abridgment.
                RHA
                Actually I think Augustine was the first to suggest that Mark was an
                abridger. According to Augustine, Mark combines the kingly office which
                Matthew emphasizes, and the sacerdotal which Luke introduces. For instance,
                Mark "combines" the genealogies of Matthew and Luke so that none appears in
                Mark. Actually Mark diplomatically decides not to choose between two
                conflicting genealogies. The LXX in Isa. 53:9a, 10-11b rewrites the outcome
                of the servant's suffering excising his sacrificial death and any notion of
                vicarious atonement. Paul trained in the Hebrew MT was certainly aware of
                the differences between the MT and LXX. One synoptic writer used the LXX and
                consistent therewith has no atonement theology. Luke has no equivalent of
                the ransom saying (Mk 10:45; Matt 20:28) nor of Matthew's connection of
                Jesus' covenant blood with the remission of sins (Mt 26:28). [I accept the
                conclusions of Bart Ehrman that verses {Lk 22:19b-20} were added by second
                century scribes.] The other two synoptic writers also used the LXX but
                influenced by Paul included atonement theology. Mark does recognize having
                traveled with Paul that the theology of Luke is pre-Pauline and very Jewish.
                He therefore includes the theology of the cross missing in Luke and adds the
                ransom saying in Mk 10:45 that appears in Matthew.
                This is the gospel message and appropriately there are 11 instances of
                EUAGGELION (4 in Matthew, 7 in Mark, 0 in Luke) in the synoptics. One
                problem for the priority of Matthew should be noted.
                Matthew includes ekkesia which appears to be anachronism while Mark, Luke
                and John do not. Finally as noted by John Lupia, Matthew, Mark and John
                mention Caesarea which is another anachronism avoided by Luke. Caesarea did
                not exist by this name during the lifetime of Jesus. Mark followed Matthew
                with respect to Caesarea. The only explanation I have for ekkesia that if
                Matthew predated Mark, Mark recognized ekkesia was an anachronism. The use
                of EUAGGELION, ekkesia and Caesarea is not an abridgement argument but it
                seemed appropriate to includes these comments in this first round until
                formating is resolved.

                (2) that Mark would not have omitted the contents of Jesus's teaching
                because he regularly emphasized Jesus's role as a teacher..
                RHA I agree with Stephen that "the redactional interest in Mark of Jesus's
                role as a teacher
                is inconclusive."

                I am going to follow the format introduced by Stephen and start a new thread
                with respect to another argument advanced by Wallace.

                Richard H. Anderson



                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Karel Hanhart
                Thank you Mark for hunting down the article. This is indeed the article I had in mind. A member of this list must have alerted our readers to this website on
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you Mark for hunting down the article. This is indeed the article I
                  had in mind. A member of this list must have alerted our readers to this
                  website on the date I indicated. And surely the data from your book.are
                  essential for an up to date discussion of Wallace's article on the Synoptic
                  Problem. There will be other recent studies, of course, such as Peter Head's
                  book. We should focus the discussion on the simple question of Markan
                  priority for or against, it seems to me.

                  cordially

                  Karel

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
                  To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                  Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:48 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Karel's suggestion


                  >
                  > I haven't checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel
                  > Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site --
                  > see http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm . I'd not be
                  > averse to seeing discussion of his arguments, which are all taken
                  > from Robert Stein's recently re-issued _The Synoptic Problem: An
                  > Introduction_. There are one or two things since Stein that might be
                  > worth taking into consideration, though, like Peter Head's
                  > _Christology and the Synoptic Problem_ and, if I may be so bold, my
                  > _Case Against Q_, Chapter 2, cf. _The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through
                  > the Maze_, Chapter 3.
                  >
                  > Mark
                  >
                  >
                  > -----------------------------
                  > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                  > Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
                  > Dept of Theology
                  > University of Birmingham
                  > Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
                  > Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376
                  >
                  > http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                  > http://NTGateway.com
                  >
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  >


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Karel Hanhart
                  ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:26 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] Markan
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 14, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                    To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                    Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:26 PM
                    Subject: [Synoptic-L] Markan Priority: Argument from Abridgement


                    Mark wrote:
                    >I haven't checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel
                    >Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site --
                    >see http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm . I'd not be
                    >averse to seeing discussion of his arguments, which are all taken
                    >from Robert Stein's recently re-issued _The Synoptic Problem: An
                    >Introduction_.

                    OK. Let me get things rolling on this. I have an initial demurrer
                    on Wallace/Stein's argument for Markan priority on methodological
                    grounds: they only consider direct dependence of one gospel on
                    another and do not consider the possibility that Matthew and Mark
                    are dependent on a common source.

                    My reply:
                    Yes, Stephen, that possibility should indeed be considered. It fits into
                    the thesis that deeply moved by the traumatic news that Jerusalem had fallen
                    and the temple now in ruins, Mark REVISED an earlier document re, Jesus'
                    life and passion with an eschatology about an imminent parousia expectation.
                    It seems logical that in the season of Pesach (Passover) and Shabuot
                    (Pentecost), Christians had also been mourning Jesus' death on Passover Day
                    and had celebrated the earthly signs of his resurrection in terms of the
                    calling and rapid missionary expansion of the Jesus' movement..The idea of a
                    a thorough revision of an earlier passover gospel has not been suggested
                    before, as far as I know. Wallace's opinion (cited below) should be
                    corrected: :

                    -"Second, G. E. Lessing (1776) and J. G. Eichhorn (1796) argued for an
                    Ur-Gospel, written in Aramaic, which ultimately stood behind the
                    synoptic gospels. The various synoptic writers then used different
                    revisions/ translations of this Ur-Gospel. The main problem with this
                    theory is that it looks no different than an Ur-Mark which, in turn, looks
                    no different than Mark. Thus, rather than postulating any kind of
                    Ur-Gospel, a simpler theory which accounted for the data just as well was
                    that Mark stood behind Luke and Matthew."

                    In my approach "Ur-Markus" (if we may call it that way) was not written in
                    Aramaic but in Greek (possibly by Mark himself). Redactional alterations or
                    additions to the text such as the notion of "the twelve and Iscariot" (cf
                    3,13-14ff; 4,10) were made in a Greek, not an Aramaic, text. This unknown
                    sub-document was already used in the pre-70 ecclesia('s) in the Jewish
                    quarter of Rome (and elsewhere) and was read alongside the customary
                    liturgical readings of Pesach and Shabuot in the synagogue. We know that
                    the Passover meal, commanded in Exodus 12, esp vs 21) was basic to any
                    Jewish gathering throughout the centuries. Although the Seder we know
                    reflects a post-70 development, we can be sure, that passages from Tenach
                    re. the patrriarchs, exodus and the exile etc. were read in the pre-70
                    synagogues and ecclesia's.
                    Logic demands that first century Christians would also have commerated
                    in their 'Seder' the death on Passover Day of Messiah Jesus. And they
                    celebrated his 'being awakened from the dead' and his sitting "at the right
                    hand". So Paul in his first Corinthian letter in the fifties was
                    instructing his readers on the basic traditions re. the meal ch 11,17ff,
                    the resurrection (ch 15) and the seven Sundays of Pentecost (ch 16,1). So
                    the context of that epistle was therefore the approaching
                    Passover-Pentecostal season.
                    However, the pre-70 sub-document (a Greek Ur Markus), used in Rome had to be
                    revised after 70 in order now to incorporate the new, unforeseen experience
                    of the brutal Judean war, the fall of Jerusalem and the end of temple
                    worship, After the rude shock of the cruel crucifixion and intermittent
                    persecutions of the Jerusalem community, a new disaster had struck which now
                    affected the entire nation. Christian Judeans could not help but relating
                    these calamties to the teaching and passion of their Master. Moreover, the
                    fervent dream of an imminent parousia of Jesus, so typical of the early
                    Christians, was also shattered. In Mark's REVISION he related the
                    crucifixion to the destruction of the temple, as many of the Fathers also
                    held, The contemporary post-holocaust task is, however, to be more precise.
                    Did the Christians condemn their people whbolesale or did they charge
                    certain high priests and other autrhorities with infidelity toward heaven?
                    It seems clear to me that Mark incorporated these new events into his
                    theology. His revision was so thorough that the passion narrative of the
                    older, pre-70 document would slowly on disappear to make room for the new
                    version with its plot of "handing over of the Son of Man" [the Human One].
                    Both Matthew and Luke, however, still had the older document at their
                    disposal and made use of it in their improvement, elaboration, clarification
                    and correction of Mark. Yet both adopted Mark's new version of the
                    passover-passion story including his new opened tomb story as basic for the
                    post-70 pashal liturgy and catechism of the ecclesia.

                    Stephen:
                    Thus, listing all the reasons why Mark cannot be dependent on the text of
                    Matthew is not sufficient to distinguish between Matthew's dependence on
                    Mark directly or dependence on Mark's source. Before pure Markan priority
                    can be concluded.......

                    Karel:
                    You are right that one should not accept a "pure Markan priority". There was
                    at elast one precedent (Greek Ur Markus), bnut it was not Matthew, I
                    believe. Post-70 Matthew incoreporated Mark's post-70 passion story
                    practically in toto , thus expressing agreement with the new interpretation
                    of the crucifixion of Israel's Messiah made in the context of the trauma of
                    70.
                    Mark's Gospel is much shorter, for it was specifically designed for the
                    Passover-Pentecostal season. The Passion narrative had to be changed in the
                    light of 70 and the notion of a 'Messianic Secret' expanded sothat Jesus
                    already "knew" what no one else could have foreseen, the destructrion of the
                    temple. The aims and purposes of Mathew and :Luke on the other hand were
                    broader. They could incorporate much older material on Jesus' ministry.

                    cordially yours,

                    Karel




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Karel Hanhart
                    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:26 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] Markan
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 15, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                      To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                      Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:26 PM
                      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Markan Priority: Argument from Abridgement


                      Stephen wrote:
                      >I haven't checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel
                      >Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site --
                      >see http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm . I'd not be
                      >averse to seeing discussion of his arguments, which are all taken
                      >from Robert Stein's recently re-issued _The Synoptic Problem: An
                      >Introduction_.

                      OK. Let me get things rolling on this. I have an initial demurrer
                      on Wallace/Stein's argument for Markan priority on methodological
                      grounds: they only consider direct dependence of one gospel on
                      another and do not consider the possibility that Matthew and Mark
                      are dependent on a common source.

                      My reply:
                      Yes, Stephen, that possibility should indeed be considered. It fits into my
                      thesis that because of the deeply traumatic news that Jerusalem had fallen
                      and the temple was in ruins, Mark REVISED an earlier document re, Jesus life
                      and passion with an eschatology about an imminent parousia expectation. It
                      seems logical that in the season of Pesach (Passover) and Shabuot
                      (Pentecost) Christians were using mourning Jesus' death on Passover Day and
                      celebrating the earthly signs of his resurrection in terms of the calling
                      and rapid missionary expansion of the Jesus movement..The idea of a is has
                      not been suggested before, as far as I know. Wallace wrote on this as
                      follows:

                      -"Second, G. E. Lessing (1776) and J. G. Eichhorn (1796) argued for an
                      Ur-Gospel, written in Aramaic, which ultimately -stood behind the
                      synoptic gospels. The various synoptic writers then used different
                      revisions/ translations of this Ur-Gospel. -The main problem with this
                      theory is that it looks no different than an Ur-Mark which, in turn, looks
                      no different than Mark. -Thus, rather than postulating any kind of
                      Ur-Gospel, a simpler theory which accounted for the data just as well was
                      that
                      -Mark stood behind Luke and Matthew."

                      In my approach "Ur-Markus" (if we may call it that way) was not written but
                      in Greek (possibly by Mark himself). Widely accepted redactional alterations
                      or additions to the text such as were made in a Greek not an Aramaic text.
                      This unknown sub-document was used in the pre-70 Rome ecclesia('s) - small
                      houses of prayer in the Jewish quarter of the city - and read alongside the
                      liturgical readings of Pesach and Shabuot. We know that the Passover meal,
                      commanded in Exodus 12, esp vs 21) was basic to any Jewish gathering
                      throughout the centuries. Although the Seder we know reflects a post-70
                      development, we can be sure, that passages from Tenach re. the patrriarchs,
                      exodus and the exile etc. were read in the pre-70 synagogues and ecclesia's.
                      Logic demands that first century Christians would have commerated the death
                      on Passover Day of Messiah Jesus. They celebrated his 'being awakened from
                      the dead' and his sitting "at the right hand". Thus the context of I
                      Corinthians is the Passover-Pentecostal season. Paul is instructing his
                      readers on the basic traditions re. the meal ch 11,17ff, the resurrection
                      (ch 15) and the seven Sundays of Pentecost (ch 16,1).
                      The pre-70 sub-document (a Greek Ur Markus) had to be revised in order now
                      to incorporate the unforeseen experience of the brutal Judean war, the fall
                      of Jerusalem and the end of temple worship, After the rude shock of the
                      cruel crucifixion and an intermittent persecution of the Jerusalem
                      community, a disaster had now struck the entire nation and christian Judeans
                      could not help but relating the calamties to the teaching and passion of
                      their Master. However, with the trauma the fervent dream of an imminent
                      parousia was also shattered. In his revision, relating the crucifixion to
                      the destruction of the temple, Mark incorporated these events into his
                      theology. The revision was so thorough that the passion narrative of the
                      older document would slowly on disappear to make room for the new version
                      with its plot of "handing over of the Son of Man [the Human One]. Both
                      Matthew and Luke, however, still had the older document at their disposal
                      and made use of it in their improvement, elaboration, clarification and
                      correction of Mark. Yet both adopted Mark's new version of the
                      passover-passion story including his new opened tomb story as basic for the
                      post-70 pashal liturgy and catechism of the ecclesia.

                      Stephen:
                      Thus, listing all the reasons why Mark cannot be dependent on the text of
                      Matthew is not sufficient to distinguish between Matthew's dependence on
                      Mark directly or dependence on Mark's source. Before pure Markan priority
                      can be concluded...

                      Karel:
                      You are right that one should not accept a "pure Markan priority". There was
                      at elast one precedent (Greek Ur Markus), bnut it was not Matthew, I
                      believe. Post-70 Matthew incoreporated Mark's post-70 passion story
                      practically in toto , thus expressing agreement with the new interpretation
                      of the crucifixion of Israel's Messiah made in the context of the trauma of
                      70.
                      Mark's Gospel is much shorter, for it was designed solely for the
                      Passover-Pentecostal season. The Passion narrative had to be changed in the
                      light of 70 and the notion of a 'Messianic Secret' expanded sothat Jesus
                      already "knew" what no one else could have foreseen, the destructrion of the
                      temple. The aims and purposes of Mathew and :Luke on the other hand were
                      broader. They could incorporate much older material on Jesus' ministry.

                      cordially yours,

                      Karel



                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      Dear listers, Unfortunately the wrong version of my reply to Stephen Carlson was sent on Nov. 15 due to failure. My apologies for this unfortunate incident
                      Message 10 of 10 , Nov 15, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear listers,

                        Unfortunately the wrong version of my reply to Stephen Carlson was sent on
                        Nov. 15 due to failure. My apologies for this unfortunate incident caused
                        by someone still struggling with the mysteries of the computer. Please,
                        disregard the Nov 15 mailing and accept the version sent on November 14th.
                        Thank you.

                        cordially,

                        Karel

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Karel Hanhart <k.hanhart@...>
                        To: Synoptic-L <Synoptic-L@...>; Stephen C. Carlson
                        <scarlson@...>
                        Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:40 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan Priority: Argument from Abridgement


                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                        > To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                        > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:26 PM
                        > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Markan Priority: Argument from Abridgement
                        >
                        >
                        > Stephen wrote:
                        > >I haven't checked but it sounds like this is reference to Daniel
                        > >Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem at the Net Bible site --
                        > >see http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm . I'd not be
                        > >averse to seeing discussion of his arguments, which are all taken
                        > >from Robert Stein's recently re-issued _The Synoptic Problem: An
                        > >Introduction_.
                        >
                        > OK. Let me get things rolling on this. I have an initial demurrer
                        > on Wallace/Stein's argument for Markan priority on methodological
                        > grounds: they only consider direct dependence of one gospel on
                        > another and do not consider the possibility that Matthew and Mark
                        > are dependent on a common source.
                        >
                        > My reply:
                        > Yes, Stephen, that possibility should indeed be considered. It fits into
                        my thesis that because of the deeply traumatic news that Jerusalem had
                        fallen and the temple was in ruins, Mark REVISED an earlier document re.
                        Jesus life and passion. In this earlier document an eschatology an imminent
                        parousia expectation was espoused. It seems logical that in the season of
                        Pesach (Passover) and Shabuot (Pentecost) Christians were using a
                        gospel-like document mourning Jesus' death on Passover Day while celebrating
                        his being exalted to the right hand of God. The idea of a radical revision
                        of a pre-70 'gospel' due to the disastrous reverse of fortune of the Judean
                        nation has not been suggested before, as far as I know. Wallace wrote on
                        this as
                        > follows:
                        >
                        > -"Second, G. E. Lessing (1776) and J. G. Eichhorn (1796) argued for an
                        > Ur-Gospel, written in Aramaic, which ultimately -stood behind the
                        > synoptic gospels. The various synoptic writers then used different
                        > revisions/ translations of this Ur-Gospel. -The main problem with this
                        > theory is that it looks no different than an Ur-Mark which, in turn, looks
                        > no different than Mark. -Thus, rather than postulating any kind of
                        > Ur-Gospel, a simpler theory which accounted for the data just as well was
                        > that
                        > -Mark stood behind Luke and Matthew."
                        >
                        "Ur-Markus" (if we may call it that way) was not written in Aramaic but in
                        Greek (possibly by Mark himself). Widely accepted redactional alterations or
                        additions to the text such as were made in a Greek not an Aramaic text.
                        This unknown sub-document was used in the pre-70 Rome ecclesia('s) - small
                        houses of prayer in the Jewish quarter of the city - and read alongside the
                        customary liturgical readings of Pesach and Shabuot. We know that the
                        Passover meal, commanded in Exodus 12 was basic to any Jewish gathering
                        throughout the centuries. Although the Seder we know reflects a post-70
                        development, we can be sure, that passages from Tenach re. the patrriarchs,
                        the exodus and the exile etc. were read in the pre-70 synagogues and
                        ecclesia's.
                        Logic demands that first century Christians would have commerated the death
                        on Passover Day of Messiah Jesus. They celebrated his 'being awakened from
                        the dead' and his sitting "at the right hand". Thus the context of I
                        > Corinthians is the Passover-Pentecostal season. Paul is instructing his
                        > readers on the basic traditions re. the meal ch 11,17ff, the resurrection
                        > (ch 15) and the seven Sundays of Pentecost (ch 16,1).
                        > The pre-70 sub-document (a Greek Ur Markus) had to be revised in order now
                        > to incorporate the unforeseen experience of the brutal Judean war, the
                        fall
                        > of Jerusalem and the end of temple worship, After the rude shock of the
                        > cruel crucifixion and an intermittent persecution of the Jerusalem
                        > community, a disaster had now struck the entire nation and christian
                        Judeans
                        > could not help but relating the calamties to the teaching and passion of
                        > their Master. However, with the trauma the fervent dream of an imminent
                        > parousia was also shattered. In his revision, relating the crucifixion to
                        > the destruction of the temple, Mark incorporated these events into his
                        > theology. The revision was so thorough that the passion narrative of the
                        > older document would slowly on disappear to make room for the new version
                        > with its plot of "handing over of the Son of Man [the Human One]. Both
                        > Matthew and Luke, however, still had the older document at their disposal
                        > and made use of it in their improvement, elaboration, clarification and
                        > correction of Mark. Yet both adopted Mark's new version of the
                        > passover-passion story including his new opened tomb story as basic for
                        the
                        > post-70 pashal liturgy and catechism of the ecclesia.
                        >
                        > Stephen:
                        > Thus, listing all the reasons why Mark cannot be dependent on the text of
                        > Matthew is not sufficient to distinguish between Matthew's dependence on
                        > Mark directly or dependence on Mark's source. Before pure Markan priority
                        > can be concluded...
                        >
                        > Karel:
                        > You are right that one should not accept a "pure Markan priority". There
                        was
                        > at elast one precedent (Greek Ur Markus), bnut it was not Matthew, I
                        > believe. Post-70 Matthew incoreporated Mark's post-70 passion story
                        > practically in toto , thus expressing agreement with the new
                        interpretation
                        > of the crucifixion of Israel's Messiah made in the context of the trauma
                        of
                        > 70.
                        > Mark's Gospel is much shorter, for it was designed solely for the
                        > Passover-Pentecostal season. The Passion narrative had to be changed in
                        the
                        > light of 70 and the notion of a 'Messianic Secret' expanded sothat Jesus
                        > already "knew" what no one else could have foreseen, the destructrion of
                        the
                        > temple. The aims and purposes of Mathew and :Luke on the other hand were
                        > broader. They could incorporate much older material on Jesus' ministry.
                        >
                        > cordially yours,
                        >
                        > Karel
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        >


                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.