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

[Synoptic-L] Markan Priority: Argument from Abridgement

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.