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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Chromatius, Mark 16:19, and Luke 24:51

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    Mark 1:2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ·ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 31, 2011
      Mark 1:2
      Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ·
      ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου,
      Malachi 3:1
      1 הִנְנִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָכִי וּפִנָּה־דֶרֶךְ לְפָנָי וּפִתְאֹם יָבוֹא אֶל־הֵיכָלוֹ הָאָדוֹן אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם מְבַקְשִׁים וּמַלְאַךְ הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם חֲפֵצִים הִנֵּה־בָא אָמַר יהוה צְבָאוֹת׃
      Malachi 3:1
      1 See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.

      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      From: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:21 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Chromatius, Mark 16:19, and Luke 24:51

      Dear George:

      GFS: "Does it really matter whether it was a gospel, Paul or Acts?"

      Yes, of course. Chromatius is discussing the Gospels. The book of Acts is not a Gospel. There is no reason to imagine that Chromatius would categorize Acts as a Gospel. The idea is eliminated by Chromatius' own explicit listing of the Gospels, followed by his description of the Gospels. It is obvious that he is focused on the Gospels throughout his discussion.

      GFS: "I think Acts, however, might have been classified with Luke which would shoot holes in your insistence that it be a gospel."

      Why do you -- why would anyone! -- imagine that Chromatius, in his discussion of the evangelists' symbols, be thinking about Acts?? It is evident that he was not thinking about Acts because he says that only Mark mentions Christ's ascension; Acts 1 mentions the ascension, too, so if the nature of Chromatius' focused discussion is not enough to convince you that he was referring only to the four Gospels, this is an extra demonstration that he did not have other books in mind. He was comparing the Gospel of Mark to the other Gospels.

      GFS: "Paul wrote before the gospels so the fraudulent long ending of Mark would not be the first to proclaim that Jesus was taken in to heaven."

      Chromatius is not talking about Paul, or any other NT book except the four Gospels. And as he describes the four Gospels, he says that Mark is the only one that mentions Christ's ascension; i.e., Mark is the only Gospel-author who mentions Christ's ascension in his Gospel-account.

      Are you sure you read Chromatius' statement carefully? I will present it again, with a couple of explanatory notes:

      "And because the eagle is often described as the form of the holy spirit, who has been spoken in the prophets, he [that is, Mark] is thus depicted in the appearance of an eagle. For also only he [that is, Mark] reported that our Lord and Savior flew away to heaven, that is, went back to the Father, as David had said: He ascended above the Cherubim and flew; he flew above the feathers of the wind."

      This implies two things: Chromatius' text of Luke 24:51 did not explicitly mention Christ's ascension, and his text of Luke *did* mention Christ's ascension.

      So it seems obvious that Chromatius, like over 30 other writers in the early church, had a text of Mark that contained the genuine canonical inspired legitimate and authentic ending of the Gospel of Mark. :)

      Does anyone else have any observations about this piece of patristic evidence?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.

    • james_snapp_jr
      Dear George: GFS: Acts may have been considered simply the second half of Luke. There is simply no way to justify the idea that Chromatius, in his
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 1, 2011
        Dear George:

        GFS: Acts "may have been considered simply the second half of Luke."

        There is simply no way to justify the idea that Chromatius, in his discussion of the four Gospels, each of which he names and describes, thought of the book of Acts as Part II of the Gospel of Luke. Luke is Luke, and Acts is Acts. This should not be difficult to see; nor is it difficult to see that Chromatius defined the Gospels as Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, not as Mt-Jn-Lk-Acts-Mk.

        GFS: "Your argumentation is not the least bit convincing."

        What argumentation? I am just pointing you to the implications of the evidence, and the evidence is clear: Chromatius states that Mark was the only Gospel to mention Christ's ascension. Right?

        GFS: "The concept of Christ ascending into heaven and sitting at the right hand of God was "in the air" in the early Church."

        No doubt, but Chromatius was not writing about common concepts accepted by the early church; he was writing about what was found written in the Gospel of Mark. Right?

        GFS: "I think that whoever constructed an ending for Mark gathered up the fragments of tradition floating around and put them together in the NEW ending for Mark. . . ."

        And this person decided to re-introduce Mary Magdalene, restate the time of day, and forgot about Mary Magdalene's companions, and, although he saw that the resurection-scene forecast in 16:7 was to be in Galilee, he selected appearances in or near Jerusalem as the way to end Mark??? And he knew about the scene described in Jn. 21, but did not use it???

        GFS: "Acts itself seems to be late" . . .

        A very worthwhile subject, no doubt, but can we focus on Chromatius' reference to the contents of Mark 16:19?

        GFS: "Mk 16.9 ff is definitely a secondary accretion."

        Secondary, yes. Jeremiah 52 is also secondary; Proverbs 30 and 31 are secondary; John 21 and II Cor. 10-13 may be, in some sense, secondary. And so forth. But the involvement of a co-author or a redactor does not disqualify a passage from being part of the original text. Or, to put it another way, a secondary part of the production-stage is still part of the production-stage.

        Accretion, no. Mk. 16:9-20 was added while the text was in its production-stage; it was previously a freestanding text of approximately the same genre as what Paul uses in I Cor. 15. It was not initially composed for the purpose of concluding the Gospel of Mark (though there is no serious obstacle to the idea that Mark wrote it) but it was attached for that purpose, before the text of the Gospel of Mark began its transmission-stage.

        But before we explore Planet Ending-of-Mark, let's map out this small moon of Chromatius. Do you understand the two implications of what Chromatius says?

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.