Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: [GMark] Editing of Mark by Luke

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Khbonnell AT aol.com
  • To: gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] Editing of Mark by Luke
  • Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:39:22 EDT

 
 
Re: Editing of Mark, the hand of Luke?
 
         One of the indicators of editing of Mark is the line is found at the end of  9:2 : anateilantos tou heliou, "the sun having risen."  If Mark is the source for the other three gospels, why is this line in gross disagreement with them as to the time of the women's going to the tomb?  Matthew 28:1 has time time "late on the sabbath as the first of the week was coming of;" Luke has "at deep dawn;" and John 20:1 has "it still being early dark."  These indicate that "the sun having risen" was not in the copies of Mark that the writers of these gospels used.
          The placement of this phrase at the end of the verse, rather than earlier where it would be more appropriate, tends to confirm that it was added, perhaps as a marginal note carried over into the text.
          Another possible indicator of editing is the curious mention of  "Peter" in 16:7, in which the young man in the tomb says, "But go say to his disciples and to Peter that . . ."  Since the disciples include Peter, it is superfluous to mention him.  But to conjecture that some other name has been replaced by "Peter" is reasonable.  There were other personages present in the company, that Luke (10:1 and 17) calls "the seventy." Others of importance who must have been there are James, "the brother of the Lord," and Symeon son of Cleopas, both of whom headed the Jerusalem group.  The writer of Luke and Acts complete overlooks the important roles those two men in the early "church."  Another "no mention" is the name of Cephas, whom Paul found in Jerusalem along with James (Galatians 1:18, RSV).  Paul's not mentioning of  Symeon, despite the prominence attributed to him by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., III, XI), means that Paul probably knew him as "Cephas."  Luke's distortion of  "history" in Acts (see A. F. Loisy, "The Origins of the New Testament," University Books, 1962, ch. 6) omits these important figures.  So if either of the names of James or Cephas stood in Mark 16:7, the Lukan editor of Mark replaced it with "Peter."
 
Kenneth H. Bonnell
Los Angeles



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page