Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: [GMark] GMark Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6; Re: Editing of Mark by Luke (Khbonnell@aol.com)

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart AT net.hcc.nl>
  • To: <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] GMark Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6; Re: Editing of Mark by Luke (Khbonnell AT aol.com)
  • Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:05:33 +0200


----- Original Message ----- From: <gmark-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:00 PM
Subject: GMark Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6




1. Re: Editing of Mark by Luke (Khbonnell AT aol.com)

The problem with excising troublesome sections from the tightly knit open tomb narrative is the necessity of explaning why the present text of Mark was retained in the canon. Our first task is - also in this case - the lectio dificilior.

Karel Hanhart

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:39:22 EDT
From: Khbonnell AT aol.com
Subject: Re: [GMark] Editing of Mark by Luke
To: gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <155.58909db9.30549e7a AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



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 But to conjecture that some other name has been
replaced by "Peter" is reasonable.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/gmark/attachments/20050910/b388829c/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
GMark mailing list
GMark AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gmark


End of GMark Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6
************************************





  • Re: [GMark] GMark Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6; Re: Editing of Mark by Luke (Khbonnell AT aol.com), Karel Hanhart, 09/12/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page