Kata Markon

["Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>]

Dear Steve,

You said,
> Unless you (as many indeed do) believe in inerrant scriptures (which 
> can be [actually must be] harmonized so as to all be in complete 
> agreement), with supernatural insight bestowed on human authors, or 
> if you believe in that Matthew was written first, and Mark used it as 
> a source, this view is unlikely.
> Regarding the first option, I think the scriptures make  more sense 
> as human documents written within human (very real) limitations. The 
> fact that someone used (I believe Mt & Lk used Mk - but that is a 
> subject of some debate on this list right now) previously written 
> sources suggests (I would go farther and say demands) normal human 
> writing activity was involved in the creation of the texts in 
> consideration.
> Regarding the second option, it seems (this is not "proof") more 
> suggestive of Markan priority than of Matthew's. Stories usually get 
> more embellished in the retelling, not less embellished.
> If Mark was thinking of angels, he was speaking of them in a very 
> obscure fashion.

I don't think that you can, ultimately, harmonize one angel outside of the
tomb (Matt) with two inside (Luke/John). That is, there are minor
discrepancies where different authors, either because of the account they
remember or, perhaps, for theological reasons, include a differing version
of a story. This does not concern me as far as the reliability of
Scripture is concerned, it simply stresses, as you say, that people wrote
with their limitations and also their theological agendas.
Nor did I list the accounts of the other three gospels to indicate that
all - or any - of them preceded Mark. It is just that the other three
gospels (all of whose writers, I believe, had access to Mark) indicate
that the being/s present at the tomb were angels and so I do think that it
is only sensible to read Mark in the same light - regardless of the
similar terminology for the young man who fled the garden. It is not
without interest that in the Old Testament, when angels appeared, they
seem to have done so in human form on every occasion that a description is
given (e.g. the two who appeared with the Lord to Abram and who went on to
Sodom). So perhaps the language is not so obscure.
As to the relationships between teh gospels, I have a different slant on
this from the rest of you. I have tried to post it a couple of times to
the Synoptic-L list but the text is not wrapping or something an thus far
it has looked too messy for me to send - it will come shortly. As it is, I
do think that Mark was first.
> 
> This would suggest that the gospel was written by an eyewitness. This 
> view does not have a great deal to commend itself. The gospel seems 
> very much to be written by one who was entirely dependant upon 
> tradition (and imagination?) for his tale.

And yes, I do think that Mark belongs largely, if not wholly, to an
eyewitness. As I said in first my post to you, I think Peter was more
directly involved in this gospel than is normally allowed, but I will let
my larger post re the Synoprtic Problem tell that story, if you can wait a
day or two.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au