Kata Markon

["Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart AT net.hcc.nl>]

----- 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
> ************************************