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: "J. Ted Blakley" <jtedblakley AT gmail.com>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] Editing of Mark by Luke
  • Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:20:43 +0100

Kenneth,
I am not familiar with this theory of the editing of Mark at the
hand of Luke, and I get the impression from your post that there are
probably a number of features of Mark, besides those you cite, that
are used in support of the theory. So my comments below would likely
not challenge the theory but only some of the evidence used in
support. Specifically, I was struck by the arguments regarding the
presence of Peter's name in 16:7.



On 9/10/05, Khbonnell AT aol.com <Khbonnell AT aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> GMark mailing list
> GMark AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gmark
>
>


--
J. Ted Blakley
PhD Candidate — University of St. Andrews, Scotland
Biblical Studies (Gospel of Mark)
www.blakleycreative.com/jtb



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page