Carson and Moo Chapters 2, 3, and 4

IF (we don't know for sure) Mark was written in the mid-60's the Neronian persecution would have been going on.

Why does the fact that Mark focuses on suffering support it having been written in Rome?

The agreements aren't of the same kind.

Why doesn't an "Ur-Mark" explain the agreements in the gospels?

The early church only wanted APOSTLES for authors of the NT "so it should be noted that there was early and unquestioned acceptance of Mark's authorship" indubitably.

Why is it a big freakin' deal that there was no "dissenting voice" to argue that Mark was NOT the author?

"study of the gospels has too often focuses on the history of the tradition behind them to the extent that the gospels themselves become lost from sight."

Why is literary criticism a "good corrective tendency"?

it assumes that there was only one Rufus in the early church

Why is the argument that Mark was written in Rome based on the "incidental mention of Simon of Cyrene's sons (Alexander and Rufus) weak?

"According to Mark" was probably added when the canonical gospels were being collected and they needed to distinguish Mark's version from the others. Thought to have been added in the 2nd century but MAY have been added much earlier. But it was obvious that by 125 AD an "important segment of the early church thought that a person named Mark wrote the 2nd gospel."

Why was Mark's name (probably) attached to his gospel? When?

What is the argument for the argument about it being unlikely that an apostle would use a secondary witness so freely? (Matthew)

"But plagiarism in the modern sense, and the shame associated with it, developed in the wake of the invention of the printing press and the financial gain that could be associated with the mass production of some writing" BUT the takeover of someone else's work (without acknowledging their work) was common place in the ancient world. SO, it isn't hard to think that an apostle would have an issue with this.

What was the gospel of Mark viewed as by the early church? When did it gain prominence?

"a rather inferior and inconsequential extract from Matthew" in the 19th century

What do Pesch and Beare argue (regarding the whole Matthew/Levi thing)? What did Albright and Mann assert? why do they suck?

"the calling of the tax collector concerned one Levi, but that the unknown evangelis, choosing to identify this otherwise unknown disciples with an apostle, substituted the name of a relatively obscure apostle, Matthew, whom he then dubbed a tax collector." That "matthew" is the personal name and "Levi" refers to his tribe. So, he was originally "Matthew the Levite" but it was later confused. It would explain why the author had such a detailed command of the OT. "As for the likelihood that a Levite would find employment as a disreputable tax collector, Albright and Mann argue that there were far more Levites than were needed to run the temple complex and that many therefore had to seek employment elsewhere. By taking on this task, Matthew the Levite forfeited the esteem of his tribe and his race the strictest of whom viewed tax collectors not only as traitors but as immoral and rapacious." BUT LINGUISTICALLY TRANSFORMATION OF "LEVITE" TO "LEVI" IS NOT VERY PLAUSIBLE. they suck because i had to write all this out for nothing.

Why is Kummel's belief that apostolic authorship is "completely impossible" dopey? (2)

1. "A systematic account can yield biographical information as easily as a strictly chronological account" 2. It makes no sense to assume the "apostles would for some reason prove incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological form"

How does Mark portray the disciples? (3) How does Guelich say Mark presents them?

1. Hard of heart (6:52) 2. Spiritually weak (14:32-42) 3. Incredibly dim-witted (8:14-21) "Mark presents the disciples as both privileged and perplexed."

Name 3 points that "make clear" the fact that Mark is writing to Gentiles.

1. He translates Aramaic expressions 2. He explains Jewish customs (washings...) 3. His interest in the ending of the ritual elements in the Mosaic Law.

What are the arguments AGAINST the ending of Mark? (5) What do most contemporaries conclude?

1. It is missing from what are generally considered to be the 2 most important manuscripts as well as several others 2. Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best MSS available to them did not contain the longer ending 3. 2 other endings to the gospel exist (a shorter one and a longer ending combined with an "interpolation") the presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. 4. the longer ending contains several "non-Markan" words and expressions 5. The longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8 Most don't think that 9-20 were written by Mark

What 3 features are "especially relevant" to an investigation into the purpose of Mark?

1. Its focus on the activity of Jesus, especially His working of miracles 2. Its interest in the Passion of Jesus (Martin Kahler claimed that Mark was a "passion narrative with an extended introduction") 3. Its repeated correlations of Jesus' predicted sufferings and the "cost of discipleship" in 8:26-10:52

What are the 3 possible endings to Mark (assuming that 9-20 isn't it)?

1. Mark may have intended to write more but been prevented from doing so (by his death or arrest?) 2. Mark may have written a longer ending to his gospel, including one or more resurrection appearances, and this ending may have been lost in the course of transmission (been suggested that the last page could have been torn off-assuming is was a codex and not a scroll) 3. Mark may have intended to end his gospel with verse 8 -which is becoming more popular and its the most likely

What are the 3 dominant theories on the structure of Matthew?

1. a geographic framework related to Mark's gospel. (based on thematic considerations not on literary markers) "precisely because, with minor alterations, this sort of analysis could be applied to any of the Synoptic gospels, it tells us very little of the purposes that are uniquely Matthew's" 2. Stonehouse, Lohmeyer and Krentz suggested that there are 3 large sections "tightly tied to Christological development" 1st is titled: The Person of Jesus Messiah 2nd: The Proclamation of Jesus Messiah 3rd: The Suffering, Death and Ressurection of Jesus Messiah the breaks are indicated by "from that time on" 3. Most common theory. Matthew= Preamble: 1-2 Book 1: Deals with discipleship (narrative, chapters 3-4, 5-7) 2: apostleship (narrative, 8-9, discourse 10) 3: Hiding of the revelation (narrative, 11-12, discourse, 13) 4: church administration (narrative, 14-17, discourse, 18) 5: Judgement (narrative, 19-22, discourse, 23-25) Epilogue: 26-28

What are the 4 focuses of the representative interpretations of Mark's purpose?

1. focuses on eschatology 2. focuses on Christology 3. " " apologetics 4. " " politics

What are the 4 decades that are proposed for the writing of Mark?

40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's

Streeter, he claimed that "Q" and Mark weren't the only sources used by Matthew and Luke, but that Matthew used a source called "M" and Luke used a source called (you guessed it) "L"

What is the 4 Source Hypothesis? Who started it?

What are other factors in the debate about authorship (of Matthew)?

1. Only this gospel refers to "Matthew the tax collector"- best seen as "gentle self-deprecation"-those that DON'T believe in Matthew's authorship believe that this means that is simply why people chose to believe that Matthew write it. 2. In Mark and Luke, the man whom Jesus calls from his role as tax collector is identified as Levi (and its obviously the same story). The reasonable assumption is that Levi and Matthew are the same person. 3. The assumption that Matthew is the author and a tax collector makes a lot of details make sense. But not all evidence is convincing. Various monetary transactions are addressed but there is no apparent "insider knowledge". And a customs official would have been fluent in Aramaic and Greek. 4. When you assume Markan priority some find it unlikely that an apostle would use a secondary witness so freely (like Mark) and they believe that this stands against the theory of apostolic authorship. "But plagiarism in the modern sense, and the shame associated with it, developed in the wake of the invention of the printing press and the financial gain that could be associated with the mass production of some writing." 5. Kummel believes that apostolic authorship is "completely impossible" because the gospel is "systematic and therefore nonbiographical" 6. The argument against apostolic authorship is that Matthew is "too late and too theologically developed" to have come from any witnesses. 7. Some scholars say that the author couldn't have been a Jew (let alone an apostle) because a. There is too many signs of 'ignorance of Jewish customs b. The writing is too 'anti-Jewish' the argument is that Matthew doesn't differ between the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but that's not true.

What are the 3 proposals or how Papias' work should be taken? (assuming the early church was wrong about Matthew having been written in Aramaic or Hebrew first)

1. Some identify the "sayings" with an independent collection of Jesus' sayings (like Q). Papias confused this source with canonical Matthew. Not clear how such an important source could have fallen by the wayside. Q is just a hypothesis. 2. Some of the same criticisms can be raised about "sayings/logia" against the view that it refers to OT "testimonia" books (it is a book of OT proof texts complied by Matthew from the Hebrew canon, used in Christian apologetics and now incorporated in canonical Matthew." It's not certain that those books ever existed independently, and it doesn't explain "the diversity of text forms in OT quotations in Matthew, still less the fact that Matthew most closely follows the LXX where he is parallel to Mark" 3. "Kurzinger followed by Gundry think that 'logia' refers to canonical Matthew but that 'hebraidi dialekto' (say that 5 times fast...) refers, not to the Habre or Aramaic language, but to Semitic style or literary form: Matthew arranged or composed his gospel in Semitic literary form, dominated by Semitic themes and devices. Kurzinger says that if Papias didn't mean that Mark was Peter's 'translator' but that Mark 'interpreted' Peter and transmitted his message to the world. But it's not the natural way to read the text. Later church fathers understood it that Matthew was written in Semitic." (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.)

What are the objections to Hengel's proposal? (the whole "the gospels were never anonymous") (4)

1. Some of his arguments were of the "what must have been the case" variety. While this is true his theory still makes the most sense. 2. His arguments aren't a defense against pseudonymity. While that's ALSO true, most scholars think of the authors as anonymous not pseudonymous. And in the early church there was unanimity in rejecting any work that fell under "pseudonymous composition." 3. "Anonymity was surely less threatening that Hengel intimates" Hebrews was written anonymously BUT Hebrews is distinguished by its addressees. And its adoption into canon was "constrained in part by doubts as to the identity of its author." It was accepted first in the East where it was associated with Paul. 4. "Hengel's interpretation assumes that 'according to Matthew' is an attribution of authorship, whereas parallels show that the phrase 'according to' serves other purposes. (ex: according to the gospel of Hebrews, and the gospel according to the Egyptians" it doesn't express authorship)." Plummer says that it "implies conformity to a type." Even though Plummer does acknoweldge that by the time of Papias "according to" DOES imply authorship. Hengel points out that 'according to the 70' refers to the one Old Testament. "In the same way the one gospel early circulated in four distinct forms."

On what grounds to some argue Mark having been written in the 60's? (3) Which is "perhaps most important"?

1. The earliest traditions favor a date for Mark after the death of Peter 2. Perhaps most important** The internal evidence of Mark is said to favor a date during, or shortly after, the onset of persecution in Rome. Mark has a lot to say about the importance of disciples' following the "road to cross" walked by our Lord. It best fits a situation when Christians were facing the prospect of martyrdom, a setting that would have been Rome at the time or after Nero's famous persecution of Christians in 65AD. 3. Mark 13 is said to reflect the position in Palestine during the Jewish revolt and just before the Roman entrance into the city, and thus be dated between 67 and 69.

What are arguments AGAINST dating Mark in the 60's?

1. The tradition about the date of Mark isn't especially early or widespread and other traditions place it during Peter's lifetime. 2. Christians suffered on many occassions other than Rome in the mid 60's (pointed out by Joel Marcus). "And Mark's treatment of suffering omits some of the features we might have expected had the Neronian persecution been in the background"

What are the reasons given for proposing Mark having been written in the 40's? (3) and why they suck.

1. Torry argued that the "abomination of desolation is a reference to the attempt in 40AD by Emperor Caligula to set up his image in the Temple- and that it was written shortly after. (deemed "unlikely") 2. Jose O'Callaghan based HIS dating of Mark on papyrus fragments found at Qumran dated 50 AD which he claims contains part of Mark. MOST SCHOLARS CONTEST IT. "even if it were valid, it would prove only the existence at this date of tradition that came to be incorporated into Mark." 3. Another theory is that Peter may have journeyed to Rome in the 40's after being freed from prison and that Mark may have written the gospel at that time. But such an early date makes the silence of Paul and the other NT writers about it and maybe doesn't allow sufficient time for the development of the tradition behind Mark. NOT TO MENTION THAT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE PAUL WAS IN ROME IN THE 40's. but when you ignore all the evidence-you've got a decent argument. well done.

No.

Is the "Olivet discourse" found in John?

it "maintains that two of the evangelists used one of more of the gospels in constructing their own" it "commands almost universal consent" I wonder why-it's not like Luke ADMITS IT IN HIS OWN PROLOGUE

What is interdependence? Who agrees with the theory?

1. distinguishes between tradition and redaction 2. The redactional, or editorial activity of the evangelists can be seen in several areas 3. Redaction critics look for patterns in these kinds of changes within a gospel 4. On the basis of this general theological picture, the redaction critic then seeks to establish a setting for the production of the gospel 5. Some include within the redaction criticism not only the study of the evangelist's modification of tradition but the literary and theological characteristics of the gospels (sometimes called composition criticism)

5 points of Redaction Criticism

What type of Christology does Mark present? What does he want his readers to know?

A balanced Christology in which Jesus' miracle-working power is set beside His suffering and death. Mark wants his readers to know that Jesus is the Son of God but especially the SUFFERING Son of God. And wants to show that Christians must walk the same road. He wants his readers to know who Jesus is and what real discipleship involves.

The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius became emperor after the death of Augustus in August of 14 AD, so MAYBE 28 or 29 AD. BUT Tiberius was co-regent with Augustus starting around 11/12 AD. So MAYBE His ministry began in 25/26 or 26/27 AD. The "more natural reading" is the former.

According to Luke when did Jesus start His ministry? WHY IS THIS DATE THE OPPOSITE OF EXACT? Which date makes more sense?

Egypt (Chrysostom). If Morton Smith was right Clement of Alexandria may have also connected Mark with the early church in Alexandria. According to Smith he found a letter in a monastery in Egypt that is an authentic Clement where he says that Mark, after writing his letter in Rome with Peter, came to Alexandria "where he composed a 'deeper', 'gnostic-oriented gospel." The authenticity of the letter is disputed. IT STILL SAYS THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN ROME!!!

Aside from Rome what is the only other place of provenance (for Mark) that carries any weight? WHY? Why is it a ridiculous excuse for an argument?

Why is the argument against apostolic apostleship of Matthew based on it being "too late and too theologically developed to have come from 1st witnesses" not even remotely intelligent?

Because Matthew makes it clear that the 1st disciples believed DURING Jesus' ministry!

Nope, but it didn't stop them from coming up with loads of theories that I have to waste time learning. Thanks for that.

Can redaction critics answer the question "what was the intention the evangelist?"

Our ability to distinguish tradition and redaction. We must have an idea of the sources and evangelist used before speaking on how they modified them.

For redaction criticism's validity what does it depend on?

ancient biographies (yeah, I know-but sometimes I just want to get one of these RIGHT)

Genre of the gospels?

Who do "extrabiblical sources" point to in regards to Mark's audience? Why?

Gentile Christians, PROBABLY writing to the Romans in Rome. ("stated and implied in early traditions about the gospel-which have Mark recording the preaching of Peter for those who had heard the great apostle in Rome"), all the Latinisms are compatible with a Roman audience.

If a person's theory is right, then Matthew and Luke are sources for Mark we should try to "epitomize" how he used them. Whose theory? and what was it? What theory is more likely?

Griesbach. 2 Gospel Theory. 2 Source theory is more likely. (that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke)

What does Theodore Wheeden have to say about the purpose of Mark? Why is he wrong?

He found Mark to be a strong written attack against "a divine man" christology (a way of viewing Him as a wonder-working hero but denied or neglected His suffering and death). To counter that belief Mark (supposedly) wrote a gospel that emphasized the humanity and suffering of Jesus. while it DID focus on His suffering Wheeden goes too far by identifying Mark's opponents as people who held to the "divine man" theology. the evidence isn't clear- AT ALL "and the Hellenistic divine-man concept as a category into which early Christians would have put Jesus is open to question."

What did S.G.F. Brandon theorize regarding Mark's purpose? And on the premise that society should throw rocks at the intellectually challenged, why should rocks be thrown at him?

He thought Mark was tying to mask the political implications of Jesus' life and especially His death. According to Brandon Jesus was a sympathizer with the Jewish revolutionaries (the Zealots). For this reason, He was supposedly crucified by the Romans (a punishment generally reserved for political criminals). By branding Him asa rebel against Rome His crucifixion made it difficult for Christians to win a hearing from the Roman public-particularly after the revolt in Palestine (when it was written, according to Brandon). So, Mark transferred as much of the guilt for Jesus' death from the Romans to the Jews. Possibly my favorite sentence in the textbook (not that there's a lot to choose from...) "In general, Brandon's theory can be sustained only by arguing, without any evidence, that Mark (and all other writers who have come after him) has eliminated the political element from Jesus' teaching and ministry."

Where did the early church fathers assume that Matthew was written? Why?

Palestine. since they assumed it was written in Aramaic.

The wording is almost exactly the same in Greek, and they all insert the same abrupt break in His words.

What is significant about: Matt. 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26?

Redaction criticism

What is the "stage of final composition"?

Aside from Mark wanting his readers to know "who Jesus is and what real discipleship involves" what are two other general purposes of his?

Historical interest and evangelism (Mark was providing his readers with a record of His words and deeds which was especially important since eyewitnesses such as Peter were beginning to "pass from the scene."

as mirroring early Christian preaching (kerygma) about Christ. Viewed as last stage of oral tradition (opposed to 'self-conscious literary creations') They lead to the belief that they were a unique category/new genre unto themselves.

How did Dodd view the gospels? What did his beliefs lead to?

More than a year. If the 3 Passover's that John mentions are distinct in time then it required a ministry of at least 2 years.

How long was Jesus' ministry? Defend.

"with healthy skepticism"- like i treat everything else for that matter.

How should we treat it when form critics say they can discern "the setting in life" of the early church?

Nope, 'cause it wasn't the intention of the evangelists to provide that sort of data.

Is it possible to have a "historical harmony of Jesus' life? Why?

1. The vividness of Mark points to an eyewitness (ex: only Mark mentions that the 5000 sat on grass that was green) 2. The critical light that the 12 are shone in. "the cowardly, spiritually blind angle is in all of them but especially vivid in Mark (held that it was an apostolic viewpoint since only 1 of the 12 would criticize them so harshly) 3. Peter also figures prominently into Mark. (Peter "remembering" is most naturally explained as having come from Peter) 4. Dodd pointed out that Mark's gospel follows the pattern very similar to that found in Peter's rehearsal of the basic kerygma (the evangelistically oriented recitation of key events in Jesus' life found in such texts as Acts 10:36-41)

List the 4 facts that point to Peter's connection to the gospel of Mark

"A catchall for contemporary approaches to the gospels that focus on careful study of the way the gospels function as pieces of literature" Redaction criticism falls under it.

Literary criticism? What falls under it?

What is the argument for why Mark may have ended his gospel at verse 8?

Mark refrains from editorial comments, and lets the story speak for itself. forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. Leaving a somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. While the reader knows Jesus has been raised from the confusion/astonishment of the woman leaves us wondering what it all means.

"historical trustworthiness" they assumed that it "wasn't a big concern of the evangelists" There is the (stupid) assumption that an evangelist can't be both theologically and historically motivated. They claim that since they tampered with tradition they must have tampered with history. But their rewrites don't compromise the accuracy of their reports.

Redaction criticism is often pursued in such a way that the ______________ ______________ of the gospel material is called into question. What did they assume (wrongly)? Why?

What type of criticism "stimulated the question" of determining Mark's purpose? Who initiated it?

Redaction. Willi Marxsen

Papias' claim that Mark was not an eyewitness.

Some claim that Mark was the "young man" who "fled naked" what does this call into question?

Who said, "a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect...which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author?" How does Hengel use it for his argument?

Tertullian. Hengel argued that as soon as more than one of the gospels had been read in a church (that would have happened no later than 100AD) it would have been necessary to distinguish between them (like with a title). The assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. He says they wouldn't have circulated as anonymous for over 60 years, and that had they been anonymous there would have been more variation in them. Hengel concludes that they were never really anonymous.

What is the major Christological point of Mark? What's another central theme?

That Jesus is the SUFFERING Son of God and can truly be understood only in terms of this suffering. Discipleship. The 12 figures prominently and serve in general as a pattern for the disciples whom Mark addresses in his gospel (not always as models to be emulated-their failure is more prominent in Mark than the other gospels)

What did the early church interpret Papias' work to imply? Why is it unlikely?

That Matthew was written in Hebrew of Aramaic and it went on to be translated to others. Unlikely because if we assume that Matthew depended on Mark it is unlikely that Matthew was first written in Aramaic, also it doesn't read like TRANSLATED Greek.

What did Marxsen have to say about Mark's purpose? Why is he dumb?

That he wanted to prepare Christians for Jesus' imminent Parousia in Galilee. He argued that Mark focused on Galilee as the place Jesus met with His disciples at the expense of Jerusalem. His command for his disciples to meet Him in Galilee (14:28) is taken by Marxsen as a prediction of Jesus' return to them. IT CLEARLY REFERS TO His post-resurrection meeting. Also, geographic contrast that Marxsen sees is better explained as a "reflection of the actual course of Jesus' ministry than as a theologically motivated invention of Mark's"

What is the growing consensus about the "logia" Papias was referring to?

That it referred to the "words and deeds of Jesus (to the substance of the gospels).

What does Kilpatrick say about the authorship of Matthew? What does Stendahl say?

That it was not the work of an individual but from a Christian community/church. Stendahl thought that it was written by a school not a church.

What does Mark ensure? How?

That the church never abandons the real humanity of the Christ by tying the significance to Jesus to a specific series of historical occurrences in Palestine in the 3rd decade of the 1st century. By reminding them that salvation depends on the death and resurrection of Christ.

What's a reason for dating Mark in the 50's?

The argument that Acts ends with Paul in prison is because Luke chose to publish at that time (around 62 AD)- it would require the gospel on Luke to be dated at that time or earlier. If we accept the theory that Luke used Mark as a key source Mark must have been written in the late 50's.

What is the main argument for dating Mark in the 70's?

The assumption that Mark 13 reflects the actual experience of the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. Seriously flawed because: it shows very little evidence of being influenced by the course of events in 70AD. "Jesus' predictions reflect stock OT and Jewish imagery having to do with the besieging of cities rather than the specific circumstances of the siege of Jerusalem." also flawed because there is the assumption on the part of the critics that Jesus could not have accurately have predicted the course of events in 70AD. boneheads.

Where are the 2 most important textual problems found in Mark?

The beginning and the end. Mark 1:1 "Son of God" is omitted in a few important early manuscripts (it could have been accidental since they ARE found in a majority of the early/significant manuscripts, as well as later ones. AND the inclusion fits into Mark's Christology) And we all know the ending is a "different and more severe problem". quite.

Rome wasn't the only "important early center of Christianity"

The fact that Mark's gospel was accepted quickly because it was connected to an "important early center of Christianity" pointing to it originating in Rome is a weak argument because?

What did Horsley say about Mark's purpose? Why is it ironic?

The major purpose of the book is to present Jesus as arguing for a particular social/political program. "Apparently opposition between Jesus and the Jewish leaders has to do with competing visions of Israel's restoration and kingdom programs, not religious issues per se while Horsley may be right in his claim that Christian interpreters have too often ignored the political dimension of the gospel his criticism of interpreters reading into the gospel a theological Christian agenda is more than a little ironic."

Probably not, the apostles could have taken notes. But the majority of it was.

Was the oral stage of transmission strictly oral? why?

1. Mark's style is Greek, straightforward, and "full of the kinds of Semitisms that one would expect of a Jerusalem bred Christian." 2. His connection to Paul explains the "Pauline theological influence" found in the book. No, (nothing is in this book) they're too general BUT nothing points to him NOT being the author either.

What 2 features of Mark and his career are presented in the NT that fit with him being the author of the 2nd gospel? Are they conclusive? Why?

Astronomical/ calendrical and Historical.

What 2 lines of evidence have been used to determine the precise year of Jesus' death and resurrection?

"Quest for the historical Jesus" by Albert Schweitzer "The so called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ" by Martin Kahler "The Messianic Secret in Mark" by William Wrede

What 3 influential works ENDED the 1st quest for the historical Jesus?

They all agree but Luke and Matthew agree less often. Mark is the middle ground

What about the verbal agreements of the gospels points to Markan priority?

1. Large number of Latinisms 2. The incidental mention of Simon of Cyrene's sons, Alexander and Rufus 3. The apparently Gentile audience of the gospel 4. The many allusions to suffering, which would be appropriate if it was written under the shadow of persecutions of the church in Rome 5. The fact that 1 Peter 5:13 locates Mark in Rome with Peter in the early 60's 6. The connection with an important early center of Christianity, which would have explained the gospel's quick acceptance.

What are other considerations that confirm Roman provenance (for Mark)? (6)

1. these is a reaction among literary critics not only against excessive historical analysis but against history itself. 2. They set the text loose from what the author means 3. They have the tendency to derive categories of interpretation from modern literature. 4. "Questions about structuralism are used in literary criticism".

What are some problems with the way the way a lot of literary critics pursue their discipline? (4)

1. Form Criticism- focusing on the "period of oral transmission" 2. Source Criticism- "Focuses on the way different literary units were put together to make up the gospels" 3. Redaction Criticism- "Focuses on the literary and theological contributions of the authors of the gospels"

What are the "3 significant approaches to the Gospels?"

1. The material they have chosen to include and exclude 2. the arrangement of the material 3. The "seams' that the evangelist uses to stitch his tradition together 4. Additions to material 5. Omission of material 6. Chage of wording

What are the "several areas" that the redactional/editorial activity of the evangelists can be seen in? (6)

1. By focusing on the final authorial stage in the production of the gospels, it offers immediate help to the interpreter and the theologian. 2. Redaction criticism reminds us that the evangelists wrote with more than (though NOT LESS THAN) historical interest.

What are the 2 "positive elements" of redaction criticism?

1. "the amount of special material in Luke in comparison with Matthew and Mark. 2. Luke's tendency to 'go his own way,' even in material shared with Matthew and Mark (especially in the passion narrative) 3. The fact that Luke includes material from Mark in blocks rather than scattered evenly throught the gospel.

What are the 3 considerations of a "Proto-Luke"?

1. Mark wrote the gospel that in Eusebius' day was identified with the name 2. Mark was not an eyewitness but gathered info from Peter 3. Mark's gospel lacks "order", reflecting the occasional nature of Peter's preaching "The importance of these claims is magnified when we realize that the presbyter Papias is quoting the presbyter John, probably the apostle John himself. If Papias is to be trusted, the identification of Mark as the author of the second gospel goes back to the first generation of Christians."

What are the 3 important claims about Mark made by Papias? Why are they important?

1. Problems with exaggerated claims 2. False assumptions 3. Inappropriate applications

What are the 3 main problems of redaction criticism?

1. 1:14-15= His entrance into Galilee, proclaiming the good news (the kingdom is near) 2. 3:7-12= focuses on His immense popularity and emphasizes His healing and exorcisms 3. 6:1-6 = the story of Jesus' movement away from Galilee 4. 8:27-30 = the climax of Jesus' messiahship

What are the 4 transitional passages of Mark?

1. Stories of Jesus were circulated in "small independent units" 2. Transmission of gospel is comparable to transmission of folk stories/religious traditions 3. "The stories and saying of Jesus took on certain standard forms that are for the most part still visible in the gospels" 4. The form of a saying or story make it able to determine its "setting in life" (it's function in the early church) 5. Not only did the early church put the material in certain forms but it also "modified it under the impetus of its own needs and situations" 6. Classic form critics usually use specific criteria to determine the age and trustworthiness of "particular periscopes".

What are the 6 common assumptions of form criticism?

Matthew. It is the Roman Catholic Church's official position. And it is supported by Papias and Eusebius (2nd century)

What book was assumed to be the first written until the 19th century? Who supported that claim?

Nisan 14 or 15 (April 6 or 7) 30 AD

What date do Carson and Moo "prefer" regarding the death of Jesus?

30 AD or later

What date must Jesus' death and ressurection have taken place (roughly)?

We should respect it, and not try to harmonize it "by seeking the meaning of the gospels as a historical construct"

What did Brevard Childs say about the "fourfold gospel"?

Herder said that depending on "a relatively fixed summary of the life of Christ explained the data better"

What did Herder say (regarding a common dependence on oral sources)?

Lessing said that the agreements and divergences of the synoptics points to there having been an "Ur-gospel" (written in Hebrew or Aramaic) that they used independently. 1. Wouldn't that gospel have been MENTIONED SOMEWHERE? 2. Why even make the synoptics if a "SUPER ONE" already existed? 3. How do you explain the differences then? weak, I tell you.

What did Lessing theorize? Why does it point to him not really having a brain? (3)

"that several fragments of gospel tradition existed in the early church and that these gradually grew until they incorporated the synoptic gospels." He argued that "Papias's "logia" referred to one of these fragments."

What did Schleiermacher suggest (regarding common dependence on 'gradually developing written fragments'?

The truth BUT that it was "a truth of a religious and philosophical nature"

What did Strauss insist the gospels taught?

"the degree to which 1st century Jews would have been able to remember and transmit accurately by word of mouth what Jesus had said and done." Because they has exceptional memories. and "studies of the eyewitness testimony of the Greco-Roman world also confirms their accuracy."

What do form critics underestimate?

That all the changes an evangelist makes to his tradition are theologically motivated-many are more "stylistic in nature"

What do redaction critics "too often assume"?

the evangelist's theology

What do redaction critics sometimes equate "redactional emphases" with?

1. Lengthen the stories 2. Add details 3. Conform them more to their own language 4. Preserve of create only what fits their own needs/beliefs They think that gospel material that is "short, lacks details, contains Semitisms and doesn't fit the interest of the early church is more likely to be historical."

What do the "laws" say that people tend to do, regarding form criticism? What (to them) indicates something that is more "historical"?

"seeing together"

What does "Synoptic" mean?

"setting in life"

What does "sit im leben" mean?

"Genre' creates the presumption of 'a flexible set of expectations'". They are not a rigid set of requirements.

What does a genre "do"? What aren't they?

they "seek how the plot unfolds and characters develop. Real meaning is seen to lie behind the words of the text."

What does literary criticism do?

It seeks to describe the theological purpose of the evangelists by analyzing the way that use their sources.

What does redaction criticism attempt to do? How?

1. Ministry in Galilee 2. w/drawal to the North (Peter's confession as a climax and point of transition) 3. Ministry in Judea and Perea 4. Jesus goes to Jerusalem 5. His final ministry in Jerusalem Nope.

What general geographic sequence are the synoptics structured around? Is it found in John?

1. Common dependence on the original gospel (Ur-gospel) 2. Common dependence on oral sources 3. Common dependence on gradually developing written fragments 4. Interdependence

What hypotheses best account for the combination of exact agreement and wide divergence that characterize the first 3 gospels? (4)

"chronological indifference" much like the indifference I am experiencing right now i bet. Example: Healing the hand (early in Mark and later in Matthew)

What is "the case" when the gospels don't line up chronologically? Example:?

Peter and Mark were in Rome at around that time.

What is STRONG about the argument that Mark was written in Rome because of the gospel was accepted quickly due to it having been written in an "important early center of Christianity"?

He was crucified on a Friday, in the Jewish month Nisan. (the month began at the time that the new moon was sighted). So they can figure out the times that happened on a Friday. Nisan 14 and 15 are both possibilities though, due to the apparent conflict between the Synoptics and John (Synoptics=last meal=Passover= Nisan 15 while in John the Passover meal hadn't been eaten at the time of Jesus' trial which suggests Nisan 14) NOT TO MENTION the fact that the beginning of Nisan was dependent upon "human observance." Most likely= Nisan 14 (April 3rd) AD 33 OR Nisan 14 or 15 (April 6th or 7th) 30 AD.

What is the astronomical/ calendrical evidence that is used to determine the year of Jesus' death? What are its shortcomings? What is most likely?

It takes into regards the time that it would be most likely for Pilate to fold like a cheap suit to the Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus' trial. Hoehner argued that Pilate's desire to placte them could have only happened in 31 AD in OCTOBER (in the year the anti-Semitic Sejanus, ruler of the empire under Tiberius was executed). When combined with the astronomical info it points to 33 AD. BUT that's all ruled out by the fact that Jesus is thought to have been crucified in Nisan 15 (as suggested by the Synoptic gospels). ALSO if it took place in 33AD it may not have left time between the death of Jesus and Paul's conversion.

What is the historical evidence that is used to determine the year of Jesus' death? What are its shortcomings?

"intense, rapid fire action" while John is "more meditative" (Jesus speaking in long discourses)

What is the pace of the Synopitcs compared to John?

it has been proven that the short material, does NOT necessarily point to the more "historical" work. And it fails to "come to grips with eye witnesses, some of them hostile, who were in a position to contest any wholesale creation of gospel incidents and sayings."

What is wrong with form critics take about the "laws of transmission"?

Matthew was first, Mark borrowed from Matthew, Luke borrowed from Matthew and Mark Till the 19th century.

What it the Augustine Proposal? When was this the "standard view"?

it is often far more specific that the data allows. Easy there, redactionists!

What it the problem with identifying the setting of a particular gospel on the basis of the author's theology?

The Jesus Seminar, The 3rd Quest for the Historical Jesus ("characterized by a serious attempt to place Jesus squarely within the matric of 1st century Judaism and by a relatively positive approach to the historicity of the gospels"

What movement began in 1985 and would convene periodically to vote on the authenticity of the gospel material? What was it's "contrasting movement"? How is that movement "characterized"?

Anything from Jewish midrash to Greek aretalogy (stories of miraculous deeds performed by gods). The most popular suggestion is that they were biographies.

What other genres did "others" believe the gospels were? The most popular suggestion?

the 2 Source Hypothesis.

What theory did Carson and Moo conclude was the best explanation for the relationship between the gospels?

When Mark said that "because of unbelief Jesus COULD NOT do the miracles" (6:5) Matthew said "DID NOT" (13:58)

What was "primitive" about Mark's theology? Example

That Jesus didn't want His identity known and this explains why so few people recognized Him as the Messiah (right, He just went around saying "I AM" statements without realizing the ramifications?! not buying it.)

What was Wrede's so called "Messianic Secret"?

Gunther Bornkamm's essay on the stilling of the storm-he tried to uncover Matthew's theological point by comparing it with Mark's account.

What was the EARLIEST redaction critical work? What did he try to do?

Papias (bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor until 130 AD) had a statement recorded in the

What was the earliest/possibly the most important evidence that connects Mark as the author?

"The Four Gospels: A Study in Origins" (1924)

What was the name of the book by Streeter that proposed the 4 Source Hypothesis?

Immediately

What word does Mark use (a LOT) that points to his gospel being more "action-oriented"?

4 B.C. because that's the year that Herod died, but not too much before since Herod kills the kids who were under two years of age before he kicks the proverbial bucket.

What year must Jesus have been born before? Why?

an account that appears more than once in a single gospel

What's a doublet?

Mark was first, Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q" independently of one another. Karl Lachmann and C.G. Wilke both proposed it INDEPENDENTLY of each other in the 1830's.

What's the 2 SOURCE Hypothesis? Who proposed it? When?

Matthew was first, Luke was second, Mark depended on Matthew and Luke Blame Griesbach, popular the last 30 years.

What's the 2-GOSPEL Hypothesis? Who's responsible for it? When was in popular?

It shouldn't detract from the fact that there is a high degree of coherence in the synoptic gospels (you don't say?), some of the divergences don't contradict so much as they have little in common with each other (ex: the infancy stories in Matthew and Luke)

What's there to say about where the gospels appear to "contradict themselves"?

Papias apparently referenced it and Eusebius had recorded that Matthew had been "collecting the oracles". He may not have even been referring to a gospel.

Why do people theorize an "Ur-Matthew"? Why doesn't it hold water?

1. the brevity of Mark. 2. Verbal agreements of the gospels. 3. Order of events 4. Mark's "awkward and more primitive style" 5. Mark's "more primitive theology

Why do scholars think that Mark was written first? (5)

Mark had more grammatical irregularities and awkward constructions. "the natural tendency would have been for later authors to smooth out." He also used more Aramaic expressions (Matthew and Luke may not have used since their readers were more Greek speakers)

Why does Mark's awkwardness (lol) point to Mark having been written first?

It makes sense that Matthew and Luke took Mark and expanded on it.

Why does the "brevity of Mark" point to Markan priority?

Because that could be ANYWHERE that had Gentiles that had Latin influences.

What's wrong with the claim that Mark was written in Italy based on the argument that he used a lot of Latinisms and there was a Gentile audience?

The "enlightenment" (no irony there)

When did the "unquestioning era" end? (regarding the accuracy of the historical accounts in the gospels)

Antioch, Syria (due to its proximity to Palestine, Mark assumes his readers know Palestinian name places, its a large Roman colony, Peter's connection to Antioch) In the "East"- s'all I got. Marxian said it was written in Galilee "he theorized that for Mark, Galilee was the place of revelation and that the references to Jesus 'going before' the disciples into Galilee we a summons to Christians to gather in Galilee and await the return of Christ.

Where are the other places that have been suggested for Mark's provenance? Why?

Rome

Where does early tradition "favor" for the provenance of Mark? Though (shockingly) not unanimous.

In the "anti-Marcionite prologue" and Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

Where is the claim found that Mark was written in the "regions of Italy"? Who suggest the same thing?

Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Origen Eusebius OF COURSE NOT, it's second hand evidence, which obviously means it's garbage. Also, there was NO "dissenting voice" at the time, so garbage or not...

Which 2nd and 3rd century authors confirm that Mark is the author and that he depended on Peter's information? Does everyone see this as valuable?

The very, very wrong Bultmann

Who ascribed most gospel material to the early church/ not finding a lot that came from the earthly ministry of Jesus?

Lachmann

Who believed in a "proto-gospel"?

J.J. Griesback, a German Bible scholar at the end of the 18th century

Who labeled the the 1st 3 gospels the "synoptics"? When?

Martin Hengel

Who pointed out that scholars have erred by thinking that they need to choose between preaching and historical narration?

K.L. Schmidt (a pioneer of form criticism). He classified them as "popular literature" rather then "literary works." It meant that they were to be viewed as distinct from more literary biographies prevalent in the ancient Greco-Roman world.

Who started the "modern study of the genre of the gospels"? What did he do? What did that mean?

Ernst Kasemann (student of Bultmann)

Who started the 2nd quest in 1953? Who was his teacher?

Son of a prominent woman in the early church (they gathered in her house during Peter's imprisonment) and his cousin was Barnabas. Mark left Paul and Barnabas before their 1st journey ended. Paul refused to take him on a 2nd trip. Barnabas disagreed and separated from Paul taking Mark with him. Paul and Mark eventually reconcile (Paul mentions Mark during his Roman imprisonment). Peter also mentioned Mark when writing from Rome (calls him "son" which possibly implies that Mark was converted through his ministry

Who was John Mark?

William Wrede. He wrote when the Markan hypothesis was dominant. It was thought that Mark was "untheological" and he decimated that thought. He wrote about how Mark emphasized the "Messianic Secret". It was not "taken up" at the time.

Who was a precursor to redaction criticism? What did he do? Was it a popular view?

Bultmann

Who was it that kept going after "the historical Jesus" until there was nothing left, so much so that his students grew concerned and started the 2nd quest?

Samuel Reimarus. He suggested that the resurrection hadn't occurred. WHY ACKNOWLEDGE THE STUPID? It initiated "The first quest for finding the historical Jesus"

Who was responsible for the "most famous early attack" on the historical gospels? what did he suggest? What did this attack initiate?

Schleiermacher. There are roughly 250 verses in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

Who was the first to propose the existence of "Q"? Why?

1. Karl Ludwig Schmidt 2. Martin Dibelius 3. Rudolf Bultmann

Who were the first to employ NT form criticism? (3)

Who said that Mark "imposed the tradition the notion of the messianic secret? What did he claim? What did that lead people to believe?

William Wrede, claimed that "Jesus' many commands for silence about His status in the gospel were invented by Mark to explain how it was the Jesus was not recognized to be the Messiah during His lifetime" "It was taken to indicate that Mark wrote with just as much theological interest and bias as did the other evangelists."

How SHOULD Mark's purpose be discerned?

With the whole gospel in mind (not be focusing on a sliver of data) and by REFRAINING FROM ARGUING BEYOND THE POINT OF EVIDENCE.

What type of narrator is Mark?

a self-effacing one. He also tells the story with minimal editorial comments (unlike me lol) and says nothing about his purpose or intended audience.