Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:57:36 -0500 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: Mark and Thomas (was Re: Mark 7:19) On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Mark Goodacre wrote: > Steve Davies wrote on the question of Thomas's use of Mark: ... > Granted that I caricatured your view, I should point out that the > passage I was thinking of was this one: > > 'It does not seem possible that Thomas could have had the form- > critical expertise necessary to excise allegorical elements from a > synoptic passage so as to construct a version of a parable that is > quite similar to the probable original version. Much more probably, > the version we find in Thomas is the more original and it was taken > from oral tradition. The synoptic versions are highly allegorized > later adaptations.' > > On which I wrote a month or two ago: > > "The notion of a 'probable original version' presupposes that > parables begin as simple stories which become steadily more > allegorised with the passage of time. 'Highly allegorized' and > 'later' are held together as if they necessarily belong together in > the last sentence here. The notion of 'form-critical expertise' etc. > is rhetoric. Luke's version of this very parable demonstrates that > allegorical features from an earlier version (Mark's) can be dropped > - Mk 12.5 (in which the third servant is killed and many others are > beaten and killed), representing the fate of the prophets, is > dropped, or, one might say, 'excised'." Mark, It is a precarious course of action to base a general theory such as you propose on such a proof-text. Because this example may be invalid. I've mentioned already the theory of Ur-Markus that you don't like. But this theory probably explains the allegorisation in this pericope much better than your proposed explanation. What I think happened here is that this story of the Wicked Tenants was not in Mk originally, but was added later. Hence the the allegorisation. You may note that Mk 11:33 is followed quite naturally by 12:12, the retreat of the questioners. So 12:1-11 seems like a late insertion. Alfred Loisy writes in his ORIGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1962: "Between the anecdote [11:27-33] and this conclusion someone has intercalated the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (12:1-11), a short apocalypse which turns on the fall of Jerusalem, the evangelisation of the pagans, and on the assumption of Jesus into glory; a fragment of apologetic in the style of the discourses attributed in Acts to the first Christian preachers, and even ending with the usual quotation of the apologists (Psalm 143, 22-23). This must be the work of some Christian prophet, utilized at first as the conclusion of the Jerusalem ministry (note the correspondence of 12:12a with 14:1-2) before being replaced for that purpose by the great apocaplytic discourse (Ch. 13)." (p. 109) This is of couse yet one more instance when the Ur-Markus looms large in the backgroound. We can only ignore this looming presence at our own risk. Regards, Yuri.Click here to go one level up in the directory.