tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post347945031708059467..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: The Dating Game V: Document and traditionMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-22405541547382459032008-11-02T17:16:00.000-05:002008-11-02T17:16:00.000-05:00Thanks Mark, the interaction is much appreciated, ...Thanks Mark, the interaction is much appreciated, including the attention to certain details. Naturally, I'll have to respond...<BR/><BR/>I agree that Jesus' Torah observance could have been fairly represented in the 60s (and beyond) and this is, I think, precisely what Matt and Luke do. But I'd add that the key issue involved their qualifications to make assumptions quite explicit, something we don't find in the Markan passages I discuss.<BR/><BR/>On the problem of originating circumstances correlating with the perspective of the evangelist and assumptions correlating etc.: I agree in the abstract so to speak. But I would stress that the three key passages I chosen show such a pattern and that these passages a) cohere with Markan overall intentions o the law and b)both Matt and Luke make key changes. This is a crucial qualification I think that allows us to say something about Markan intention towards his tradition.<BR/><BR/>On Mark 7, it is possible people generalised about 'all the Jews' (cf the Aristeas example). Moreover, it is possible that Mark could generalise over against what his saw as a major practice of Judaism. Now whether this makes Mark's group or audience 'within' Judaism or not is tricky but I don't think tat is major point for my case. Instead, the issue is, I think, one of constructing Jesus still as a debater within the (constructed) boundaries of the law (the issue of identity in relation to 'Judaism' being a related but still different issue). I would add that the precision of detailed knowledge is undeniable I think (all the traditions about pots, kettles, beds etc are very precise and all known from early Judaism and it is Markan editorial work: so wouldn't this give us some indication of Markan perspective on the law? <BR/> <BR/>Anyway, thanks again for the interaction with the book and I'll not doubt see you at SBL (esp. at a session on dating!).James Crossleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10661575117163837659noreply@blogger.com