Why psychoanalyze Ron and accuse him of irrationality? He's always struck
me as a solid, rational, rigorous scholar. If you think that he's missed
your point, then clarify your argument for him.

Jeffery Hodges
Ewha Womans University

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, lmbarre@... <lmbarre@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> "At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> certain
> Stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> secondary
> To ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> Evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative?"
>
> I am taken aback that you have to ask this. The evidence of redaction was
> given in the first post in this thread.
>
> What hinders you from coming to a conclusion based upon this evidence?
>
> Do you find it somehow coincidental that I have listed eight examples where
> the narrative flow is interrupted and then resumes across the flow of an
> alleged insertion? It appears to me that you are arbitrarily pulling back
> from a most probable conclusion regarding the existence of pMark. Rather
> than being overly credulous upon inadequate evidence, you making the
> opposite error of irrational skepticism in the face of strong evidence for
> the thesis. Nor am I alone in adopting this position. As noted, pMark is a
> thesis embraced by many scholars who have dealt with PN.
>
> The proper amount of skepticism is determined by what evidence would
> warrant
> a conclusion or refrain from making one. In this case, I think that
> evidence pMark is such that your skepticism is not warranted. Perhaps you
> might go back to those examples I offered and address each specifically to
> justify your skepticism. Otherwise, it would seem that your skepticism is
> excessive and irrational as is your failure to recognize what is obvious
> evidence for the existence of pMark.
>
> As it is, it does not seem that you are able to properly assess objectively
> the probability of the thesis let alone recognize what is the evidence in
> favor of it. So while conveying the impression that you are being cautious
> and judicious, you are in fact in a state of academic denial.
>
> Such a reaction is entirely expected. First, from conservative scholars who
> because of some dogmatism, do not want to admit to redactional activity as
> it threatens to "destabilize" a sacred text. Second, form anyone with a
> vested interest in Markan scholarship that presumes a unified document and
> thus do not want to admit that such research is vulnerable to the
> conclusion
> that it is fatally flawed. Needless, to say, it makes a great exegetical
> different if the Gospel of Mark is unified or of composite authorship. The
> issue if fundamental to the interpretation of the Gospel on every level. As
> it turns out, from my perspective, an crucial oversight has been committed,
> even though the issue should be considered in the face of PN research. It
> is rather like trying to interpret the Pentateuch without recourse to the
> Documentary Hypothesis.
>
> LM Barré
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Ronald Price
> Date: 01/05/13 09:04:10
> To: Synoptic-L
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
>
>
> LM wrote:
>
> > I chose these two motifs ['immediately' and 'amazement'] because of
> their
> > excessive repetition and thus indicate an aspect of authorial style. It
> does
> > proceed from the evidence of a redaction of an underlying narrative,
> which
> I
> > find to be quite compelling.
> > Would you not agree?
>
> LM,
>
> At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> certain
> stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> secondary
> to ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative? Quoting examples is not
> the same as supplying evidence. If you have set out evidence for redaction
> which is independent of these stylistic features, I must have missed it.
> (The page you pointed to on the 'Early Christian Writings' web site
> provides
> evidence of what certain scholars believed about the extent of a supposed
> pre-Markan passion narrative, but not why they believed in its
> historicity.)
>
> Ron Price,
>
> Derbyshire, UK
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I posted the evidence for pMark on my first post in this thread and then he
asked for the evidence.   This is not psychoanalysis.  It is a mere
observation.

I did clarify . . . In my last post.  Should not the discussion of evidence
refer to my eight examples?  Of course it should.

LM Barré
-------Original Message-------

From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
Date: 1/6/2013 1:38:09 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Why psychoanalyze Ron and accuse him of irrationality? He's always struck
me as a solid, rational, rigorous scholar. If you think that he's missed
your point, then clarify your argument for him.

Jeffery Hodges
Ewha Womans University

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, lmbarre@... <lmbarre@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> "At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> certain
> Stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> secondary
> To ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> Evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative?"
>
> I am taken aback that you have to ask this. The evidence of redaction was
> given in the first post in this thread.
>
> What hinders you from coming to a conclusion based upon this evidence?
>
> Do you find it somehow coincidental that I have listed eight examples
where
> the narrative flow is interrupted and then resumes across the flow of an
> alleged insertion? It appears to me that you are arbitrarily pulling back
> from a most probable conclusion regarding the existence of pMark. Rather
> than being overly credulous upon inadequate evidence, you making the
> opposite error of irrational skepticism in the face of strong evidence for
> the thesis. Nor am I alone in adopting this position. As noted, pMark is a
> thesis embraced by many scholars who have dealt with PN.
>
> The proper amount of skepticism is determined by what evidence would
> warrant
> a conclusion or refrain from making one. In this case, I think that
> evidence pMark is such that your skepticism is not warranted. Perhaps you
> might go back to those examples I offered and address each specifically to
> justify your skepticism. Otherwise, it would seem that your skepticism is
> excessive and irrational as is your failure to recognize what is obvious
> evidence for the existence of pMark.
>
> As it is, it does not seem that you are able to properly assess
objectively
> the probability of the thesis let alone recognize what is the evidence in
> favor of it. So while conveying the impression that you are being cautious
> and judicious, you are in fact in a state of academic denial.
>
> Such a reaction is entirely expected. First, from conservative scholars
who
> because of some dogmatism, do not want to admit to redactional activity as
> it threatens to "destabilize" a sacred text. Second, form anyone with a
> vested interest in Markan scholarship that presumes a unified document and
> thus do not want to admit that such research is vulnerable to the
> conclusion
> that it is fatally flawed. Needless, to say, it makes a great exegetical
> different if the Gospel of Mark is unified or of composite authorship. The
> issue if fundamental to the interpretation of the Gospel on every level.
As
> it turns out, from my perspective, an crucial oversight has been committed

> even though the issue should be considered in the face of PN research. It
> is rather like trying to interpret the Pentateuch without recourse to the
> Documentary Hypothesis.
>
> LM Barré
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Ronald Price
> Date: 01/05/13 09:04:10
> To: Synoptic-L
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
>
>
> LM wrote:
>
> > I chose these two motifs ['immediately' and 'amazement'] because of
> their
> > excessive repetition and thus indicate an aspect of authorial style. It
> does
> > proceed from the evidence of a redaction of an underlying narrative,
> which
> I
> > find to be quite compelling.
> > Would you not agree?
>
> LM,
>
> At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> certain
> stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> secondary
> to ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative? Quoting examples is not
> the same as supplying evidence. If you have set out evidence for redaction
> which is independent of these stylistic features, I must have missed it.
> (The page you pointed to on the 'Early Christian Writings' web site
> provides
> evidence of what certain scholars believed about the extent of a supposed
> pre-Markan passion narrative, but not why they believed in its
> historicity.)
>
> Ron Price,
>
> Derbyshire, UK
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Clarification: Could L M Barré repeat the oft-mentioned "eight examples?"
Preferably not in a single block of type; that format is very hard to read,
and preferably not appending previous correspondence (see the list
protocol). Eight paragraphs would be wonderful.

Thanks,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

You spend time psychoanalyzing his putative 'irrationality.' I think that's
unnecessary.

Jeffery Hodges

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, lmbarre@... <lmbarre@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I posted the evidence for pMark on my first post in this thread and then he
> asked for the evidence. This is not psychoanalysis. It is a mere
> observation.
>
> I did clarify . . . In my last post. Should not the discussion of evidence
> refer to my eight examples? Of course it should.
>
> LM Barré
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
> Date: 1/6/2013 1:38:09 AM
> To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
>
> Why psychoanalyze Ron and accuse him of irrationality? He's always struck
> me as a solid, rational, rigorous scholar. If you think that he's missed
> your point, then clarify your argument for him.
>
> Jeffery Hodges
> Ewha Womans University
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, lmbarre@... lmbarre@...>
> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > "At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> > certain
> > Stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> > secondary
> > To ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> > Evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative?"
> >
> > I am taken aback that you have to ask this. The evidence of redaction
> was
> > given in the first post in this thread.
> >
> > What hinders you from coming to a conclusion based upon this evidence?
> >
> > Do you find it somehow coincidental that I have listed eight examples
> where
> > the narrative flow is interrupted and then resumes across the flow of an
> > alleged insertion? It appears to me that you are arbitrarily pulling
> back
> > from a most probable conclusion regarding the existence of pMark. Rather
> > than being overly credulous upon inadequate evidence, you making the
> > opposite error of irrational skepticism in the face of strong evidence
> for
> > the thesis. Nor am I alone in adopting this position. As noted, pMark is
> a
> > thesis embraced by many scholars who have dealt with PN.
> >
> > The proper amount of skepticism is determined by what evidence would
> > warrant
> > a conclusion or refrain from making one. In this case, I think that
> > evidence pMark is such that your skepticism is not warranted. Perhaps
> you
> > might go back to those examples I offered and address each specifically
> to
> > justify your skepticism. Otherwise, it would seem that your skepticism
> is
> > excessive and irrational as is your failure to recognize what is obvious
> > evidence for the existence of pMark.
> >
> > As it is, it does not seem that you are able to properly assess
> objectively
> > the probability of the thesis let alone recognize what is the evidence
> in
> > favor of it. So while conveying the impression that you are being
> cautious
> > and judicious, you are in fact in a state of academic denial.
> >
> > Such a reaction is entirely expected. First, from conservative scholars
> who
> > because of some dogmatism, do not want to admit to redactional activity
> as
> > it threatens to "destabilize" a sacred text. Second, form anyone with a
> > vested interest in Markan scholarship that presumes a unified document
> and
> > thus do not want to admit that such research is vulnerable to the
> > conclusion
> > that it is fatally flawed. Needless, to say, it makes a great exegetical
> > different if the Gospel of Mark is unified or of composite authorship.
> The
> > issue if fundamental to the interpretation of the Gospel on every level.
> As
> > it turns out, from my perspective, an crucial oversight has been
> committed
>
> > even though the issue should be considered in the face of PN research.
> It
> > is rather like trying to interpret the Pentateuch without recourse to
> the
> > Documentary Hypothesis.
> >
> > LM Barré
> > -------Original Message-------
> >
> > From: Ronald Price
> > Date: 01/05/13 09:04:10
> > To: Synoptic-L
> > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
> >
> >
> > LM wrote:
> >
> > > I chose these two motifs ['immediately' and 'amazement'] because of
> > their
> > > excessive repetition and thus indicate an aspect of authorial style.
> It
> > does
> > > proceed from the evidence of a redaction of an underlying narrative,
> > which
> > I
> > > find to be quite compelling.
> > > Would you not agree?
> >
> > LM,
> >
> > At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> > certain
> > stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> > secondary
> > to ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> > evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative? Quoting examples is
> not
> > the same as supplying evidence. If you have set out evidence for
> redaction
> > which is independent of these stylistic features, I must have missed it.
> > (The page you pointed to on the 'Early Christian Writings' web site
> > provides
> > evidence of what certain scholars believed about the extent of a
> supposed
> > pre-Markan passion narrative, but not why they believed in its
> > historicity.)
> >
> > Ron Price,
> >
> > Derbyshire, UK
> >
> > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here you go, Bruce.
Here are now ten examples as requested.  I have marked verbal
correspondences with an two asterisks across the alleged insertions.  I have
also juxtaposed then connecting words with [related words]-->[related words]
   I hope I have been sufficiently clear to show the narrative continuity
across the alleged expansions.  Also, notice the Markan use of the  euthus
(marked with ++) in the alleged expansions and the specifically mature
Christian concepts within some of the expansions:  "followers of Christ
(9:41); the bridegroom taken away (2:20); "whenever the Gospel is preached
(14:9).  Finally, I have included my pre-Markan PN to illustrate the
continuity of the story when the alleged expansions are removed.  It is
quite short.
Markan expansions of pMark
1) The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer's death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave
them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they
should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag
  no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, "Do not put
on two tunics." 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay
there until you leave town. 11 "Any place that does not receive you or
listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of
your feet for a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that
men should repent. 13  **And they were casting out many demons and were
anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.**

14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and
people were saying, "John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is
why these miraculous powers are at work in Him." 15 But others were saying,
He is Elijah." And others were saying, "He is a prophet, like one of the
prophets of old." 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, "John, whom
I beheaded, has risen !" 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested
and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip,
because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not
lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 Herodias had a grudge
against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod
was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he
kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to
enjoy listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday
gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of
Galilee ; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced,
she pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl,
Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you." 23 And he swore to
her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my
kingdom." 24 And she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?
  And she said, "The head of John the Baptist." 25 ++Immediately++ she came
in a hurry to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the
head of John the Baptist on a platter." 26 And although the king was very
sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was
unwilling to refuse her. 27 ++Immediately++ the king sent an executioner and
commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in
the prison, 28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ;
and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this,
they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb.

6:30 **The apostles gathered together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him
all that they had done and taught.**

  6:13 **And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil
many sick people and healing them.**-->6:30 **The apostles gathered together
with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught.**

2) Jesus' family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that
they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, **they
went out to take custody of Him;** for they were saying, "He has lost His
senses."

3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed
by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23
And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How
can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that
kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house
will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is
divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27 "But no one can enter the
strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong
man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins
shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter ; 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean
spirit."

3:31 **Then His mother and His brothers arrived,** and standing outside they
sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they
said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for
You." 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers ?" 34
Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My
mother and My brothers ! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My
brother and sister and mother."

3: 21**they went out to take custody of Him;** -->3:31 **Then His mother and
His brothers arrived,**

3) Jesus' assertion about an unknown exorcist:

9:33 They came to Capernaum ; and when He was in the house, He began to
question them, "What were you discussing on the way ?" 34 But they kept
silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was
the greatest. 35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If
anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." 36
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said
to them, 37 "Whoever receives **one child like this** in My name receives Me
  and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."

9:38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your
name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39 But
Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a
miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For
he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water
to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he
will not lose his reward.

9:42 "Whoever causes **one of these little ones** who believe to stumble, it
would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he
had been cast into the sea.

9:37 **one child like this** -->9:42 **one of these little ones**

4) Not Fasting
2:18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting ; and they came and
said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees
fast, but **your disciples do not fast?**" 19 And Jesus said to them,

"While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot
fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot
fast. 20 "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them
  and then they will fast in that day.

2:21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment ; otherwise
the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results
  22 "No one puts new wine into old wineskins ; otherwise the wine will burst
the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; **but one puts new
wine into fresh wineskins."**

2:18 **your disciples do not fast?**"--> 2:22 **but one puts new wine into
fresh wineskins."**

The Passion Narrative
　
5) Death Plot and Anointing

  14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and **the
chief priests** and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and
kill Him; 2 for they were saying, **"Not during the festival,** otherwise
there might be a riot of the people."

14:3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining
at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly
perfume of pure nard ; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4
But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume
been wasted ? 5 "For this perfume might have been sold for over three
hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they were scolding
her. 6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone ; why do you bother her? She has done
a good deed to Me. 7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever
you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 "She has
done what she could ; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9
Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what
this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her."

14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to **the
chief priests** in order to betray Him to them. 11 They were glad when they
heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to
betray Him **at an opportune time.**

14:1**the chief priests**-->14:10 **the chief priests**

14:2 **"Not during the festival,** -->14:10**at an opportune time.**
　
The Last Passover

14:12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being
sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and
prepare for You to eat the Passover ?" 13 And He sent two of His disciples
and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a
pitcher of water ; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner
of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is My guest room in which I may eat
the Passover with My disciples ?"' 15 "And he himself will show you a large
upper room furnished and ready ; prepare for us there." 16 The disciples
went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and
they prepared the Passover. 17 When it was evening He came with the twelve.
18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly I say
to you that one of you will betray Me-one who is eating with Me." 19 They
began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, "Surely not I?" 20 And He
said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. 21
"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that
man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It would have been good for that
man if he had not been born."
　
The Lord's Supper

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke
it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when
He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank
from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many. 25 "Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the
fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus
said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE
DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.' 28 "But after I have
been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." 29 But Peter said to Him,
Even though all may fall away, yet I will not." 30 And Jesus said to him,
Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you
yourself will deny Me three times." 31 But Peter kept saying insistently,
Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And they all were
saying the same thing also.

Jesus in Gethsemane

32 They came to a place named Gethsemane ; and He said to His disciples,
Sit here until I have prayed." 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and
John, and began to be very distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them,
My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death ; remain here and keep watch
" 35 And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to
pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. 36 And He was
saying, "Abba ! Father ! All things are possible for You; remove this cup
from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." 37 And He came and found
them sleeping, and said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep ? Could you not
keep watch for one hour ? 38 "Keep watching and praying that you may not
come into temptation ; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 39
Again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came
and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy ; and they did not
know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them,
Are you still sleeping and resting ? It is enough ; the hour has come ;
behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 "Get
up, let us be going ; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand !"
　
Betrayal and Arrest

14:43 ++Immediately++ while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve,
came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the
chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now he who was betraying
Him had given them a signal, saying, "Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize
Him and lead Him away under guard." 45 After coming, Judas ++immediately++
went to Him, saying, "Rabbi !" and kissed Him. 46 They laid hands on Him and
seized Him. 47 But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the
slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus said to them,
Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a
robber ? 49 "Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did
not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures." 50 And
they all left Him and fled. 51 A young man was following Him, wearing
nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But
he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.
　
6) Jesus before His Accusers

[pMarkan arrest episode replaced by Markan version]

14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the **chief priests
and the elders and the scribes gathered together.**

14:54 Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the
high priest ; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at
the fire.  [Insertion anticipating Peter's denials].

14:55 **Now the chief priests and the whole Council** kept trying to obtain
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was
not consistent.

14:53 **chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together
**-->14:55 **Now the chief priests and the whole Council**

[The charge of destroying the temple seems to be an insertion also.  Note
the double mention of the inconsistency as though the redactor is imitating
his source.   The topic comes up latter in subsequent Markan addition in
15:29 within the context of an insertion.]

57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58
We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three
days I will build another made without hands.' " 59 Not even in this respect
was their testimony consistent.

  60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying,
Do You not answer ? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was
questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN
SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have
of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?"
And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit
at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say
to Him, "Prophesy!"

**chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.**-->55
**Now the chief priests and the whole Council**

7) The Roman officers receive Jesus and take him away

**And the officers received Him** with slaps in the face.
　
Peter's Denials

14:66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the
high priest came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and
said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." 68 But he denied it, saying,
I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out
onto the porch. and a rooster crowed. The servant-girl saw him, and began
once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" 70 But again he
denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to
Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." 71 But he
began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!" 72
++Immediately++ a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how
Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will
deny Me three times." And he began to weep.

15:1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and
the whole Council, ++immediately++ held a consultation ; and binding Jesus,
they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Pilate questioned Him, "Are
You the King of the Jews ?" And He answered him, "It is as you say." 3 The
chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. 4 Then Pilate questioned Him
again, saying, "Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against
You!" 5 But Jesus made no further answer. So Pilate was amazed.
　
15:6 Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they
requested. 7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the
insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8 The crowd
went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to do for them.
9 Pilate answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release for you the King
of the Jews ?" 10 For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him
over because of envy. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask
him to release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Answering again, Pilate said to
them, "Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews ?"
13 They shouted back, "Crucify Him!" 14 But Pilate said to them, "Why, what
evil has He done ?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify Him!" 15 Wishing
to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having
Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.
　
Jesus Is Mocked

15:16 **The soldiers took Him away** into the palace (that is, the
Praetorium ), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They
dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it
on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They
kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and
bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe
off Him and put His own garments on Him. **And they led Him out to crucify
Him.**

**And the officers received Him****-->16 **The soldiers took Him away**

15:21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon
of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus ), to bear His cross.
　
15:22 Then they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated,
Place of a Skull. 23 They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh ; but He
did not take it. 24 And they crucified Him, and divided up His garments
among themselves, casting lots for them to decide what each man should take.


8) Jesus is crucified

15:25 **It was the third hour** when **they crucified Him.** 26 The
inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They
crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.

  **And they led Him out to crucify Him.**-->when **they crucified Him.**

15:28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with
transgressors."

15:29 Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and
saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three
days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!"

15:31 In the same way, the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were
mocking Him among themselves and saying, "He delivered others ; He cannot
deliver Himself. 32 Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from
the cross, so that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with
Him were also insulting Him.

15:33 When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the
ninth hour.

15:34 **At the ninth hour** Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI,
LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU
FORSAKEN ME?" 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying,
Behold, He is calling for Elijah." 36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with
sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see
whether Elijah will come to take Him down." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry,
and **breathed His last.**

9) The hours

**It was the third hour**-->34 **At the ninth hour**

15:38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

15:39 When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the
way **He breathed His last,** he said, "Truly this man was a son of a god!"
10) The Last Breath
**breathed His last.** -->**saw the way He breathed His last,**

The pre-Markan Passion Narrative　

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and the
chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and
kill Him; 2 for they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise there
might be a riot of the people." 10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the
twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. 11
They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he
began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.

[PN arrest episode replaced by Markan version]

　
53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the chief priests and
the elders and the scribes gathered together.

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was
not consistent. The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned
Jesus, saying, "Will you not answer, against what is it that these men are
testifying against You?" 61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the
high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE
SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF
HEAVEN." 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do
we have of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem
to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began
to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and
to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps in the
face.

　
16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and
they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in
purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and
they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They kept beating
His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before
Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put
His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26 The inscription of the
charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They crucified two
robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left. 34 At the ninth hour
Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" which is
translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" 35 When some of the
bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah."
36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and
gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him
down." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 39 When the
centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed
His last, he said, "Truly this man was a son of a god!"
LM Barré
San Diego
-------Original Message-------







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I had written:

> "At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to certain
> Stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are secondary
> To ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> Evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative?"

LM replied:

> I am taken aback that you have to ask this. The evidence of redaction was
> given in the first post in this thread.

LM,

In your first post you delineated what you consider to be expansions of the
posited pMark, and seemed to suggest that these expansions consist of those
passages which refer to 'immediately' (EUQUS), or to amazement, or which
involve repetition. I questioned (in effect) whether it is valid to
distinguish two supposedly interleaved texts by picking stylistic
characteristics of one of them, without identifying any positive identifying
characteristics of the other.

In your last but one post, as indicated above, you seemed to be claiming
that the evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative is independent of
these stylistic characteristics. This may be so, but if it is, you have not
said *why*. I can only think that you may be relying on the arguments of the
scholars mentioned on the referenced page in 'Early Christian Writings', but
these arguments are not set out on that page, so I cannot comment on them.
Thus you have not made a case for (the existence of) pMark: at most you have
made a case for a specific delineation of pMark on the assumption that other
scholars have made a valid case for its existence.

> ..... the issue should be considered in the face of PN research. It
> is rather like trying to interpret the Pentateuch without recourse to the
> Documentary Hypothesis.

Biblical research has a habit of coming up with hypothetical documents, or
hypothetical predecessors to extant documents. Most of these are  eventually
abandoned or become the domain of a minority. As it happens I think the JEDP
hypothesis of the pentateuch has been pretty well established as historical.
But from what I know of the pMark hypothesis, it seems to be a long way from
being established. Take, for instance Morna Hooker's arguments in "The
Gospel according to Mark", p.325. She thinks Mk 14:17-25 had been previously
told as a story because part of it appears in 1 Cor 11:23-26. But Mark could
well have composed 14:17-25 from what he had heard from Paul (probably
something close to 1 Cor 11:23-26). Similarly with the Gethsemane tradition,
14:32-42 and Heb 5:7f.. I think the author of Hebrews had probably read
Mark's gospel, so the similarity of the Gethsemane tradition to Heb 5:7f.
need not imply that Mk 14:32-42 had any existence prior to Mark's gospel.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't think so.  I just pointed out that one can be overly credulous based
on insufficient evidence as well as overly skeptical against sufficient
evidence.   The former is more often recognized while the latter tends to
more often escape detection as it gives the appearance of being "cautious"
and "careful."  But of course, that depends a subjective assessment of  the
objective" strength of the evidence offered.  Also, for the purposes of
clarity and objectivity, I noted that there are "theological" and
ideological reasons to resist the thesis.  This, I should think, is common
sense and may well come in to play when faced with such a thesis.  It was
only an attempt to clear the air, perhaps at the expense of being somewhat
politically incorrect.  I hardly wish to charge any detractor as being an
ideologue or myself being such in advancing the thesis.

Does the question is, what is the proper, objective assessment of the
evidence offered?  Is pMark a probable thesis?  I offered evidence that
indeed it is.  Perhaps we need to take a close look at each of ten examples
I have offered.  How about the first?  Is it probable that the story of the
fate of the Baptizer an insertion or not, and why?  (It has been suggested
that "sandwiching" is an authorial technique, while I am arguing that it is
a redactional technique.)  Then on to the next examples and so on.  After
all are inspected, what is the probable conclusion?  Is pMark a probable
thesis?  As the title of the thread is, "A Case for pMark."  I am arguing
that I have made the case and welcome any assessment regarding this basic
claim, either negatively, positively, or unclear.  That's why I posted it
here.  Where better?

LM Barré
San Diego
-------Original Message-------

From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
Date: 1/6/2013 2:14:09 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

You spend time psychoanalyzing his putative 'irrationality.' I think that's
unnecessary.

Jeffery Hodges

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, lmbarre@... <lmbarre@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I posted the evidence for pMark on my first post in this thread and then
he
> asked for the evidence. This is not psychoanalysis. It is a mere
> observation.
>
> I did clarify . . . In my last post. Should not the discussion of evidence
> refer to my eight examples? Of course it should.
>
> LM Barré
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
> Date: 1/6/2013 1:38:09 AM
> To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
>
> Why psychoanalyze Ron and accuse him of irrationality? He's always struck
> me as a solid, rational, rigorous scholar. If you think that he's missed
> your point, then clarify your argument for him.
>
> Jeffery Hodges
> Ewha Womans University
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, lmbarre@... lmbarre@...>
> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > "At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> > certain
> > Stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> > secondary
> > To ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> > Evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative?"
> >
> > I am taken aback that you have to ask this. The evidence of redaction
> was
> > given in the first post in this thread.
> >
> > What hinders you from coming to a conclusion based upon this evidence?
> >
> > Do you find it somehow coincidental that I have listed eight examples
> where
> > the narrative flow is interrupted and then resumes across the flow of an
> > alleged insertion? It appears to me that you are arbitrarily pulling
> back
> > from a most probable conclusion regarding the existence of pMark. Rather
> > than being overly credulous upon inadequate evidence, you making the
> > opposite error of irrational skepticism in the face of strong evidence
> for
> > the thesis. Nor am I alone in adopting this position. As noted, pMark is
> a
> > thesis embraced by many scholars who have dealt with PN.
> >
> > The proper amount of skepticism is determined by what evidence would
> > warrant
> > a conclusion or refrain from making one. In this case, I think that
> > evidence pMark is such that your skepticism is not warranted. Perhaps
> you
> > might go back to those examples I offered and address each specifically
> to
> > justify your skepticism. Otherwise, it would seem that your skepticism
> is
> > excessive and irrational as is your failure to recognize what is obvious
> > evidence for the existence of pMark.
> >
> > As it is, it does not seem that you are able to properly assess
> objectively
> > the probability of the thesis let alone recognize what is the evidence
> in
> > favor of it. So while conveying the impression that you are being
> cautious
> > and judicious, you are in fact in a state of academic denial.
> >
> > Such a reaction is entirely expected. First, from conservative scholars
> who
> > because of some dogmatism, do not want to admit to redactional activity
> as
> > it threatens to "destabilize" a sacred text. Second, form anyone with a
> > vested interest in Markan scholarship that presumes a unified document
> and
> > thus do not want to admit that such research is vulnerable to the
> > conclusion
> > that it is fatally flawed. Needless, to say, it makes a great exegetical
> > different if the Gospel of Mark is unified or of composite authorship.
> The
> > issue if fundamental to the interpretation of the Gospel on every level.
> As
> > it turns out, from my perspective, an crucial oversight has been
> committed
>
> > even though the issue should be considered in the face of PN research.
> It
> > is rather like trying to interpret the Pentateuch without recourse to
> the
> > Documentary Hypothesis.
> >
> > LM Barré
> > -------Original Message-------
> >
> > From: Ronald Price
> > Date: 01/05/13 09:04:10
> > To: Synoptic-L
> > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
> >
> >
> > LM wrote:
> >
> > > I chose these two motifs ['immediately' and 'amazement'] because of
> > their
> > > excessive repetition and thus indicate an aspect of authorial style.
> It
> > does
> > > proceed from the evidence of a redaction of an underlying narrative,
> > which
> > I
> > > find to be quite compelling.
> > > Would you not agree?
> >
> > LM,
> >
> > At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to
> > certain
> > stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are
> > secondary
> > to ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
> > evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative? Quoting examples is
> not
> > the same as supplying evidence. If you have set out evidence for
> redaction
> > which is independent of these stylistic features, I must have missed it.
> > (The page you pointed to on the 'Early Christian Writings' web site
> > provides
> > evidence of what certain scholars believed about the extent of a
> supposed
> > pre-Markan passion narrative, but not why they believed in its
> > historicity.)
> >
> > Ron Price,
> >
> > Derbyshire, UK
> >
> > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, I guess, but the single paragraph (as received here) is ABSOLUTELY
unintelligible. Here is my attempt at separating part of it. But even if I
could spare the time from other editing, I can't usefully comment on what
would amount to my own reconstruction of somebody else's reconstruction.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

------------PARTIAL TENTATIVE RECONSTRUCTION-----------------

Markan expansions of pMark

1) The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer's death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave
them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they
should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag
no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, "Do not put
on two tunics." 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay
there until you leave town. 11 "Any place that does not receive you or
listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of
your feet for a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that
men should repent. 13  **And they were casting out many demons and were
anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.**14 And King Herod
heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and people were saying,
"John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous
powers are at work in Him." 15 But others were saying, He is Elijah." And
others were saying, "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." 16
But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, "John, whom I beheaded, has
risen !" 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in
prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he
had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for
you to have your brother's wife." 19 Herodias had a grudge against him and
wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod was afraid of
John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe.
And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to enjoy
listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a
banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee
; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she
pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl, Ask me
for whatever you want and I will give it to you." 23 And he swore to her,
"Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom."
24 And she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?  And she
said, "The head of John the Baptist." 25 ++Immediately++ she came in a hurry
to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of
John the Baptist on a platter." 26 And although the king was very sorry, yet
because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was unwilling to
refuse her. 27 ++Immediately++ the king sent an executioner and commanded
him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison,
28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ; and the girl
gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this, they came and
took away his body and laid it in a tomb.6:30 **The apostles gathered
together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and
taught.** 6:13 **And they were casting out many demons and were anointing
with oil many sick people and healing them.**-->6:30 **The apostles gathered
together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and
taught.**

2) Jesus' family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that
they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, **they
went out to take custody of Him;** for they were saying, "He has lost His
senses." 3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is
possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the
demons." 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in
parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided
against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against
itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up
against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27
"But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless
he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly
I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever
blasphemies they utter ; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they
were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."3:31 **Then His mother and His
brothers arrived,** and standing outside they sent word to Him and called
Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your
mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He
said, "Who are My mother and My brothers ?" 34 Looking about at those who
were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers ! 35
"For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and
mother."3: 21**they went out to take custody of Him;** -->3:31 **Then His
mother and His brothers arrived,**

3) Jesus' assertion about an unknown exorcist:

[This is as far as I got. I think these are the first two. What is supposed
to be the interpolation or interpolations in each? I should have expected
the Pharisee interlude in #2, and the John execution in #1.  That is, as I
tried to show at SBL/NE in 2006, Mk 3:22-30 lifts out very easily, leaving a
perfectly consecutive narrative behind it. So does 6:17-29. But this does
not seem to be the present proposal. So far, I like mine better].

[Some of these matters requiring formatting are perhaps better handled in an
attached PDF, or a PDF posted to the list's FILES section. This is a fairly
easy process. Suggested herewith].

[Bruce]

[Just to give my own interpretation for the record, I interpret the overall
interpolation pattern in Mark, along lines suggested by Taylor and others
did some time ago, as indicating, not a first state (Proto or Ur or
whatever) to which later material was added to form a second state
(canonical Mark, or whatever), but rather an original brief but complete
narrative, to which newer material was added in a series of accretions and
additions, each keeping pace with a new idea or a new challenge arising in
the community subtended by Mark. I see an accretional text, not a two-stage
text. There is only one text; it just grows bigger over time.

Sorry, Bruce.  After every paragraph,  I pressed enter twice, hoping that
the paragraphs would be retained.  I will tell you what.  I will re-post to
a Yahoo Groups forum that I host.  The server there reads Rich Text Format
and then I will simply supply you with the link.

LMB




-------Original Message-------

From: E Bruce Brooks
Date: 1/6/2013 4:44:17 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark


Thanks, I guess, but the single paragraph (as received here) is ABSOLUTELY
unintelligible. Here is my attempt at separating part of it. But even if I
could spare the time from other editing, I can't usefully comment on what
would amount to my own reconstruction of somebody else's reconstruction.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

------------PARTIAL TENTATIVE RECONSTRUCTION-----------------

Markan expansions of pMark

1) The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer's death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave
them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they
should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag
no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, "Do not put
on two tunics." 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay
there until you leave town. 11 "Any place that does not receive you or
listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of
your feet for a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that
men should repent. 13 **And they were casting out many demons and were
anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.**14 And King Herod
heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and people were saying,
"John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous
powers are at work in Him." 15 But others were saying, He is Elijah." And
others were saying, "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." 16
But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, "John, whom I beheaded, has
risen !" 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in
prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he
had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for
you to have your brother's wife." 19 Herodias had a grudge against him and
wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod was afraid of
John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe.
And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to enjoy
listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a
banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee
; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she
pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl, Ask me
for whatever you want and I will give it to you." 23 And he swore to her,
"Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom."
24 And she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for? And she
said, "The head of John the Baptist." 25 ++Immediately++ she came in a hurry
to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of
John the Baptist on a platter." 26 And although the king was very sorry, yet
because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was unwilling to
refuse her. 27 ++Immediately++ the king sent an executioner and commanded
him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison,
28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ; and the girl
gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this, they came and
took away his body and laid it in a tomb.6:30 **The apostles gathered
together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and
taught.** 6:13 **And they were casting out many demons and were anointing
with oil many sick people and healing them.**-->6:30 **The apostles gathered
together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and
taught.**

2) Jesus' family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that
they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, **they
went out to take custody of Him;** for they were saying, "He has lost His
senses." 3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is
possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the
demons." 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in
parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided
against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against
itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up
against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27
"But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless
he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly
I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever
blasphemies they utter ; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they
were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."3:31 **Then His mother and His
brothers arrived,** and standing outside they sent word to Him and called
Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your
mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He
said, "Who are My mother and My brothers ?" 34 Looking about at those who
were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers ! 35
"For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and
mother."3: 21**they went out to take custody of Him;** -->3:31 **Then His
mother and His brothers arrived,**

3) Jesus' assertion about an unknown exorcist:

[This is as far as I got. I think these are the first two. What is supposed
to be the interpolation or interpolations in each? I should have expected
the Pharisee interlude in #2, and the John execution in #1. That is, as I
tried to show at SBL/NE in 2006, Mk 3:22-30 lifts out very easily, leaving a
perfectly consecutive narrative behind it. So does 6:17-29. But this does
not seem to be the present proposal. So far, I like mine better].

[Some of these matters requiring formatting are perhaps better handled in an
attached PDF, or a PDF posted to the list's FILES section. This is a fairly
easy process. Suggested herewith].

[Bruce]

[Just to give my own interpretation for the record, I interpret the overall
interpolation pattern in Mark, along lines suggested by Taylor and others
did some time ago, as indicating, not a first state (Proto or Ur or
whatever) to which later material was added to form a second state
(canonical Mark, or whatever), but rather an original brief but complete
narrative, to which newer material was added in a series of accretions and
additions, each keeping pace with a new idea or a new challenge arising in
the community subtended by Mark. I see an accretional text, not a two-stage
text. There is only one text; it just grows bigger over time.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just trying to help, here. I'm hoping Bruce can read my forward-on better than
IMB's original!

Will


-----Original Message-----
From: lmbarre@...
Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark




Here you go, Bruce.
Here are now ten examples as requested. I have marked verbal
correspondences with an two asterisks across the alleged insertions. I have
also juxtaposed then connecting words with [related words]-->[related words]
I hope I have been sufficiently clear to show the narrative continuity
across the alleged expansions. Also, notice the Markan use of the euthus
(marked with ++) in the alleged expansions and the specifically mature
Christian concepts within some of the expansions: "followers of Christ
(9:41); the bridegroom taken away (2:20); "whenever the Gospel is preached
(14:9). Finally, I have included my pre-Markan PN to illustrate the
continuity of the story when the alleged expansions are removed. It is
quite short.
Markan expansions of pMark
1) The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer's death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave
them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they
should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag
no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, "Do not put
on two tunics." 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay
there until you leave town. 11 "Any place that does not receive you or
listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of
your feet for a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that
men should repent. 13 **And they were casting out many demons and were
anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.**

14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and
people were saying, "John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is
why these miraculous powers are at work in Him." 15 But others were saying,
He is Elijah." And others were saying, "He is a prophet, like one of the
prophets of old." 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, "John, whom
I beheaded, has risen !" 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested
and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip,
because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not
lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 Herodias had a grudge
against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod
was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he
kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to
enjoy listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday
gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of
Galilee ; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced,
she pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl,
Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you." 23 And he swore to
her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my
kingdom." 24 And she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?
And she said, "The head of John the Baptist." 25 ++Immediately++ she came
in a hurry to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the
head of John the Baptist on a platter." 26 And although the king was very
sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was
unwilling to refuse her. 27 ++Immediately++ the king sent an executioner and
commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in
the prison, 28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ;
and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this,
they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb.

6:30 **The apostles gathered together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him
all that they had done and taught.**

6:13 **And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil
many sick people and healing them.**-->6:30 **The apostles gathered together
with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught.**

2) Jesus' family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that
they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, **they
went out to take custody of Him;** for they were saying, "He has lost His
senses."

3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed
by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23
And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How
can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that
kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house
will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is
divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27 "But no one can enter the
strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong
man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins
shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter ; 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean
spirit."

3:31 **Then His mother and His brothers arrived,** and standing outside they
sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they
said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for
You." 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers ?" 34
Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My
mother and My brothers ! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My
brother and sister and mother."

3: 21**they went out to take custody of Him;** -->3:31 **Then His mother and
His brothers arrived,**

3) Jesus' assertion about an unknown exorcist:

9:33 They came to Capernaum ; and when He was in the house, He began to
question them, "What were you discussing on the way ?" 34 But they kept
silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was
the greatest. 35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If
anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." 36
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said
to them, 37 "Whoever receives **one child like this** in My name receives Me
and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."

9:38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your
name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39 But
Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a
miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For
he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water
to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he
will not lose his reward.

9:42 "Whoever causes **one of these little ones** who believe to stumble, it
would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he
had been cast into the sea.

9:37 **one child like this** -->9:42 **one of these little ones**

4) Not Fasting
2:18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting ; and they came and
said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees
fast, but **your disciples do not fast?**" 19 And Jesus said to them,

"While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot
fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot
fast. 20 "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them
and then they will fast in that day.

2:21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment ; otherwise
the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results
22 "No one puts new wine into old wineskins ; otherwise the wine will burst
the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; **but one puts new
wine into fresh wineskins."**

2:18 **your disciples do not fast?**"--> 2:22 **but one puts new wine into
fresh wineskins."**

The Passion Narrative

5) Death Plot and Anointing

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and **the
chief priests** and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and
kill Him; 2 for they were saying, **"Not during the festival,** otherwise
there might be a riot of the people."

14:3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining
at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly
perfume of pure nard ; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4
But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume
been wasted ? 5 "For this perfume might have been sold for over three
hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they were scolding
her. 6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone ; why do you bother her? She has done
a good deed to Me. 7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever
you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 "She has
done what she could ; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9
Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what
this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her."

14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to **the
chief priests** in order to betray Him to them. 11 They were glad when they
heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to
betray Him **at an opportune time.**

14:1**the chief priests**-->14:10 **the chief priests**

14:2 **"Not during the festival,** -->14:10**at an opportune time.**

The Last Passover

14:12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being
sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and
prepare for You to eat the Passover ?" 13 And He sent two of His disciples
and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a
pitcher of water ; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner
of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is My guest room in which I may eat
the Passover with My disciples ?"' 15 "And he himself will show you a large
upper room furnished and ready ; prepare for us there." 16 The disciples
went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and
they prepared the Passover. 17 When it was evening He came with the twelve.
18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly I say
to you that one of you will betray Me-one who is eating with Me." 19 They
began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, "Surely not I?" 20 And He
said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. 21
"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that
man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It would have been good for that
man if he had not been born."

The Lord's Supper

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke
it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when
He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank
from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many. 25 "Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the
fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus
said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE
DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.' 28 "But after I have
been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." 29 But Peter said to Him,
Even though all may fall away, yet I will not." 30 And Jesus said to him,
Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you
yourself will deny Me three times." 31 But Peter kept saying insistently,
Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And they all were
saying the same thing also.

Jesus in Gethsemane

32 They came to a place named Gethsemane ; and He said to His disciples,
Sit here until I have prayed." 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and
John, and began to be very distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them,
My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death ; remain here and keep watch
" 35 And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to
pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. 36 And He was
saying, "Abba ! Father ! All things are possible for You; remove this cup
from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." 37 And He came and found
them sleeping, and said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep ? Could you not
keep watch for one hour ? 38 "Keep watching and praying that you may not
come into temptation ; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 39
Again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came
and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy ; and they did not
know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them,
Are you still sleeping and resting ? It is enough ; the hour has come ;
behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 "Get
up, let us be going ; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand !"

Betrayal and Arrest

14:43 ++Immediately++ while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve,
came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the
chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now he who was betraying
Him had given them a signal, saying, "Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize
Him and lead Him away under guard." 45 After coming, Judas ++immediately++
went to Him, saying, "Rabbi !" and kissed Him. 46 They laid hands on Him and
seized Him. 47 But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the
slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus said to them,
Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a
robber ? 49 "Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did
not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures." 50 And
they all left Him and fled. 51 A young man was following Him, wearing
nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But
he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.

6) Jesus before His Accusers

[pMarkan arrest episode replaced by Markan version]

14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the **chief priests
and the elders and the scribes gathered together.**

14:54 Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the
high priest ; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at
the fire. [Insertion anticipating Peter's denials].

14:55 **Now the chief priests and the whole Council** kept trying to obtain
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was
not consistent.

14:53 **chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together
**-->14:55 **Now the chief priests and the whole Council**

[The charge of destroying the temple seems to be an insertion also. Note
the double mention of the inconsistency as though the redactor is imitating
his source. The topic comes up latter in subsequent Markan addition in
15:29 within the context of an insertion.]

57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58
We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three
days I will build another made without hands.' " 59 Not even in this respect
was their testimony consistent.

60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying,
Do You not answer ? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was
questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN
SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have
of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?"
And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit
at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say
to Him, "Prophesy!"

**chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.**-->55
**Now the chief priests and the whole Council**

7) The Roman officers receive Jesus and take him away

**And the officers received Him** with slaps in the face.

Peter's Denials

14:66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the
high priest came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and
said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." 68 But he denied it, saying,
I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out
onto the porch. and a rooster crowed. The servant-girl saw him, and began
once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" 70 But again he
denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to
Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." 71 But he
began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!" 72
++Immediately++ a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how
Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will
deny Me three times." And he began to weep.

15:1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and
the whole Council, ++immediately++ held a consultation ; and binding Jesus,
they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Pilate questioned Him, "Are
You the King of the Jews ?" And He answered him, "It is as you say." 3 The
chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. 4 Then Pilate questioned Him
again, saying, "Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against
You!" 5 But Jesus made no further answer. So Pilate was amazed.

15:6 Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they
requested. 7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the
insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8 The crowd
went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to do for them.
9 Pilate answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release for you the King
of the Jews ?" 10 For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him
over because of envy. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask
him to release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Answering again, Pilate said to
them, "Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews ?"
13 They shouted back, "Crucify Him!" 14 But Pilate said to them, "Why, what
evil has He done ?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify Him!" 15 Wishing
to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having
Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

Jesus Is Mocked

15:16 **The soldiers took Him away** into the palace (that is, the
Praetorium ), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They
dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it
on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They
kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and
bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe
off Him and put His own garments on Him. **And they led Him out to crucify
Him.**

**And the officers received Him****-->16 **The soldiers took Him away**

15:21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon
of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus ), to bear His cross.

15:22 Then they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated,
Place of a Skull. 23 They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh ; but He
did not take it. 24 And they crucified Him, and divided up His garments
among themselves, casting lots for them to decide what each man should take.


8) Jesus is crucified

15:25 **It was the third hour** when **they crucified Him.** 26 The
inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They
crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.

**And they led Him out to crucify Him.**-->when **they crucified Him.**

15:28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with
transgressors."

15:29 Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and
saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three
days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!"

15:31 In the same way, the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were
mocking Him among themselves and saying, "He delivered others ; He cannot
deliver Himself. 32 Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from
the cross, so that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with
Him were also insulting Him.

15:33 When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the
ninth hour.

15:34 **At the ninth hour** Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI,
LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU
FORSAKEN ME?" 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying,
Behold, He is calling for Elijah." 36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with
sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see
whether Elijah will come to take Him down." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry,
and **breathed His last.**

9) The hours

**It was the third hour**-->34 **At the ninth hour**

15:38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

15:39 When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the
way **He breathed His last,** he said, "Truly this man was a son of a god!"
10) The Last Breath
**breathed His last.** -->**saw the way He breathed His last,**

The pre-Markan Passion Narrative

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and the
chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and
kill Him; 2 for they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise there
might be a riot of the people." 10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the
twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. 11
They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he
began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.

[PN arrest episode replaced by Markan version]


53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the chief priests and
the elders and the scribes gathered together.

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was
not consistent. The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned
Jesus, saying, "Will you not answer, against what is it that these men are
testifying against You?" 61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the
high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE
SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF
HEAVEN." 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do
we have of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem
to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began
to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and
to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps in the
face.


16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and
they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in
purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and
they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They kept beating
His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before
Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put
His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26 The inscription of the
charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They crucified two
robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left. 34 At the ninth hour
Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" which is
translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" 35 When some of the
bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah."
36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and
gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him
down." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 39 When the
centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed
His last, he said, "Truly this man was a son of a god!"
LM Barré
San Diego
-------Original Message-------







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce,

All right.  The link below should allow to the read the fonts and quickly
spot the indication of narrative continuity across alleged insertions, which
are marked in italics.  The occurrences of euthus, all within alleged
insertions, are underlined.  Do not be intimated by the length of the post
as it intended mostly to be scanned.  One thing interesting about some of
the insertions is the presence of mature and distinctively Christian
concepts; 1) the mention of the "followers of Christ" (9:41); 2) the time
when the bridegroom is taken away (2:20); 3) the mentioning of the woman who
anointed Jesus at Bethany "whenever the Gospel is preached to the entire
world" (14:9).  One correction, however.  The insertion that prepares for
Peter's denials (14:54) should be italicized rather than in bold.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical_scholarship/message/260

I trust that this mode of presentation will clarify my arguments
considerably.

Thank you for your forbearance.

LM Barre'
San Diego

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for the assistance.  Try now:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical_scholarship/message/260

LMB




-------Original Message-------

From: will
Date: 1/6/2013 6:02:57 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark


Just trying to help, here. I'm hoping Bruce can read my forward-on better
than
IMB's original!

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: lmbarre@...
Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Here you go, Bruce.
Here are now ten examples as requested. I have marked verbal
correspondences with an two asterisks across the alleged insertions. I have
also juxtaposed then connecting words with [related words]-->[related words]
I hope I have been sufficiently clear to show the narrative continuity
across the alleged expansions. Also, notice the Markan use of the euthus
(marked with ++) in the alleged expansions and the specifically mature
Christian concepts within some of the expansions: "followers of Christ
(9:41); the bridegroom taken away (2:20); "whenever the Gospel is preached
(14:9). Finally, I have included my pre-Markan PN to illustrate the
continuity of the story when the alleged expansions are removed. It is
quite short.
Markan expansions of pMark
1) The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer's death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave
them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they
should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag
no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, "Do not put
on two tunics." 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay
there until you leave town. 11 "Any place that does not receive you or
listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of
your feet for a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that
men should repent. 13 **And they were casting out many demons and were
anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.**

14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and
people were saying, "John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is
why these miraculous powers are at work in Him." 15 But others were saying,
He is Elijah." And others were saying, "He is a prophet, like one of the
prophets of old." 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, "John, whom
I beheaded, has risen !" 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested
and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip,
because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not
lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 Herodias had a grudge
against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod
was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he
kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to
enjoy listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday
gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of
Galilee ; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced,
she pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl,
Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you." 23 And he swore to
her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my
kingdom." 24 And she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?
And she said, "The head of John the Baptist." 25 ++Immediately++ she came
in a hurry to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the
head of John the Baptist on a platter." 26 And although the king was very
sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was
unwilling to refuse her. 27 ++Immediately++ the king sent an executioner and
commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in
the prison, 28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ;
and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this,
they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb.

6:30 **The apostles gathered together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him
all that they had done and taught.**

6:13 **And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil
many sick people and healing them.**-->6:30 **The apostles gathered together
with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught.**

2) Jesus' family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that
they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, **they
went out to take custody of Him;** for they were saying, "He has lost His
senses."

3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed
by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23
And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How
can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that
kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house
will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is
divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27 "But no one can enter the
strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong
man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins
shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter ; 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean
spirit."

3:31 **Then His mother and His brothers arrived,** and standing outside they
sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they
said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for
You." 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers ?" 34
Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My
mother and My brothers ! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My
brother and sister and mother."

3: 21**they went out to take custody of Him;** -->3:31 **Then His mother and
His brothers arrived,**

3) Jesus' assertion about an unknown exorcist:

9:33 They came to Capernaum ; and when He was in the house, He began to
question them, "What were you discussing on the way ?" 34 But they kept
silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was
the greatest. 35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If
anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." 36
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said
to them, 37 "Whoever receives **one child like this** in My name receives Me
and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."

9:38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your
name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39 But
Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a
miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For
he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water
to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he
will not lose his reward.

9:42 "Whoever causes **one of these little ones** who believe to stumble, it
would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he
had been cast into the sea.

9:37 **one child like this** -->9:42 **one of these little ones**

4) Not Fasting
2:18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting ; and they came and
said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees
fast, but **your disciples do not fast?**" 19 And Jesus said to them,

"While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot
fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot
fast. 20 "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them
and then they will fast in that day.

2:21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment ; otherwise
the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results
22 "No one puts new wine into old wineskins ; otherwise the wine will burst
the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; **but one puts new
wine into fresh wineskins."**

2:18 **your disciples do not fast?**"--> 2:22 **but one puts new wine into
fresh wineskins."**

The Passion Narrative

5) Death Plot and Anointing

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and **the
chief priests** and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and
kill Him; 2 for they were saying, **"Not during the festival,** otherwise
there might be a riot of the people."

14:3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining
at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly
perfume of pure nard ; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4
But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume
been wasted ? 5 "For this perfume might have been sold for over three
hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they were scolding
her. 6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone ; why do you bother her? She has done
a good deed to Me. 7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever
you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 "She has
done what she could ; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9
Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what
this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her."

14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to **the
chief priests** in order to betray Him to them. 11 They were glad when they
heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to
betray Him **at an opportune time.**

14:1**the chief priests**-->14:10 **the chief priests**

14:2 **"Not during the festival,** -->14:10**at an opportune time.**

The Last Passover

14:12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being
sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and
prepare for You to eat the Passover ?" 13 And He sent two of His disciples
and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a
pitcher of water ; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner
of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is My guest room in which I may eat
the Passover with My disciples ?"' 15 "And he himself will show you a large
upper room furnished and ready ; prepare for us there." 16 The disciples
went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and
they prepared the Passover. 17 When it was evening He came with the twelve.
18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly I say
to you that one of you will betray Me-one who is eating with Me." 19 They
began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, "Surely not I?" 20 And He
said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. 21
"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that
man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It would have been good for that
man if he had not been born."

The Lord's Supper

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke
it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when
He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank
from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many. 25 "Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the
fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus
said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE
DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.' 28 "But after I have
been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." 29 But Peter said to Him,
Even though all may fall away, yet I will not." 30 And Jesus said to him,
Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you
yourself will deny Me three times." 31 But Peter kept saying insistently,
Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And they all were
saying the same thing also.

Jesus in Gethsemane

32 They came to a place named Gethsemane ; and He said to His disciples,
Sit here until I have prayed." 33 And He took with Him Peter and James and
John, and began to be very distressed and troubled. 34 And He said to them,
My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death ; remain here and keep watch
" 35 And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to
pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. 36 And He was
saying, "Abba ! Father ! All things are possible for You; remove this cup
from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." 37 And He came and found
them sleeping, and said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep ? Could you not
keep watch for one hour ? 38 "Keep watching and praying that you may not
come into temptation ; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 39
Again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came
and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy ; and they did not
know what to answer Him. 41 And He came the third time, and said to them,
Are you still sleeping and resting ? It is enough ; the hour has come ;
behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 "Get
up, let us be going ; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand !"

Betrayal and Arrest

14:43 ++Immediately++ while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve,
came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the
chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now he who was betraying
Him had given them a signal, saying, "Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize
Him and lead Him away under guard." 45 After coming, Judas ++immediately++
went to Him, saying, "Rabbi !" and kissed Him. 46 They laid hands on Him and
seized Him. 47 But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the
slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus said to them,
Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a
robber ? 49 "Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did
not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures." 50 And
they all left Him and fled. 51 A young man was following Him, wearing
nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But
he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.

6) Jesus before His Accusers

[pMarkan arrest episode replaced by Markan version]

14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the **chief priests
and the elders and the scribes gathered together.**

14:54 Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the
high priest ; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at
the fire. [Insertion anticipating Peter's denials].

14:55 **Now the chief priests and the whole Council** kept trying to obtain
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was
not consistent.

14:53 **chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together
**-->14:55 **Now the chief priests and the whole Council**

[The charge of destroying the temple seems to be an insertion also. Note
the double mention of the inconsistency as though the redactor is imitating
his source. The topic comes up latter in subsequent Markan addition in
15:29 within the context of an insertion.]

57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58
We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three
days I will build another made without hands.' " 59 Not even in this respect
was their testimony consistent.

60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying,
Do You not answer ? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was
questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN
SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have
of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?"
And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit
at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say
to Him, "Prophesy!"

**chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.**-->55
**Now the chief priests and the whole Council**

7) The Roman officers receive Jesus and take him away

**And the officers received Him** with slaps in the face.

Peter's Denials

14:66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the
high priest came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and
said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." 68 But he denied it, saying,
I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out
onto the porch. and a rooster crowed. The servant-girl saw him, and began
once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" 70 But again he
denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to
Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." 71 But he
began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!" 72
++Immediately++ a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how
Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will
deny Me three times." And he began to weep.

15:1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and
the whole Council, ++immediately++ held a consultation ; and binding Jesus,
they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Pilate questioned Him, "Are
You the King of the Jews ?" And He answered him, "It is as you say." 3 The
chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. 4 Then Pilate questioned Him
again, saying, "Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against
You!" 5 But Jesus made no further answer. So Pilate was amazed.

15:6 Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they
requested. 7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the
insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8 The crowd
went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to do for them.
9 Pilate answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release for you the King
of the Jews ?" 10 For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him
over because of envy. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask
him to release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Answering again, Pilate said to
them, "Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews ?"
13 They shouted back, "Crucify Him!" 14 But Pilate said to them, "Why, what
evil has He done ?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify Him!" 15 Wishing
to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having
Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

Jesus Is Mocked

15:16 **The soldiers took Him away** into the palace (that is, the
Praetorium ), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They
dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it
on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They
kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and
bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe
off Him and put His own garments on Him. **And they led Him out to crucify
Him.**

**And the officers received Him****-->16 **The soldiers took Him away**

15:21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon
of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus ), to bear His cross.

15:22 Then they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated,
Place of a Skull. 23 They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh ; but He
did not take it. 24 And they crucified Him, and divided up His garments
among themselves, casting lots for them to decide what each man should take.

8) Jesus is crucified

15:25 **It was the third hour** when **they crucified Him.** 26 The
inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They
crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.

**And they led Him out to crucify Him.**-->when **they crucified Him.**

15:28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with
transgressors."

15:29 Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and
saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three
days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!"

15:31 In the same way, the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were
mocking Him among themselves and saying, "He delivered others ; He cannot
deliver Himself. 32 Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from
the cross, so that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with
Him were also insulting Him.

15:33 When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the
ninth hour.

15:34 **At the ninth hour** Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI,
LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU
FORSAKEN ME?" 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying,
Behold, He is calling for Elijah." 36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with
sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see
whether Elijah will come to take Him down." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry,
and **breathed His last.**

9) The hours

**It was the third hour**-->34 **At the ninth hour**

15:38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

15:39 When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the
way **He breathed His last,** he said, "Truly this man was a son of a god!"
10) The Last Breath
**breathed His last.** -->**saw the way He breathed His last,**

The pre-Markan Passion Narrative

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and the
chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and
kill Him; 2 for they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise there
might be a riot of the people." 10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the
twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. 11
They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he
began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.

[PN arrest episode replaced by Markan version]

53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the chief priests and
the elders and the scribes gathered together.

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was
not consistent. The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned
Jesus, saying, "Will you not answer, against what is it that these men are
testifying against You?" 61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the
high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE
SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF
HEAVEN." 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do
we have of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem
to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began
to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and
to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps in the
face.

16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and
they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in
purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and
they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They kept beating
His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before
Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put
His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.

25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26 The inscription of the
charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They crucified two
robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left. 34 At the ninth hour
Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI ?" which is
translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" 35 When some of the
bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah."
36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and
gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him
down." 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 39 When the
centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed
His last, he said, "Truly this man was a son of a god!"
LM Barré
San Diego
-------Original Message-------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's not rocket science--just a matter of knowing what to look for.

LM Barré
San Diego

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic (GPG)
Re: Markan Formation According to L M Barré
From: Bruce

Thanks for the several efforts to transmit a readable version of this highly
formatted proposal (identifying 10 later insertions in Mark). The one that
worked completely for me was:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical_scholarship/message/260

My own reconstruction of accretional Mark was shared as a handout with
SBL/NE 2006 (Adela Yarbro Collins' partly confirmatory commentary came out
the following year), and with an SBL session as a complete pamphlet in 2008.
A later version was shared with the GPG study group a couple years ago. The
present or 2012 version is the fourth, and continued inspection and
discussion of the evidence continues (some of this stuff is not as easy as
one would like). I here, more or less inevitably, comment on the Barré
version from the standpoint of my own reconstruction, and the conclusions
thereunto appertaining.

My basic comment is one of general agreement: (1) Mark is obviously a
stratified text; I would make it continually stratified or "accretional."
(2) The identification of interpolations is the obvious place to start to
recover Mark, since the evidence for interpolation is relatively objective,
despite some difficult cases. One good recent treatment of the technique for
detecting interpolations is pages 15-90 of William O Walker Jr,
Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (Clark 2001); at least two abridged
versions of this material were later published, and our Project is currently
in discussion with the author pursuant to a third version, meant for a
general philological public and intended for the Project's journal, Warring
States Papers.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/index.html

The year being still new, I might mention that in addition to Sinological
libraries (its main focus and audience), the journal is committed to a
considerable second emphasis on New Testament studies, and those in that
field with powers of recommendation are invited to consider mentioning it to
their library.

SOME COMMENTS ON BARRÉ

#1. The Death of John the Baptist (Mk 6:14-29). This is admittedly a
stylistically deviant piece, but is it actually an interpolation? If it is
removed, the Return of the Twelve might be thought to follow somewhat
abruptly. My sense is that this is not a Christian piece, but a Johannine
one: it is a defense of John much like the ones that Luke (in Acts) was
later to write for Paul, and was probably their inspiration. It probably
arose in John circles, and was borrowed by aMk [the author of Mark, without
prejudice as to actual identity] for his story. But at what stage? John had
been dead for at least a year when Jesus was killed, and it probably took at
least a few months before aMk began to compose a biographical apologia for
the Jesus movement. This extreme scenario probably gives enough time for the
legend to have arisen, become known to Mark, and incorporated into his
original Gospel.

#2. The Beelzebul Accusation (Mk 3:22-30). Correctly identified. Notice that
the burden of the interpolation is to increase the sense of the hostility
toward Jesus, not just of the Pharisees, but of the Jerusalem-connected
Pharisees. This Jerusalem motif applies to several of the Markan
interpolations, and means that gMk during its formation process reflected
the deepening hostility between the nascent Jesus movement and the Jerusalem
authorities.

#3. The Unknown Exorcist (Mk 9:38-41). I would rather make it Mk 9:38-40,
since 9:41, for better or worse, seems to relate to the original question of
the disciples. I agree with Loisy that this person, not one of the Jesus
circle but propagandizing in a compatible direction, represents Paul. In
support, as Loisy did not go on to point out, the whole progress of the
gradual acceptance of the Gentile Mission, like the deepening hostility of
and toward the Jerusalem Jewish Establishment, is contained in Mark; it has
at least five distinct stages. This would be about the second (the first is
when the issue is ignored entirely).

#4. Not Fasting (Mk 2:19b-20). Both this and 2:21 can be thought of as
responsive to the challenge of the disciples of John and the Pharisees. Is
the former an interpolation? Or is the second an illustration of the first?
The first amounts to a statement that after Jesus has been killed, the Jesus
movement will take up what had previously been the exclusively Johannine
practice of baptism. This we know they did, but when? I would distinguish
two types of Christian observances: (1) those modelled on Jewish or
Johannine precedent, and (2) those original to Christianity. Among the
latter, the Eucharist of course has connections with the Jewish Passover.
That both occurred fairly early can be seen in the careful prescriptions of
the Didache. I would think of Mk 2:19b-20 as the Words of Institution for
Christian Baptism, just as there are Words of Institution for the Eucharist
(and they get more specific as we move into the later Gospels). My own guess
would be that the adoption of Johannine baptism, as well as Johannine
fasting, occurred relatively early in the post-Jesus days, and do not (at
this writing) feel required to take this passage as a later addition.

#5. The Woman of Bethany (Mk 14:3-9). Correctly identified, and genuinely
interruptive. This is a Christian legend, and is virtually identified as
such by aMk. it has to do with concern over the unceremonious treatment of
Jesus' body after his execution. To that extent, it is somewhat in
complementation with the Women at the Tomb, who are also concerned, but in a
much grander context, to supply the missing anointing of the body. Then the
Bethany legend probably arose before the Empty Tomb legend. That the Empty
Tomb story IS a legend has been, to my satisfaction, demonstrated by Yarbro
Collins 2007, and earlier by Peter Kirby:

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/Kirby_tombcase.pdf

(2002).But here as with the Defense of John, how long does it take for these
legends to arise? A pious legend in connection with the Columbine High
School Massacre (this is a kind of thing we have in the US; persons from
other areas are asked to forgive the local reference) can be shown to have
come into existence within 24 hours after the event itself. Need creates
prose, and collective psychological need is among the most insistent types
of need.

#6. Trial Before the High Priest. With considerable support from Yarbro
Collins and others, I consider the first or Sanhedrin trial to be an entire
fiction, inserted (I would add) to direct increasing guilt for Jesus' death
toward the Jews, and away from the Romans. (The same tendency may be seen in
the later Gospels of Luke and John; see the article by Keith Yoder in v1 of
the above journal; there will be another in v2).

#10. The Rending of the Veil (15:38). I agree rather with Adela, that this
was the original ending of the Gospel. Notice that the verb for "rend" or
"rip" is the same as that used for the  opening of the Heavens at Jesus'
Baptism, at the beginning rather than the end of the Gospel. This is
probably an intentional framing element for the original story. Then comes a
second and later ending, where no act of God (in rending the veil from
above), but a witness of Man, is the final word about Jesus' death. Why?
Because the witness, and the acceptance, of Rome in the person of the
centurion in charge was a major PR benefit to the Christian movement, and
one it was continually anxious to secure (much of the NT literature has this
purpose). The Centurion's Witness is the counterpart of the increasing
concern of aMk (and of all the NT writers) to deflect blame for Jesus' death
from Rome, and put it instead on the Jews. For which, see above. When
several proposed additions to a text turn out to have the same rationale,
the proposal is correspondingly strengthened.

It will be noted that in several of the above comments, my sense of gMk as
accretional affects my reading of the evidence in particular cases. For me,
it is not a question of "Does this passage belong or not" (which is how we
ask it if there are only two textual stages), but at least sometimes "to
which later state of the Markan community does this passage belong?"
Thus I sometimes find that a passage is stylistically anomalous but still
original to the narrative, and at other times that a passage is earlier than
another, but still itself interpolated.

METHODOLOGICAL PS

I do not wish to end with the impression that the Walker Evidences are a
complete list for world philology. There are at least two more that have
force in this area. One is formal interruption: a passage which violates the
form of the piece in which it appears. This is especially important with
stanzas or lines added to a long poem, or with new sayings breaking a
pattern of pairing in which the old sayings were arranged. Both are very
common in early Chinese texts; less so in Mediterranean ones. As one
Mediterranean example, we have the theologia crucis half-line which Paul
added to the pre-Pauline hymn which he otherwise quotes in Philippians 2
(see Lohmeyer's reconstruction).

Another is that when two passages directly conflict, by giving different
accounts of the same thing, or providing alternate and incompatible
explanations, one is probably an interpolation. The Woman at Bethany might
be thought to come under this head, since that method of anointing Jesus'
body is different than the one pursued in the Empty Tomb story. (The fact
that both these stories turn out to be interpolations does not spoil the
principle: the one interpolation is earlier than the other).

A second example is the two reasons given in Mk 2 to excuse the disciples
plucking grain on the Sabbath. One (Mk 2:27) is that the Sabbath was made
for man, not man for the Sabbath (that is, all Sabbath rules are suspended).
The other (Mk 2:28) is that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath,
which presents Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (notice the story of David told
in2:25-26), who personally overrules the Sabbath, but on a particular
occasion. The two arguments are both cogent, on their own terms, but we
don't need two of them. Of them, posterity prefers the universalistic 2:27.
Given 2:25-26 (not to mention the fact that Jesus was put to death by the
Romans precisely as a pretender to a Davidic type of rulership), the Davidic
explanation is more continuous in context. Then 2:27 must be a later
addition, reflecting the complete cessation of Jewish piety rules that we
tend to associate with Pauline Christianity. See the above note on the
progressive acknowledgement of Paul in the successive layers of gMk,
including my sense of the Strange Exorcist passage.

We can follow this principle into even deeper water, by revisiting another
of the above examples, but this is probably enough for one Monday morning.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Bruce,

I am gratified that you were able to read the fonts I used to indicate
narrative flow and alleged accretions.  In this case, it is much easier and
more evident to illustrate rather than explain.

I began with the account of John's death because I think that this is the
most obvious all of the examples I noted.  This is due on the one hand to
the relative length of the insertion.  One reads the material that precedes
it on the missionary activity of the Twelve and then switches topic to John
s death.  Then, to some dissonance, we are provided with the ending of the
story that began before the John episode.  It's as if, "Right, I guess that
story was not quite finished."  Indeed, the greater the length of the
insertion, the more reader dissonance is created and the more abrupt is a
much delayed return to the account.  Of all the insertions, this is by far
the most lengthy.

6:12 So16 they went out and preached that all should repent. 6:13 They cast
out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them
6:30 Then45 the apostles gathered around Jesus and told him everything they
had done and taught. 6:31 He said to them, “Come with me privately to an
isolated place and rest a while”

I have found that pMark is a very concise and coherent writer.  For example,
in this instance, we see how the "done" and "taught" of v 30 nicely
corresponds to the antecedent description of 6:12.  What they "taught"
corresponds to "they went out and preached . . . ' while casting out demons
an anointing the sick and healing them corresponds to all that they had
done."  Also the motif of them going with Jesus to an isolated place to
rests contrasts their busy activities to which Jesus sent them.  And again,
Jesus sent (apostellein) them two by two and thus they are referred to  in v
30 as "apostoloi."  Thus, I would cite this as evidence that pMark is uses
diction quite concisely as I have found throughout my demarcation of pMark.
Verse 30 can hardly be more verbally integrated with vv 7-12.

In addition, we find it the expansion two occurrences of the adverb, euthus,
which is obviously a Markan stylistic marker.  It occurs no less than 42
times out of a total of 59 in the entire NT.  In all these ways, the episode
of the Baptizer's death is strongly indicated to be a Markan insertion.

My view that PN concluded in 5:39 (rather than 5:38, with the renting of the
veil), is informed on internal grounds as well as my identification of PN as
a perfect Aristotelian tragedy.  Before and after 5:38, we have the
connecting link regarding Jesus' last breath.  Further, it is one of the
virtues of Aristotle's ideal tragedy that the use of an Deus ex Machina  and
is to be excluded as it is not "imitation" or realistic as we would say.  In
PN, we have alleged Markan accretions with the prophetic fulfillment's of
Psalm 22, the supernatural darkness in the 6th hour, and the renting of the
veil.  Further still, the centurion voices an Aristotelian "epiphany" that
goes to the kerygma of the author as to answering what Jesus was.  The plot
show quite specifically that Jesus, in terms of his own thinking and in that
of his detractors, that he was not the Messiah as he had so confidently
pronounced before the Sanhedrin and in response to the the High Priest's
question.  There he backed his claim that the High Priest (and everyone
else) would see the fulfillment of Dan 7:13-14 and himself supernaturally
installed as the expected messianic king.  As a vindication of his messianic
claim, it makes little sense that he backs his claim by saying that
[someday] you will see . . . "  On the contrary, the claim has force in that
it was mean that [at any moment] you shall see . . ."  It is this supreme
contrast that informs his most pathetic complaint, "Why have you forsaken
me?"  and his recorded death, Fate seals the case.

So PN is scoring two points.  He is rejecting Jewish apocalyptic messianism
in toto but then in the epiphany of the centurion, finds the true assessment
of this Jesus, in terms of Roman Gentile concepts.  He was indeed a uios
theou.  Not in the Markan sense of the "Son of God" but rather in the
Hellenistic sense of a theios aner, "a son of a god," one among the many
divine men known from Graco-Roman tradition.  So as I interpret PN, the
centurion's epiphany is essential to the story and voices the opinion of PN,
put into the mouth of the now *Roman* centurion.  The account is fraught
with dramatic irony or "surprising outcomes."  From their perspective, the
evil Sanhedrin was entirely vindicated that Jesus was a messianic pretender;
that Jesus was literarily dead wrong about being the Messiah, and that it
was his own executioner who saw the truth of actually what he was through it
all.  In this way, 15:39 very much serves to resolve the dramatic tension of
the story.

Perhaps it is not quite needless to say that PN, so interpreted, is . . .
problematic.  The "theological" differene between the genre of PN (and
pMark) is one of a searing, Aristotelian tragedy, while Mark has radically
reinterpreted the account as a divine comedy, with the former, I should
think, being the more historically-based interpretation of what Jesus was.
Nor does it help matters that Aristotle argues that tragedy is the superior
genre to comedy and even to Homeric epic.  So in Mark, we have present the
two masks of drama, comedy and tragedy and it would appear that we are to
consider a choice between either Mark 15:39 or John 3:16.  Perhaps in some
larger perspective can incorporate both, but to me it seems that the comedic
Jesus, beloved as he is,  is so much yada yada.

LM Barré
-------Original Message-------

From: E Bruce Brooks
Date: 1/7/2013 2:43:52 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Readable fonts in the analysis of the composition
and redaction of the Gospel of Mark


To: Synoptic (GPG)
Re: Markan Formation According to L M Barré
From: Bruce

Thanks for the several efforts to transmit a readable version of this highly
formatted proposal (identifying 10 later insertions in Mark). The one that
worked completely for me was:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical_scholarship/message/260

My own reconstruction of accretional Mark was shared as a handout with
SBL/NE 2006 (Adela Yarbro Collins' partly confirmatory commentary came out
the following year), and with an SBL session as a complete pamphlet in 2008.
A later version was shared with the GPG study group a couple years ago. The
present or 2012 version is the fourth, and continued inspection and
discussion of the evidence continues (some of this stuff is not as easy as
one would like). I here, more or less inevitably, comment on the Barré
version from the standpoint of my own reconstruction, and the conclusions
thereunto appertaining.

My basic comment is one of general agreement: (1) Mark is obviously a
stratified text; I would make it continually stratified or "accretional."
(2) The identification of interpolations is the obvious place to start to
recover Mark, since the evidence for interpolation is relatively objective,
despite some difficult cases. One good recent treatment of the technique for
detecting interpolations is pages 15-90 of William O Walker Jr,
Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (Clark 2001); at least two abridged
versions of this material were later published, and our Project is currently
in discussion with the author pursuant to a third version, meant for a
general philological public and intended for the Project's journal, Warring
States Papers.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/index.html

The year being still new, I might mention that in addition to Sinological
Libraries (its main focus and audience), the journal is committed to a
considerable second emphasis on New Testament studies, and those in that
field with powers of recommendation are invited to consider mentioning it to
their library.

SOME COMMENTS ON BARRÉ

#1. The Death of John the Baptist (Mk 6:14-29). This is admittedly a
stylistically deviant piece, but is it actually an interpolation? If it is
removed, the Return of the Twelve might be thought to follow somewhat
abruptly.


My sense is that this is not a Christian piece, but a Johannine
one: it is a defense of John much like the ones that Luke (in Acts) was
later to write for Paul, and was probably their inspiration. It probably
arose in John circles, and was borrowed by aMk [the author of Mark, without
prejudice as to actual identity] for his story. But at what stage? John had
been dead for at least a year when Jesus was killed, and it probably took at
least a few months before aMk began to compose a biographical apologia for
the Jesus movement. This extreme scenario probably gives enough time for the
legend to have arisen, become known to Mark, and incorporated into his
original Gospel.

#2. The Beelzebul Accusation (Mk 3:22-30). Correctly identified. Notice that
the burden of the interpolation is to increase the sense of the hostility
toward Jesus, not just of the Pharisees, but of the Jerusalem-connected
Pharisees. This Jerusalem motif applies to several of the Markan
interpolations, and means that gMk during its formation process reflected
the deepening hostility between the nascent Jesus movement and the Jerusalem
authorities.

#3. The Unknown Exorcist (Mk 9:38-41). I would rather make it Mk 9:38-40,
since 9:41, for better or worse, seems to relate to the original question of
the disciples. I agree with Loisy that this person, not one of the Jesus
circle but propagandizing in a compatible direction, represents Paul. In
support, as Loisy did not go on to point out, the whole progress of the
gradual acceptance of the Gentile Mission, like the deepening hostility of
and toward the Jerusalem Jewish Establishment, is contained in Mark; it has
at least five distinct stages. This would be about the second (the first is
when the issue is ignored entirely).

#4. Not Fasting (Mk 2:19b-20). Both this and 2:21 can be thought of as
responsive to the challenge of the disciples of John and the Pharisees. Is
the former an interpolation? Or is the second an illustration of the first?
The first amounts to a statement that after Jesus has been killed, the Jesus
movement will take up what had previously been the exclusively Johannine
practice of baptism. This we know they did, but when? I would distinguish
two types of Christian observances: (1) those modelled on Jewish or
Johannine precedent, and (2) those original to Christianity. Among the
latter, the Eucharist of course has connections with the Jewish Passover.
That both occurred fairly early can be seen in the careful prescriptions of
the Didache. I would think of Mk 2:19b-20 as the Words of Institution for
Christian Baptism, just as there are Words of Institution for the Eucharist
(and they get more specific as we move into the later Gospels). My own guess
would be that the adoption of Johannine baptism, as well as Johannine
fasting, occurred relatively early in the post-Jesus days, and do not (at
this writing) feel required to take this passage as a later addition.

#5. The Woman of Bethany (Mk 14:3-9). Correctly identified, and genuinely
interruptive. This is a Christian legend, and is virtually identified as
such by aMk. it has to do with concern over the unceremonious treatment of
Jesus' body after his execution. To that extent, it is somewhat in
complementation with the Women at the Tomb, who are also concerned, but in a
much grander context, to supply the missing anointing of the body. Then the
Bethany legend probably arose before the Empty Tomb legend. That the Empty
Tomb story IS a legend has been, to my satisfaction, demonstrated by Yarbro
Collins 2007, and earlier by Peter Kirby:

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/Kirby_tombcase.pdf

(2002).But here as with the Defense of John, how long does it take for these
legends to arise? A pious legend in connection with the Columbine High
School Massacre (this is a kind of thing we have in the US; persons from
other areas are asked to forgive the local reference) can be shown to have
come into existence within 24 hours after the event itself. Need creates
prose, and collective psychological need is among the most insistent types
of need.

#6. Trial Before the High Priest. With considerable support from Yarbro
Collins and others, I consider the first or Sanhedrin trial to be an entire
fiction, inserted (I would add) to direct increasing guilt for Jesus' death
toward the Jews, and away from the Romans. (The same tendency may be seen in
the later Gospels of Luke and John; see the article by Keith Yoder in v1 of
the above journal; there will be another in v2).

#10. The Rending of the Veil (15:38). I agree rather with Adela, that this
was the original ending of the Gospel. Notice that the verb for "rend" or
"rip" is the same as that used for the opening of the Heavens at Jesus'
Baptism, at the beginning rather than the end of the Gospel. This is
probably an intentional framing element for the original story. Then comes a
second and later ending, where no act of God (in rending the veil from
above), but a witness of Man, is the final word about Jesus' death. Why?
Because the witness, and the acceptance, of Rome in the person of the
centurion in charge was a major PR benefit to the Christian movement, and
one it was continually anxious to secure (much of the NT literature has this
purpose). The Centurion's Witness is the counterpart of the increasing
concern of aMk (and of all the NT writers) to deflect blame for Jesus' death
from Rome, and put it instead on the Jews. For which, see above. When
several proposed additions to a text turn out to have the same rationale,
the proposal is correspondingly strengthened.

It will be noted that in several of the above comments, my sense of gMk as
accretional affects my reading of the evidence in particular cases. For me,
it is not a question of "Does this passage belong or not" (which is how we
ask it if there are only two textual stages), but at least sometimes "to
which later state of the Markan community does this passage belong?"
Thus I sometimes find that a passage is stylistically anomalous but still
original to the narrative, and at other times that a passage is earlier than
another, but still itself interpolated.

METHODOLOGICAL PS

I do not wish to end with the impression that the Walker Evidences are a
complete list for world philology. There are at least two more that have
force in this area. One is formal interruption: a passage which violates the
form of the piece in which it appears. This is especially important with
stanzas or lines added to a long poem, or with new sayings breaking a
pattern of pairing in which the old sayings were arranged. Both are very
common in early Chinese texts; less so in Mediterranean ones. As one
Mediterranean example, we have the theologia crucis half-line which Paul
added to the pre-Pauline hymn which he otherwise quotes in Philippians 2
(see Lohmeyer's reconstruction).

Another is that when two passages directly conflict, by giving different
accounts of the same thing, or providing alternate and incompatible
explanations, one is probably an interpolation. The Woman at Bethany might
be thought to come under this head, since that method of anointing Jesus'
body is different than the one pursued in the Empty Tomb story. (The fact
that both these stories turn out to be interpolations does not spoil the
principle: the one interpolation is earlier than the other).

A second example is the two reasons given in Mk 2 to excuse the disciples
plucking grain on the Sabbath. One (Mk 2:27) is that the Sabbath was made
for man, not man for the Sabbath (that is, all Sabbath rules are suspended).
The other (Mk 2:28) is that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath,
which presents Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (notice the story of David told
in2:25-26), who personally overrules the Sabbath, but on a particular
occasion. The two arguments are both cogent, on their own terms, but we
don't need two of them. Of them, posterity prefers the universalistic 2:27.
Given 2:25-26 (not to mention the fact that Jesus was put to death by the
Romans precisely as a pretender to a Davidic type of rulership), the Davidic
explanation is more continuous in context. Then 2:27 must be a later
addition, reflecting the complete cessation of Jewish piety rules that we
tend to associate with Pauline Christianity. See the above note on the
progressive acknowledgement of Paul in the successive layers of gMk,
including my sense of the Strange Exorcist passage.

We can follow this principle into even deeper water, by revisiting another
of the above examples, but this is probably enough for one Monday morning.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic (GPG)
In Response To: L M Barré
On: Some Suggested Markan Interpolations
From: Bruce

[I think the list protocol recommends NOT attaching previous messages, since
it leads to long files. If so, I venture to agree with that recommendation /
EBB]

LMB: I began with the account of John's death because I think that this is
the most obvious all of the examples I noted.  This is due on the one hand
to the relative length of the insertion.  One reads the material that
precedes it on the missionary activity of the Twelve and then switches topic
to John s death.

BRUCE: Not exactly. The larger sequence of items seems to be:

6:6b. Jesus goes about the country preaching
6:7-13  Jesus sends the Twelve to go about the country preaching
6:14-16. Herod thinks that Jesus is John redivivus
6:17-29. Explanation of Herod's previous murder of John
6:30. Return of the Twelve

Herod at 6:14 looks past the Twelve, tramping all over his country, and
reacts only to the preaching of Jesus. That is, he ignores the Sending of
the Twelve. This is exactly what happens in the most obvious and most widely
acknowledged of all Markan interpolations: 14:28 and 16:7 (someone in the
following passage responds to something of the previous passage, entirely
ignoring the thing in the middle). Then the chief lesson to be drawn from
this material is that the Sending of the Twelve is an interpolation. Since
the Twelve contradict the idea of Five Disciples (the ones which are called
individually in Mark; see my SBL presentation of some years back), those two
accounts of the selection of an inner circle cannot both be true. Of them,
the seeming interpolation is highly likely to be a later improvement in the
story.]

LMB:  Then, to some dissonance, we are provided with the ending of the story
that began before the John episode.

EBB: The dissonance is exactly the problem. The ideal situation with an
interpolation is that when it is removed, the rest of the text closes up
seamlessly, like a healed wound. This does not obtain in all cases, since
there may have been smoothing at the edges by the interpolator. But the case
is stronger if that feature is present. It is not present in this case.

LMB: It's as if, "Right, I guess that story was not quite finished."

EBB: The John story, if present, helps to make the sequence smoother. If
absent, it reveals a lack of finish. If we take the John piece as original
(albeit stylistically aberrant, given its outside origin), then our account
gives a smoother text. This is an advantage.

LMB: . . . Indeed, the greater the length of the insertion, the more reader
dissonance is created and the more abrupt is a much delayed return to the
account.  Of all the insertions, this is by far the most lengthy.

EBB: Mk 13 is perhaps somewhat longer, not to mention the Empty Tomb sequel.
But an interpolation can be any length. The point here, I think, is that the
reader dissonance arises from taking the John piece out, not from putting it
in. See above.

LMB: . . . In addition, we find it the expansion two occurrences of the
adverb, euthus, which is obviously a Markan stylistic marker.  It occurs no
less than 42 times out of a total of 59 in the entire NT.  In all these
ways, the episode of the Baptizer's death is strongly indicated to be a
Markan insertion.

EBB: Euthus is not unique to Mark, though he obviously uses it a lot. That
the Death of John as we have it has passed under the hand of Mark is true on
either account. This is not quite the same as saying that it is an
insertion.

LMB: My view that PN concluded in 5:39 (rather than 5:38, with the renting
of the veil), is informed on internal grounds as well as my identification
of PN as a perfect Aristotelian tragedy.  Before and after 5:38, we have the
connecting link regarding Jesus' last breath.  Further, it is one of the
virtues of Aristotle's ideal tragedy that the use of an Deus ex Machina  and
is to be excluded as it is not "imitation" or realistic as we would say.

EBB: Euripides does not always follow what Aristotle thinks is a perfect
tragedy (I seem to recall that Aristotle had Sophocles chiefly in mind). But
the idea that Mark has Aristotle in mind surely requires prior
demonstration. Some have thought he had Homer in mind. The unspoken
assumption is that Mark regarded Jesus' death as a tragedy. I don't think
the text itself bears this out. Mark has contrived to make the seeming
defeat of Jesus' death into a triumph. The question is: exactly what kind of
triumph? This question may not lead to an Aristotelian answer, but I
recommend it none the less on that account.

It is, I think, agreed on all sides that Psa 22 is all over the Crucifixion
account, and is meant to be heard in the background (movie music; what my
cinema friends call nondiegetic) as an aid to understanding the foreground
narrative. Accepting that, what does Psa tell us, not about Jesus, but about
Mark's interpretation of Jesus' life and death?

LMB: In PN, we have alleged Markan accretions with the prophetic
fulfillment's of Psalm 22, the supernatural darkness in the 6th hour, and
the renting of the veil.  Further still, the centurion voices an
Aristotelian "epiphany" that goes to the kerygma of the author as to
answering what Jesus was.  The plot show quite specifically that Jesus, in
terms of his own thinking and in that of his detractors, that he was not the
Messiah as he had so confidently pronounced before the Sanhedrin and in
response to the the High Priest's question.  There he backed his claim that
the High Priest (and everyone else) would see the fulfillment of Dan 7:13-14
and himself supernaturally installed as the expected messianic king.  As a
vindication of his messianic claim, it makes little sense that he backs his
claim by saying that [someday] you will see . . . "  On the contrary, the
claim has force in that it was mean that [at any moment] you shall see . .
."  It is this supreme contrast that informs his most pathetic complaint,
"Why have you forsaken me?"  and his recorded death, Fate seals the case.
So PN is scoring two points.  He is rejecting Jewish apocalyptic messianism
in toto but then in the epiphany of the centurion, finds the true assessment
of this Jesus, in terms of Roman Gentile concepts.  He was indeed a uios
theou.  Not in the Markan sense of the "Son of God" but rather in the
Hellenistic sense of a theios aner, "a son of a god," one among the many
divine men known from Graco-Roman tradition.

EBB: I note the translation "a son of a god," and disagree with it. I think
the intention is to mirror the claim of God in the Baptism scene, repeated
in the presumption of God in the Transfiguration scene (respectively, the
beginning and precise middle of the story). It is to give Roman authority to
the view of Jesus held at that point by the Markan narrative (the Markan
view of Jesus would evolve somewhat in the later history of the Markan
narrative; this is the whole point of an accretional text - to keep
theologically and otherwise current with the times).

I don't think that gMk at this point was a Greco-Roman Gospel. See my
previous comment, to the effect that the acceptance of Paul and the Gentile
Mission came gradually during the Markan text formation process, and
expresses itself more and more positively as the text continues to update
itself.

So suggested,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

PS. I hope this post is readable. I do not understand why my Yahoo Group
forum can read fonts, and maintain line feeds but this one does not.
Perhaps the moderator needs to turn on this feature. If the post is
mangled, please let me know and I will again post to you via my forum.

  BRUCE: Not exactly. The larger sequence of items seems to be:

6:6b. Jesus goes about the country preaching
6:7-13 Jesus sends the Twelve to go about the country preaching
6:14-16. Herod thinks that Jesus is John redivivus
6:17-29. Explanation of Herod's previous murder of John
6:30. Return of the Twelve

Herod at 6:14 looks past the Twelve, tramping all over his country, and
Reacts only to the preaching of Jesus. That is, he ignores the Sending of
The Twelve. This is exactly what happens in the most obvious and most widely
Acknowledged of all Markan interpolations: 14:28 and 16:7 (someone in the
Following passage responds to something of the previous passage, entirely
Ignoring the thing in the middle). Then the chief lesson to be drawn from
This material is that the Sending of the Twelve is an interpolation. Since
The Twelve contradict the idea of Five Disciples (the ones which are called
Individually in Mark; see my SBL presentation of some years back), those two
Accounts of the selection of an inner circle cannot both be true. Of them,
The seeming interpolation is highly likely to be a later improvement in the
Story.]
  Well, I think I have argued quite specifically that 6:30 follows 6:7-13
across all the material related to Herod and John. The interlocking is
detailed and specific.
  No, euthus is not unique to Mark, and I mentioned that it is not. But it
is relatively extremely excessive: Matt: 5; Luke: 1; John; 3; Mark: 42!
  http://biblesuite.com/greek/euthus_2112.htm
  I have to say that I think you err not to conclude that we have in euthus
and marker of the Markan redaction.

16 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew,
the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea ; for they were fishermen.
17 And Jesus said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers
of men." 18 *Immediately* *they left their nets and followed Him. 19 Going
on a little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother,
who were also in the boat mending the nets. 20 Immediately* *He called
them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired
servants, and went away to follow Him. 21 They went into Capernaum ; and
immediately* *on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach.
22 They were amazed* *at His teaching ; for He was teaching them as one
having authority, and not as the scribes. *

As for the assigning of the call of the Twelve verses the call of the Five,
with the latter, euthus is used no less than three time in 6 verses. So
also is the much repeated "amazement" motif, which I take as another
indicator of Markan redaction. As for Levi's call, it does not use the
adverb, but certainly describes Levi as immediately following Jesus:

Levi (Matthew) Called

14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax
booth, and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him.

So I suppose we are just differing on the Herodian-Baptizer material in
chapter 6. In sum, my arguments are the integration of v 30 with 6-13 and
the presence of the excessive use of the adverb euthus within my suspected
insertion.

EBB: The dissonance is exactly the problem. The ideal situation with an
Interpolation is that when it is removed, the rest of the text closes up
Seamlessly, like a healed wound. This does not obtain in all cases, since
There may have been smoothing at the edges by the interpolator. But the case
Is stronger if that feature is present. It is not present in this case.

LMB: How not? My understanding accomplishes exactly what you have described.

EBB: The John story, if present, helps to make the sequence smoother. If
Absent, it reveals a lack of finish. If we take the John piece as original
(albeit stylistically aberrant, given its outside origin), then our account
Gives a smoother text. This is an advantage.

As I see it, the smoothness is restored by eliminating all the material
between vv 14-29. So we are both arguing to the same end but by different
means.

EBB: Mk 13 is perhaps somewhat longer, not to mention the Empty Tomb sequel.
But an interpolation can be any length. The point here, I think, is that the
Reader dissonance arises from taking the John piece out, not from putting it
In. See above.

Yes, I understand but again disagree which position here better restores a
smooth text.

Yes, Mark 13 may be as lengthy or more and perhaps also the burial and
empty tomb episodes combined. But as you note, the length of the insertion
is not of fundamental importance here.

EBB: Euripides does not always follow what Aristotle thinks is a perfect
Tragedy (I seem to recall that Aristotle had Sophocles chiefly in mind). But
The idea that Mark has Aristotle in mind surely requires prior
Demonstration. Some have thought he had Homer in mind. The unspoken
Assumption is that Mark regarded Jesus' death as a tragedy. I don't think
The text itself bears this out. Mark has contrived to make the seeming
Defeat of Jesus' death into a triumph. The question is: exactly what kind of
Triumph? This question may not lead to an Aristotelian answer, but I
Recommend it none the less on that account.

Find the Poetics here if you wish to consult it:


http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

I posted this previously, but here are my form-critical arguments toward
PN's genre as an Aristotelian tragedy:

An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:

- Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).

- *Hamartia* (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but
denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).

- A reversal of fortune (*peripetia*) brought about because of the hero's
tragic error.

- The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the
hero's own actions (*anagnorisis*).

Note also that Aristotle's tragic hero was developed in the history of the
genre. Here is a list of certain refinements and additions to Aristotle's
original definition of the tragic hero:

Other common traits as developed in later tragedies:

Hero must suffer more than he deserves.

Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for
possessing his flaw.

Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see
themselves in him.

Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things
happening to him.

Hero must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate
was discovered by his own actions.

Hero's story should arouse fear and empathy.

Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often
resulting in his death.

Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his people
experience his fall with him.

The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

***

From this perspective, it is all the more convincing that the author of PN
is conveying a Roman, Gentile perspective as opposed to the Jewish
apocalyptic thought as he presents tragically betraying Jesus. It is hardly
surprising that a Roman perspective would see this Jewish belief as bogus,
just as many today find a Fundamentalist view of the reality of the Second
Coming to be quite debunked.

According to PN, Jesus experienced both *peripetia *and *anagnorisis *and
from the perspective of PN, his* hamartia* or grandiose claim was that he
thought he was a fictional, mythological figure, the apocalyptic Son of Man
of Daniel 7:13-14.

It is, I think, agreed on all sides that Psa 22 is all over the Crucifixion
Account, and is meant to be heard in the background (movie music; what my
Cinema friends call nondiegetic) as an aid to understanding the foreground
Narrative. Accepting that, what does Psa tell us, not about Jesus, but about
Mark's interpretation of Jesus' life and death?

I I regard that "supernatural" fulfillment of Psalm 22 to be Markan
additions, as I do the darkness at the sixth hour and the renting of the
veil. However, I regard that prayer Jesus quoted as an authentic saying of
Jesus. With due caution, I find that it satisfies certain traditional
authentic saying criteria such as dissimilarity, embarrassment, orality,
and diction (lamah sabachthani is good Aramaic). However, eloi does not
back-translate into Hebrew or Aramaic. The vowel of the first syllable
should be a-class, not i-class as the Greek has it. In fact, that this word
should be seized upon and mocked shows that there is something wrong with
it, or so I interpret. Nor is this an overly subtle interpretation
according to Aristotle, who discusses the proper use of diction down to the
proper use of vowels.

What I think is going on is this: Jesus tried to pronounce 'elohi (which by
the way is not a quotation of the Hebrew, which has 'eli. Hence Matthew
corrects to the Psalm). But due to a lack of breath, he could not pronounce
the he and so only managed a "soft breathing, eloi. In Greek, this comes
down to a lack of a rough breathing mark over the omega. Such detail very
much speaks to the subtle Aristotelian detail supplied by PN. It is most
pathetic that Jesus did not have the breath to properly address his god.
Would he regard his mistake as blasphemy. I am not sure. That he realized
his mistake is by his despairing retreat to his vernacular Aramaic. What is
more, his final loud cry is not some objective description of just what
happened. In the subtle artfulness of the narrative, Jesus "received" an
answer to his prayer which was, "Because you are not the Messiah." Hence a
loud cry of stemming from this anagnorisis. He finally had to face, as the
good tragic hero that he was, a painful and most absurd anagnorisis that
the unthinkable was true, that he was wrong; that John was wrong; but as
certain as his most imminent death itself. In this way, PN portrays Jesus
as a most pathetic tragic hero. He was not the Messiah, and his Jewish
messianism was equally bogus. But he was truly a Roman "divine man."

This portrayal of Jesus in PN stands in the sharpest opposition to what the
Markan redaction teaches, not only with the addition of the burial and
empty tomb episodes, but also with typical repetition (another Markan
stylistic marker), the thrice predicted passion, death and resurrection.
Let me here add that I think that the ending of Mark is indeed lost and
that the current ending in 16:8 is not deliberate. The reason why it is
noted that the women said nothing, is to prepare for the Great
Astonishment, that Jesus was alive. This would be all the more shocking
because they were unaware of the empty tomb "information" due to the
women's silence.

In the logic of the story of Mark's redaction, the predicted appearance in
Galilee is not particularly freighted. Where else would they go but home?
Where more appropriate for Jesus to meet up with them? My suspicion is that
Matthew more or less summarizes what was portrayed in narrative form:

28:17
When23<mk:@MSITStore:C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/NET%20Bible/NETBible2009.chm::/n\
etbible/mat28_notes.htm#2823>they
saw him, they worshiped him,
24<mk:@MSITStore:C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/NET%20Bible/NETBible2009.chm::/netbi\
ble/mat28_notes.htm#2824>but
some doubted.
25<mk:@MSITStore:C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/NET%20Bible/NETBible2009.chm::/netbi\
ble/mat28_notes.htm#2825>

What was said I strongly suspect was that they were greatly astonished, but
of course, according to Mark's man at the tomb. He they would have just
believed what Jesus had claimed, they would not be astonished, even though
his claim, was most astonishing!

All in all, my main point s that PN and pMark have a radically
non-Christian, non-Messianic assessment of Jesus. To a very great contrast,
Mark is all about a Christian understanding of who and what Jesus was, a
view that is older than Paul as is evident from the pre-Pauline hymn in
Philippians 2.
     LM Barré
   *-------Original Message-------*



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi everyone,

A quick reminder of Synoptic-L's rule number one:

*** Please keep messages as concise and as relevant as possible.
Recipients are less likely to pay attention to an unnecessarily
lengthy message.***

Reminder of all the protocols: http://www.markgoodacre.org/synoptic-l/#protocol

Happy new year!
Mark

--
Mark Goodacre
Duke University
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

http://www.markgoodacre.org

To: Synoptic
In Response To: L M Barré
On: pMark
From: Bruce

LMB: I have to say that I think you err not to conclude that we have in
euthus and marker of the Markan redaction.

EBB: Euthus is characteristic of Mark, but whether of redaction (editing of
prior material) or composition (authorial material) I think we cannot say.
There is also the question, not separately examined, of whether euthus is
equally typical of the later material in Mark. The answer according to my
own investigation is: not as much so. But there are also themes and modes in
what I take to be original mark where euthus (immediacy in narrative) would
not apply in any case, and if late Mark is turning to those questions (eg,
how soon will the Second Coming be), then the style change is simply an
artifact of the topic change. The continuing authorship or proprietorship of
the single author (call him Mark or whatever) is not precluded.

LMB: . So also is the much repeated "amazement" motif, which I take as
another indicator of Markan redaction.

EBB: Again, I sort of agree, and have used that test myself, following Dwyer
1996 (though I think it is possible to refine his data set). But again,
there are types of material in Mark that do not invite that motif. It would
take more precision to make "amazement" an indicator of Markan vs
post-Markan material.

LMB: but also with typical repetition (another Markan stylistic marker), the
thrice predicted passion, death and resurrection.

EBB: I agree with Yarbro Collins that the triplets (and I would add,
including the Passion Predictions) are late in Mark. I would not call them
non-Markan, but they are a device of style which occurred to the late Mark,
and were not present in the relatively straightforward early Mark.

LMB: Let me here add that I think that the ending of Mark is indeed lost and
that the current ending in 16:8 is not deliberate. The reason why it is
noted that the women said nothing, is to prepare for the Great Astonishment,
that Jesus was alive. This would be all the more shocking because they were
unaware of the empty tomb "information" due to the women's silence.

EBB: I agree that 16:8 was not meant to be the end of Mark, and that our
text is artificially abbreviated. Matthew's supplied ending owes details to
other texts, and does not come from his seeing a more complete version of
Mark (there was none in his time), but is a good normal guess at what the
ending might have contained, at least on the circumstantial level.

LMB: In the logic of the story of Mark's redaction, the predicted appearance
in Galilee is not particularly freighted. Where else would they go but home?
Where more appropriate for Jesus to meet up with them?

EBB: I think weight must be given to the pair of interpolations I mentioned
earlier: 14:28 and 16:7. These predict that the disciples will see Jesus in
Galilee. What if the story had continued without those predictions?
Evidently in the way that the insertions predict: they would see Jesus in
Galilee. What then do the predictions add? Simply this: Jesus's
foreknowledge of that event. Without that element, Jesus's appearance would
have been a surprise, not only to the disciples, but to Jesus himself. The
prediction puts him back in control, has him fully anticipating, and thus
fully accepting, the end of his life and its sequel.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

EBB: Euthus is characteristic of Mark, but whether of redaction (editing of
Prior material) or composition (authorial material) I think we cannot say.
There is also the question, not separately examined, of whether euthus is
Equally typical of the later material in Mark. The answer according to my
Own investigation is: not as much so. But there are also themes and modes in
What I take to be original mark where euthus (immediacy in narrative) would
Not apply in any case, and if late Mark is turning to those questions (e.g.,
How soon will the Second Coming be), then the style change is simply an
Artifact of the topic change. The continuing authorship or proprietorship of
The single author (call him Mark or whatever) is not precluded.

  "I think we cannot say" Therein lies a great difference is our
identification of material belonging to the Markan redaction. Even if we
should evenly split the usage in a half, both layers would still be
excessive usage of euthus when compared to the slim use of the adverb in
Matthew, Luke and John. So I would respond that you change your "we" to
"I." I think that comparatively, we should only perhaps attribute a very
few usages of euthus to pMark with an analogy to Matthew and Luke. For that
reason, and others, the extreme use of the adverb most probably falls to
Mark and constitutes a stylistic, redactional marker. Is this use of
repetition also in evidence for Mark? Yes it is as I have have already
noted. There are several themes that are repeatedly stated. I already noted
the motif of amazement over Jesus, most securely entrenched in the Markan
addition to PN in the Markan empty tomb episode, which you apparently agree
with, finding the ending of PN in Mark 15:38. I have not counted the
occurrences of this motif but I am quite sure that you would agree that
they are legion. Isn't now interesting that we have two motif that are
wildly repeated? Does this imply that Mark loves repetition? Yes it does. I
have already mentioned the thrice repeated prediction of Jesus passion,
death and resurrection. But then we already agree that the empty tomb
material belongs to Mark. Connecting these dots continues to find Mark
style characterized by repetition. Then there is Peter's three denials,
with the cock immediately crowing. More connected dots. And for me at
least, there is the semi-doublet account of the Twelve verses the Five.
More "immediates" in the former with the latter being found to be the
underlying narrative which Mark expanded. More connected dots. There is
also the repeated motif of Jesus' popularity, the two rather awkward boat
crossings, the numerous entrances into Jerusalem, the two feedings of the
multitude, the repeated obtuseness of the disciples. Again, does it make
sense to just split these repetitions between Mark and pMark, or are we
indeed building a profile a Markan stylistics? Someone loves repetition
here and I find no reason not to assign them to one mind who has what looks
to me to have a very distinctive, repetitive style. There is also the
suspicious "coincidence where context indicate an insertion and in which we
also find the adverb and/or the amazement motif. We cannot tell? I am
begging to differ.

  Then there is the criterion of dissimilarity, and this is very much
grounded for me in my exegesis of pre-Markan PN in terms of both plot,
content and genre. I have already argued that 15:34 is a direct response to
14:61-62, and constitutes the very plot of PN.

  “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 14:62 “I am,” said
Jesus, “and you will see *the Son of Man sitting at the right hand** *of
the Power and *coming with the clouds of heaven*.”

  But then:

  15:34 Around three o’clock55 Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi,
Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?”56.
  So naturally my question to you here is how are you interpreting these
verses and do you agree that they are directly related? If not, why not?
For that matter, what do you find to be the essential point of pre-Markan
PN, and what do verses do you attribute to the Markan redaction? In other
words, what is your pre-Markan PN? You have already suggested the the Psalm
22 fulfillments are Markan. Isn't that true? We should also agree that the
first accusation about the rebuilding of the temple in three days coincides
with t the Markan teaching about the resurrection, with as you agree, is a
Markan motif by assigning the end of PN to 15:38.

  It also seem to me you are drawing back from my form-critical arguments
toward the identification of PN as an Aristotelian tragedy. The fact is,
Jesus perfectly satisfies Aristotle's tragic hero and the PN as a whole is
a tragedy that Aristotle would no doubt have highly praised. And is it
insignificant that a Roman centurion should provide the epiphany of what
Jesus actually was? And does not the story inspire pity and fear? Also this
is to argue that PN is exactly dissimilar to Mark on who and what Jesus was
and that his story, even ending at 15:38 is a Aristotelian tragedy, not a
Markan divine comedy, complete with a resurrected Jesus who finally appears
to his disciples in Galilee just as Mark, not pMark, predicts. So it is in
this interpreted dissimilarity that we can exclude Mark's Christianizing
redaction of PN and I think also pMark's non-Christian Jesus. This Markan
tendenz is for one confirmed by the "taking away of the bridegroom" that
context shows to be a likely insertion. We also noted the strong Christian
content of two other alleged insertions, supported by context and find
within the insertion the term, "the followers of Christ" and the fame of
the woman at Bethany who anointed Jesus who would be remembered "whenever
the Gospel, yes Gospel, is preached to the entire world." The dissimilarity
of PN lies in the fact that PN shows Jesus to be a theological
reductionist, whose most pathetic death provided an unassailable argument
to that effect that even Jesus had to admit, and so cried out with his last
breath, and then and just died. In short, we may attribute all Christian
content to Mark and exclude it probably from also pMark and almost
certainly from PN. Thus, I am bringing several independent arguments to
bear that coincide in a way that I think is far beyond mere coincidence. In
fact, it just seems to all fall together quite nicely and I think is
objectively beyond any willfulness of my own. But I suppose that's not
really for me to decide.

So, please, define your pre-Markan PN and tell me how you are interpreting
it.

  LM Barré
San Diego
  *-------Original Message-------*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
In Response to: L M Barré
On: pMk
From: Bruce

I think the crux of the present disagreement is that I do not believe in a
pre- or proto-Mark. I cannot fit my own observations, including observations
of evidence for interpolation, onto that two-stage model. I find that one
author has been in control of the Markan formation process from its
beginning to its end. There is thus no "redaction" in the usual sense of the
term. There is accretion, guided throughout by one controlling authorial
presence. These two models are different enough that, once the difference is
exposed, it seems there is little more to be said.

LMB: . But then we already agree that the empty tomb material belongs to
Mark.

EBB: No we don't, and the difference is fundamental. The Empty Tomb story,
as I see it, is an appendage to the original (not proto-) Markan passion
narrative. A theological improvement out there in the world somewhere, of
which aMk has in due course taken account, and written into his story.

LMB: In other words, what is your pre-Markan PN?

EBB: Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, p819. Except that I disagree with her in
seeing it as "pre-Markan." I find it to be early Markan. But on its extent,
with a few small shades of difference on details, we agree.

LMB:  We should also agree that the first accusation about the rebuilding of
the temple in three days coincides with the Markan teaching about the
resurrection, with as you agree, is a Markan motif by assigning the end of
PN to 15:38.

EBB: There is nothing in 15:38 about the Resurrection. There is nothing in
the early layers of Mark (as defined by following out the interpolations)
about the Resurrection. This is the dangerous territory I mentioned earlier.
If we follow the interpolations where they lead, we find that a lot of later
Jesus theory turns out to be in the later layers of Mark, whereas the early
layers of Mark, including the original complete satisfactory self-standing
Markan narrative of Jesus, includes none of it. The early layers of Mark
imply a Christianity which is by and large consonant with other
non-Resurrection materials, both in and out of the canon (the Epistle of
James, the Two Ways, the Didache proper, the early hymn quoted by Paul -
with a characteristic Pauline half-line intrusion - in Philippians 2, to
mention only 1c writings). This is what I have called Alpha Christianity:
the beliefs, and also the liturgical practices, of the earliest known
Christians.

All this takes place in a larger context of theological change. See my piece
Gospel Trajectories, in the journal I mentioned earlier.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

(Whoops, that is not one of the free downloads. Go then to the Order page to
acquire the journal on an individual or library basis). These Trajectories
show a steady growth of certain ideas (eg, the divinization of Jesus), and a
steady withering of certain other ideas (eg, the role of John the Baptist in
Jesus' life), over the course of the Four Gospels, whose completion dates
put them in the order Mark > Matthew > Luke > John. This is the large view.
An upclose zoom view of the first stage in that larger evolution of doctrine
is available in Mark, once the accretional nature of Mark has been
recognized and its several stages have been identified.

LMB: It also seem to me you are drawing back from my form-critical arguments
toward the identification of PN as an Aristotelian tragedy.

EBB: Right. I draw back all the way. I find Aristotle only vaguely
applicable to Greek drama outside Sophocles (I like Aeschylus better), and
not at all applicable to the mind and formative disposition of Mark.

LWB: And is it insignificant that a Roman centurion should provide the
epiphany of what Jesus actually was?

EBB: Not at all. It is quite significant. But significant of what? I would
say, of [future] Roman acceptance of the claims of Jesus, however defined.
Nothing so pervades the later NT writings as the wish of the Christians to
be recognized as a licit religion under Roman law. Here in Mk 15:39 is that
wish, symbolically expressed.

LWB:  And does not the story inspire pity and fear?

EBB: It might have, before Mark got his hands on it. What it inspires after
Mark (and the early theologians collectively) got through with it can be
appreciated by reading Joseph Kerman's chapter on Tristan, in his book Opera
as Drama. Warmly recommended. Kerman gets behind the comedy/tragedy impasse
which has hamstrung so much literary thought since the 04c.

I think I should now relinquish my half of this discussion to others who may
be interested in commenting, perhaps from a different point of view, on this
proposal. Thanks again to those who took the trouble to make the proposal
itself legible on my screen.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Thank you, Bruce, for your comments.

LM Barré
San Diego
-------Original Message-------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm trying to get my head around these verses. Only Lk 22:37, 39 have parallels,
and only Lk 22:39 has a parallel in
both Mk (14:26) and Mt (26:30). In all three Jesus go to the mount of Olives,
although in Mk and Mt this happens before
Jesus foresees Peter's denial. However, Lk 22:37 only has a parallel in Mk (at
15:28), where it is appropriate, whereas
Lk 22:37 appears to have nothing to do with the surrounding text. So, on this
basis, Lk 22:37 looks to be an
interpolation. However, the whole of Lk 22:35-38 appears to interrupt its
surrounding text as well, suggesting that this
too is an interpolation. Also, because itself Mk 15:28 is not present in many
mss, it appears that this may be an
interpolation as well. Can anyone shed any more light on this area?



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In our recent discussion of the alleged accretions in the Gospel of Mark,
Bruce aptly compared the recovery of an original flow of narrative to a
textual "healing."  To that topic, let me note here a "surgery" on 1 Timothy
  where I argue that two letters have been conflated.  Perhaps off-topic in
terms of its 1 Timothy content, the link below does illustrate somewhat
dramatically how composition criticism can indeed provide "textual healing."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical_scholarship/message/276

LM Barré
San Diego

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Regarding Mk 15:28
I think the omission/addition has to do at least in part with lectionary
usage.
The external support for the omission is extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k
+ Sy-S).
Eusebius' canon table (early 4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse.
What is interesting is that no one added the words in Mt.



Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

To: Synoptic
In Response To: Wieland Willker
On: Mk 15:28
From: Bruce

Wieland: Regarding Mk 15:28 . . . The external support for the omission is
extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k + Sy-S).  Eusebius' canon table (early
4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse. What is interesting is that
no one added the words in Mt.

Bruce: Right; this is precisely Matthew's strategy of Scripture fulfilment.
Presumably by the time of Eusebius, the Gospels were still subject to
insertions, but somewhat less so to harmonizations as such.

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To: Synoptic
In Response To: L M Barré
On: 1 Timothy Conflation
From: Bruce

Parenthetical note: by "healing" I meant the specific situation where the
text on either side of an interpolation (AAABAAA) joins together smoothly
when the interruptive interpolation is removed (AAAAAA), like your finger
the day after a paper cut. It resumes its natural continuity. Of course, not
all interpolations are interruptive, and not all interruptive interpolations
are unsmoothed at their edges by their interpolator. Life is not always
easy.

As for relevance, the deaths of Paul and then Peter in the early 60's
produced a crisis: in effect brought in the post-Apostolic age. People
scrambled to provide for this new situation, some of them by writing new
Gospels to replace the old standard (whence Luke and Matthew), and others by
refurbishing and modernizing the image of Paul (whence Acts I and the
deuteroPaulines and the interpolations in the protoPaulines). This is an
intensely interesting interlude, and nothing more relevant to the Synoptic
problem could be imagined.

The idea of conflation in the Pastorals, or in any other deuteroPauline
text, raises immediate doubts. We can envision conflation of two genuine
Paulines, to take the sting out of the harsher of the two (2 Cor; perhaps
also 1 Cor). But why conflate two fakes? Why not just write it like you want
it from the beginning? It is however imaginable that there were originally,
say, five Pastorals and not a mere three, and it was for some reason desired
to reduce the number.

So one cannot reject the proposal out of hand, and it is interesting to see
what happens when the anti-heretical material is grouped off by itself. (NB:
Those following it in detail will have noted that the proposal introduces a
gross inconcinnity in B at 6:11-16 "But flee from these things," since what
directly proceeds are godly and not evil things. This is due to typo: the
presenter has omitted 6:3-10 which is supposed to be in B at this point, but
got left out. Those closely following the proposal please correct.

Having reached that point in the preliminaries, I have only a couple
comments on the proposal itself at this moment:

1. The obvious and often noted difficulty with 5:23 "take a little wine" is
not remedied by the conflation hypothesis; it is simply transferred to the
end of A as a separate act. Nor is it clear why conflation should have
dislocated this line, if originally near-final, to its present position in
the middle of something else. Here is a problem that seems to need a
separate solution.

2. Or maybe the writer is simply following what he imagines to be the
genuine style of Paul: given to frequent digressions and self-interruptions.
Such are the imponderables, or anyway the complexities, of deutero material.

3. Hymns. In the reconstruction, there is one in each of A and B, toward the
end. But the one in B is to my eye more a doxology than a hymn, and anyway,
does not precedent suggest a position near the beginning, not the end
(Philippians, Colossians)? If so, I explain it as part of a special Pauline
strategy of convincement. Of course, the makers of one or both documents may
have had their own idea of a proper Pauline letter, or sought to improve on
Paul.

4. There is a recurring phrase, which in the in the translation here used
reads "it is a trustworthy statement." It would perhaps be favorable to the
conflation proposal if this occurred in only one of the proposed original
letters, but it is instead divided among the two (1 Tim 1:15 and 3:1, both
A, but also 4:9, which is B).

5. Is B really a letter, or an anti-heretical encyclical with some of the
devices of a letter? I don't think there are truly monothematic letters of
Paul, real or fake. Are there? But again, whoever wrote this stuff may have
had a different and (in his view) better idea of the ideal Pauline letter.

6. Interesting though it is to separate the anti-heretical material out of 1
Tim, I have the feeling that the problem, if it is to be solved in something
like this way, needs also to take account of 2 Tim, where 2:14-4:5 is on
somewhat the same theme.

7. For that matter, "it is a trustworthy statement" also occurs in 2 Tim
2:11. Again the Timothys seem to be interconnected. Probably a full account
of them needs to be interconnected too.

8. To begin to think about this aspect: which of the Timothys came first?
Many think 2 Tim (followed in some views by Titus and 1 Tim, in that order),
but is there a direct refutation? If not, then 2 Tim is in the background
for whatever happened to 1 Tim, either when it was composed or at some later
point.

9. Just as an observation: Among the ends sought by the deuteroPauline
writers were church order statements, anti-heresy, new Pauline personalia
(the problem of the second Roman imprisonment), and also a move back to what
I have called the Alpha position, where (contra the irascible Paul in
Romans) the Jewish law or Jesus's interpretation of it is still cogent and
relevant, and good deeds are material to salvation. This acceptance of the
Jewish scriptures (eg 1 Tim 4:13, 5:18; 2 Tim 3:16) is a conspicuous
illustration of this tendency (Matthew, as it were, in a different and more
ethical key). So is the Davidic element in 2 Tim 8 (a misreading of Paul's
conciliatory gesture in Rom 1:3, but let that pass for now); again we see
Matthew doing the same thing in a different way. If we need reasons why
Matthew was not included in Marcion's canon of Gospels, and why the
Pastorals were not included in Marcion's canon of Epistles, I suggest that
we need look no further. Luke and the unregenerate Paul of the genuine
Epistles were surely Marcion's best bet.

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

The  textual addition of Mark 15:38 illustrates a certain redactional,
theological" tendency already detectable in the Markan additions to pMark
and PN.  To this extent it provides evidence that the supernatural elements
in the PN are redactional such as the fantastic darkness in the 6th hour and
the miraculous renting of the veil.  It also relates to the distinctively
Christian" addition of Jesus' alleged claim regarding the destruction and
three-day rebuilding of the "temple" which Mark wishes to relate to the
predicted" death and resurrection of Jesus.  This is confirmed by the
second" inconsistency of the witnesses at Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin
(added to that of 14:56).  Thus, both the witnesses' second "inconsistent"
testimony regarding the "temple" (14:57-58) and the later reference to it in
PN (15:29-30) are likely "theological" additions.  Further, Aristotle's
ideal tragedy is not to contain any presence of a Deus ex Machina in that it
strives for "imitation" or realism.

LM Barré
San Diego
-------Original Message-------

From: E Bruce Brooks
Date: 1/11/2013 12:19:37 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk 22:35-39 - Interpolation or not?


To: Synoptic
In Response To: Wieland Willker
On: Mk 15:28
From: Bruce

Wieland: Regarding Mk 15:28 . . . The external support for the omission is
extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k + Sy-S). Eusebius' canon table (early
4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse. What is interesting is that
no one added the words in Mt.

Bruce: Right; this is precisely Matthew's strategy of Scripture fulfilment.
Presumably by the time of Eusebius, the Gospels were still subject to
insertions, but somewhat less so to harmonizations as such.

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------Original Message-------

From: E Bruce Brooks
Date: 1/11/2013 4:59:29 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A dramatic example of textual "healing."


To: Synoptic
In Response To: L M Barré
On: 1 Timothy Conflation
From: Bruce

EBB:Parenthetical note: by "healing" I meant the specific situation where
the
text on either side of an interpolation (AAABAAA) joins together smoothly
when the interruptive interpolation is removed (AAAAAA), like your finger
the day after a paper cut. It resumes its natural continuity. Of course, not
all interpolations are interruptive, and not all interruptive interpolations
are unsmoothed at their edges by their interpolator. Life Is not alwayss
easy.
LMB:  Yes, I understood your medical analogy.  I use one from musical
consonance and dissoance, being a musician.

The idea of conflation in the Pastorals, or in any other deuteroPauline
text, raises immediate doubts. We can envision conflation of two genuine
Paulines, to take the sting out of the harsher of the two (2 Cor; perhaps
also 1 Cor). But why conflate two fakes? Why not just write it like you want
It from the beginning? It is however imaginable that there were originally,
Say, five Pastorals and not a mere three, and it was for some reason desired
to reduce the number.

LMB:  I cannot say for certain what may have inspired the conflation.
Perhaps the brevity of Letter B or in imitation of 2 Timothy and/or Titus in
which the two themes are smoothly integrated.

So one cannot reject the proposal out of hand, and it is interesting to see
what happens when the anti-heretical material is grouped off by itself. (NB:
Those following it in detail will have noted that the proposal introduces a
gross inconcinnity in B at 6:11-16 "But flee from these things," since what
Directly proceeds are godly and not evil things. This is due to typo: the
presenter has omitted 6:3-10 which is supposed to be in B at this point, but
got left out. Those closely following the proposal please correct.
Yes, you are right to spot the typo-o.  Restored Letter B as this junture
should be corrected to:
3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound
words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to
godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid
interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which
arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant
friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose
that godliness is a means of gain. (6*But* godliness actually is a means of
great gain when accompanied by contentment. 7 For we have brought nothing
into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. 8 If we have
food and covering, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who want to
get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful
desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money
is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered
away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.)
11 *But* flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness,
godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight
of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you
made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I charge you
in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus,
who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep
the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time¡ª
The problematic non-continuity of 6:11 I solve in this way.  The topic of
contentment of money is parenthetical.  The adversative use of the
conjunction "de" of v 16 indicates a return to the topic of from Timothy
should "flee" from as the same conjuction is used in v 3 to introduce the
parethesis, So v 16 refers back before the parenthetical remark to vv 3-5
money.  The opposite pursuit of "godliness" mentioned in v. 11 hearkens back
to v 6, so v 11 and 12 capture both what Timothy is to flee from as well as
what he is to pursue.  Interpreted so, vv 11 follows from what precedes.
He who is the blessed and only Sovereign,
The King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone possesses immortality
And dwells in unapproachable light,
Whom no man has seen or can see.
To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.


EBB: Having reached that point in the preliminaries, I have only a couple
Comments on the proposal itself at this moment:

1. The obvious and often noted difficulty with 5:23 "take a little wine" is
Not remedied by the conflation hypothesis; it is simply transferred to the
end of A as a separate act. Nor is it clear why conflation should have
Dislocated this line, if originally near-final, to its present position in
The middle of something else. Here Is a problem that seems to need a
Separate solution.
LMB:  I am guided to make this relocation ofr a few reasons.  First of all,
the attempt to relate it to a heretical asceticism Is feeble and rather
unconvincing as I noted.  Second, it breaks the connection between what
immediately precedes and follows it:

  5:22 Do not lay hands on anyone hastily and so identify with the sins of
others. Keep yourself pure.
  5:23 (Stop drinking just water, but use a little wine for your digestion
and your frequent illnesses.)
5:24 The sins of some people are obvious, going before them into judgment,
but for others, they show up later. 5:25 Similarly good works are also
obvious, and the ones that are not cannot remain hidden.
See how the command not to lay hands on one hastily because of their "sins"
is open to a mistake since some sins are obvious but others are not so
immediately and only show up later.  Timothy keeping himself pure involves
this special care he must take lest after laying hands on someone, his sins
later become apparent and Timothy's "purity" is impugned by having
previously identified with them.  Thus it is fairly clear that 5:23 is
foreign to its present context and has rightly been judged to be either a
free interpolation or a relocation during the process of conflation.  I
suspect the later simply because it makes less sense I think to simply add
an interpolation here. Instead it was "kept" because it was originally a
part of Letter A's concluding remarks.  Obviously, such personal remarks are
found otherwise in the conclusion of a letter  This seems more likely than
if someone just put such a  personal remark in such a strange place.

EBB:2. Or maybe the writer Is simply following what he imaginees to be the
Genuine Style of Paul: GIven to frequent digressions and self-Interruptions.
Such ARe the imponderables, or anyway the complexities, of deutero material.
LMB:  Well, as I just argued, the recognized strangeness of the advice has
all the marks of an insertion which in this case I do not feel It necessary
to surrender to an imponderable.  Life and composition criticism is
sometimes kind.

EBB. Hymns. In the reconstruction, there is one in each of A and B, toward
the
End. But the one in B is to my eye more a doxology than a hymn, and anyway,
Does not precedent suggest a position near the beginning, not the end
(Philippians, Colossians)? If so, I explain it as part of a special Pauline
Strategy of convincement. Of course, the makers of one or both documents may
have had their own idea of a proper Pauline letter, or sought to improve on
Paul.
LMB:  As for 3:14-16 being the original conclusion ot Letter A,I noted a
quote that observes it is not grammatically or in terms of content related
to what precedes.  Also, note that here the author is stating his intended
travel plans, a motif that otherwise occurs in the conclusion of a letter.
Add to that that it makes an excellent summary of the Letter.  Having
addressed the various groups that comprise the "household of God, these are
now summed up as a conclusion in this phrase.  True, the quotation of a
pre-existing hymn as in Phillipians does not come at the end. But more
closely related, one does in 1 Timothy, or my Letter B (vv 6:15-16.),
followed only by the strong exhortation that Timothy watch out for heterodox
teachings and not allow them to contiminate that  "sound teaching" which
Paul" entrusted to him,nicely summarizing the alleged single focus of Letter
B.  As to the literary healing of 1 Timothy, why, it's a miracle!

EBB: 4. There is a recurring phrase, which in the in the translation here
used
reads "it is a trustworthy statement." It would perhaps be favorable to the
Conflation proposal if this occurred In only one of the proposed original
Letters, but it is instead divided among the two (1 Tim 1:15 and 3:1, both
A, but also 4:9, which Is B).
  LMB: Point taken.  But given that the same author may have written both A
and B, it is not that surprising to find the formula in both.  But the same
of different authorship of A and B must really await an exegesis of the two
separately and from that tobo make a determnation of the  authorship of the
two.

EBB:5. Is B really a letter, or an anti-heretical encyclical with some of
the
devices of a letter? I don't think there are truly monothematic letters of
Paul, real or fake. Are there? But again, whoever wrote this stuff may have
had a different and (in his view) better idea of the ideal Pauline letter.
LMB:  Reading Letter B separately very much brings out a very urgent tone
due to the seriousness and urgency of the problem, so nicely both at the
beginning of the letter and summed up in its last ardent exhortation.  It
hardly has the relatively relaxed tone of Letter A.  Calling it an
anti-encyclical seems to go very much to the tone of the Letter and so may
account for Its rather direct and focused concern.  So in your assessment of
its tone and content, it seems that you are adding evidence that we are
dealing with a distinct composition.  Letter A, by contrast does not show
such urgency and simply enumerates the correct pastoral attitude of Timothy
to the various members of "the household of God."  I find it interesting
that the genre of the "household rules" is here rather expanded from its
form in the texts I cited.  This perceived develpment of the genre may well
be another indication that we are dealing with a post-Pauline composition,
which is the view to which I subscribe anyway.

EBB:6. Interesting though it is to separate the anti-heretical material out
of 1
Tim, I have the feeling that the problem, if it is to be solved in something
like this way, needs also to take account of 2 Tim, where 2:14-4:5 is on
Somewhat the same theme.
LMB: Yes, I argue that upon a comparison with both 2 Timothy and Titus that
these letters contain the two themes of heterodoxy and church order.  But in
these compositions, the flow is much more integrated and does not have
blockish character that I find in 1 Timothy.  This, I suspect as mention
above, may have been a reason to combine two letters as motivated by a
literary imitation of sorts.  But also recall my arguments about the odd
order of the Thanksgiving in 1:12-17, the inexplicable "first of all" in 2:1
  and the lack of any near antecedent to the "instructions" mention in 1:18,
which otherwise dovetails quite nicely as following from 1:3-11.

EBB 7. For that matter, "it is a trustworthy statement" also occurs in 2 Tim
2:11. Again the Timothys seem to be interconnected. Probably a full account
of them needs to be interconnected too.
LMB: I suppose what I would like to see is the entire problem of the
Pastorals to be considered in light of my thesis.  I guess it would fall to
me to pursue that.  But then, I am not a New Testament scholar.

EBB:8. To begin to think about this aspect: which of the Timothys came
first?
Many think 2 Tim (followed in some views by Titus and 1 Tim, in that order),
but is there a direct refutation? If not, then 2 Tim is in the background
for whatever happened to 1 Tim, either when it was composed or at some later
point.
LMB:  As indicated, I suspect that 1 Timothy followed 2 Timothy and Titus
where these were used as inspiration for the conflation.  So the view you
stated is for me convenient.

EBB: 9. Just as an observation: Among the ends sought by the deuteroPauline
writers were church order statements, anti-heresy, new Pauline personalia
(the problem of the second Roman imprisonment), and also a move back to what
I have called the Alpha position, where (contra the irascible Paul in
Romans) the Jewish law or Jesus's Interpretation of it is still cogent and
Relevant, and good deeds are material to salvation. This acceptance of the
Jewish scriptures (eg 1 Tim 4:13, 5:18; 2 Tim 3:16) is a conspicuous
illustration of this tendency (Matthew, as it were, in a different and more
Ethical key). So Is the Davidic element in 2 Itm 8 (a MIsreading of Paul's
Conciliatory gesture in Rom 1:3, but let that pass for now); again we see
Matthew doing the same thing in a different way. If we need reasons why
Matthew was not included in Marcion's canon of Gospels, and why the
Pastorals were not included in Marcion's canon of Epistles, I suggest that
We need look no further. Luke and the unregenerate Paul of the genuine
Epistles were surely Marcion's best bet.
LMB: I must say, I have no idea if my thesis on the composition of 1 Timothy
will "catch on."  I have submitted it as a critical note to JBL.  Hopefully,
it will raise enough doubt for folks not to simply assume a compositional
unity to 1 Timothy.  As it is, it seems that reseachers are somewhat dancing
around the dissonant elements in the composition, noting them but as you
indicate, not really pressing that matter because life is sometimes not so
kind toward such  exact demarcation and what seem to me to be a rather easy
case to make.  As far as I see it, it's a rather "ah ha" moment.  Now 1
Timothy suddenly makes excellent sense where previously it was judged to be
a "hap-hazard" composition with no "neat fit."  Well, it neat now and the
solution" I am proposing is rather like turning off a skipping record.
I appreciate that I found someone who can assess my thesis in an informed
manner.  Thank you for your valuable comments.  I hope that it is not too
much to hope that a separate historical exegesis of Letter A and Letter B
might someday emerge.  I would be most interested in the results.  Perhaps
someone knows of some grad student in NT looking for a dissertation topic.
LM Barré
Unaffilated






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now to be insufferably triumphant, but methinks that Dr.  Barré has
delivered a nice set of twins.  A literarily fairly beautiful baby girl,
addressing  "bishops" on church relations.  How nice.  But also a rather
handsome baby boy, urging a most dramatic fight for the Faith, right there,
right now in Ephesus.

I have to say that I find Letter A is rather banal in content, where the
only content of any real interest to me at least, is the hymnic affirmation
that I think concludes it.  On the other hand, Letter B is quite dramatic
and exciting through out.  Delivered over to Satan--that should fix that
heinous pair of blasphemers!

O Timothy, don't get sucked in!  Evil lurks here, evil lurks there, why evil
lurks . . . everywhere!

LM Barré
San Diego

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]