Message 1 of 10 , Oct 28, 1998View SourceOn Oct. 23, 1998, William L. Petersen wrote:
>(C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending--aMay I suggest that the case for non-Marcan style has been overstated.
>point which I find very convincing. Taylor: (p. 610): "The vocabulary
>and style of this section show clearly that it was not written by Mark,
>but is based on a knowledge of traditions found in Lk and Jn." He then
>proceeds to list a whole catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary,
>grammar, etc., etc.). (Taylor also provides an excellent summary of the
>Patristic [non-]evidence for the long ending...)
Since discourse is my interest, I have done some study in this area and a
prelimary write-up is available for inspection at:
In my studies I have have found that most of the stylistic features of the
ending which are non-Marcan do in fact occur in Mark. I note especially
that the case for non-Marcan vocabulary is overstated (no baseline study
was done to determine how many new words to expect). There are 13 words
used once in the long ending which occur nowhere else in Mark; however, if
one looks at short sections 2-5 verses in length (of which the long ending
contains four) in the last 5 chapters of Mark, the ratio of words used
only once to verses is 1.1, meaning that in 12 verses one would expect 13
new words to be used once which have not been used elsewhere. This is
exactly what is found in the long ending. The "high" number of vocabulary
words not found elsewhere in Mark are an argument _for_ Marcan authorship,
not an argument against. It is easy to read a passage and make up
stylistic rules for ancient authors. It is much more time consuming to do
the spade work to find out what their styles (or rather their range of
styles) actually were.
More details on this can be found in the posting to B-Greek in the summer
of 1996 when we discussed this previously on that forum.
For those curious about the above essay, I append a summary below:
Bruce Terry Prof. of Bible and Humanities
Ohio Valley College phone: 304/485-7384 ext. 153
4501 College Parkway fax: 304/485-3106
Parkersburg, WV 26101 e-mail: rbterry@...
A SUMMARY OF
THE STYLE OF THE LONG ENDING OF MARK
Textual critics usually object to Mark's authorship of these verses on
the basis of supposed differences of style between them and the rest of the
Gospel of Mark. However, an in depth study of the stylistic features in
question reveals that almost all of them can be found elsewhere in Mark. For
convenience of discussion, these features may be categorized under four
headings: juncture, vocabulary, phraseology, and miscellaneous.
Objections Based on Juncture
Five objections have been raised concerning the juncture of verses 8 and 9:
1) the subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject
of verse 9;
2) the other women of verses 1-8 are forgotten in verses 9-20;
Mark 2:13; 6:45; 7:31; 8:1; and 14:3 all meet the following conditions:
a) the verse begins a new section;
b) Jesus is the presumed subject (referred to only as "he");
c) the previous verse does not refer to Jesus;
d) the previous verse has a subject other than Jesus; and
e) the subject of the previous verse is not mentioned in the new section.
3) in verse 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned
only a few lines before;
flashbacks that give additional information are also found in Mark 3:16,
17; 6:16; and 7:26.
4) while the use of anastas de ("Now rising") and the position of proton
("first") are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative,
they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8; and
verse 9 is the start of a new section on resurrection appearances.
5) the use of the conjunction gar ("for") at the end of verse 8 is very abrupt.
short clauses of three words (Mark 1:16; 11:18) and four words (Mark 1:38;
3:21; 5:42; 9:49; 14:70; 15:14; 16:4) that contain gar are found in Mark.
Objections Based on Vocabulary
Three objections are raised on the grounds of vocabulary:
1) sixteen words used in this section are not used elsewhere in the Gospel of
a) eight of these sixteen do have their word root used elsewhere in Mark;
b) three of these sixteen words are found only in the post-resurrection
accounts in the story of Jesus' life; and
c) other twelve verse sections in Mark match or exceed this:
1) the first 12 verses of chapter 1 contain 16 words used only
once in Mark
2) the first 12 verses of chapter 14 contain 20 such words
3) the 12 verses of Mark 15:40-16:4, contain 20 to 22 such words,
depending on textual variants that are not used elsewhere in
d) thirteen of these words are used only once in Mark.
1) in the 661 undisputed verses in Mark, there are 555 words used
2) for chapters, the ratio of words used only once to verses varies
between .37 in chapter 3 and 1.15 in chapter 15 with 1.08 for
the long ending of Mark; chapter 7, 13, and 15 exceed this.
3) for short (2-5 verse) sections (like the four in the long ending
of Mark), the ratio of words used only once to verses varies
between .00 and 2.4 with an average for chapters 12-16 of 1.1;
this means twelve verses of short sections in the latter part of
Mark should contain thirteen words used only once, which is
exactly what the long ending of Mark contains.
2) three of these words are used more than once in this section;
a) there are 77 such words within 12 verse spans in Mark.
b) the long ending of Mark has a unique-words-used-more-than-once to
verse ratio of .25
c) for chapters, this ratio varies between 0 to .25 (chapter 2 has 7
such words in 28 verses)
d) for sections, this ratio varies from 0 to 1 (Mark 2:18-22)
e) Mark 2:18-22 contains 5 words used 3 to 6 times only in this
section in Mark plus 7 words used only once in Mark!
f) other examples include:
1) sporos ("seed," Mark 4:26, 27),
2) sunthlibo ("throng, press," Mark 5:24, 31),
3) telones ("tax-collector, publican," Mark 8:9, 20), and
4) huperetes ("servant, officer, guard, attendant," Mark 14:54, 65).
3) this section does not contain some of Mark's favorite words: eutheos or
euthus (both meaning "immediately") and palin ("again").
a) the last fifty-three verses do not contain them; and
b) of the 650 sets of twelve consecutive verses in Mark, not considering
the last twelve verses, 229 sets (35%+) do not contain euthus, eutheos,
c) nine words that are used more often in the rest of Mark than in the
other gospels are also found in the last twelve verses.
Objections Based on Phraseology
Three objections are raised on the grounds of phraseology:
1) eight phrases used in this section are not used elsewhere in Mark;
in the twelve verses of Mark 15:42-16:6 there are nine phrases used which
are not found elsewhere in Mark.
2) similar but different phrases (prote sabbatou "first of the week" and mia
ton sabbaton ("one of the week") are used elsewhere in Mark; and
a) in Mark 2:23, 24 the sabbath is referred to in the plural form in
Greek (ta sabbata) while three verses later in verses 27-28 Mark
switches to the singular form (to sabbaton), both with a singular
b) in Mark 5:2 the word that Mark uses for "tomb" is mnemeion while
in verses 3 and 5 he switches to the similar word mnema; and
c) the same variation is found in Mark 15:56-16:8.
3) the phrase oi met' autou genomenoi ("those having been with him") is used
to designate the disciples only here.
a) the past flavor given to the phrase by the use of the aorist
participle genomenoi ("having been") would hardly have been appropriate
previous to the crucifixion; and
b) the shorter expression oi met' autou ("those with him") is found three
times elsewhere in Mark (1:36; 2:25; and 5:40).
Five miscellaneous objections have also been raised to Mark's authorship:
1) It is claimed that Mark's usual style is to expand the accounts of incidents
in Christ's life as compared with the other Gospels while this section
condenses the accounts;
a) Mark gives only seven verses to John the Baptist's preaching,
b) Mark gives only three verses to Jesus' baptism, and
c) Mark gives only two verses to His temptation
2) It is noted that Mark has a fondness for the word kai ("and") which is
lacking in this section;
a) the scant usage of kai in this section is paralleled in the twelve
verse sections of Mark 7:15-26 (only eight uses of kai, six joining
clauses) and 13:26-37 (only nine uses of kai, four joining clauses);
b) the first four verses of the Gospel do not contain a single coordinating
3) It is claimed that ekeinos ("that one") and the contraction kakeinos ("and
that one") are used in a weakened sense of simply "he," "she," or "they" in
this section as opposed to the rest of the Gospel;
a) the contracted form kakeinos is used absolutely in Mark 12:4, 5
4) It is noted that Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" or "the Lord Jesus" only
in this section of Mark;
a) term "Lord" is also used in reference to Christ in Mark 1:3; 2:28; 7:28;
11:3; and 12:36-37; and
b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in Luke 24:3,
after His resurrection.
5) And it is noted that the only appearances recorded in this ending of Mark
are also recorded in the other Gospels, implying that the writer relied on
the other Gospels for his information.
this section contains new information about the appearances not revealed
elsewhere. For example, this section alone tells us
a) that the disciples were "mourning and weeping" (v. 10),
b) that Christ appeared to the two on the road in a "different form"
c) and that one of the signs to follow the disciples would be the drinking
of deadly things without harmful results (v.18).
Cumulative Style and Peak
In conclusion, we see that all the objections to Mark's authorship of this
section based on style fall into one of two classes: (1) either the stylistic
feature in question is found elsewhere in Mark, or (2) there is a reasonable
explanation for its presence. By far the largest number of objections fall in
the first category. This indicates that it is not correct to state that this
long ending is not in Mark's style.
It is possible that someone might object that it is not that these
stylistic features are not found elsewhere in Mark, but that they are rare in
Mark, being used infrequently by him. Thus it is the cumulative factor of
using so many rare stylistic features in one place that makes this section
non-Marcan. This objection is well-taken and must be given consideration.
With the recent discovery of the concept of peak, however, this frequent
use of rare features in an important part of the story is exactly what should
be expected. Peak is a area of grammatical turbulence. Little used features
become prominent in peak sections and often used features are abandoned.
Background devices become foregrounded and vice versa. In languages around
the world, peak has been shown to occur in sections of climax and denouement,
and sometimes inciting incident, in narratives told by good storytellers. If
the crucifixion is the climax, the resurrection is the denouement. One would
expect this to be a peak area in which the use of expected stylistic features
is abandoned in favor of less frequently used ones. Rather than revealing that
Mark is not the author of these last twelve verses, this different cumulative
style may show that he was a good storyteller.
Bruce, I don t have time to respond to every single item you compiled to argue for the Markan style of 16:9-20. The immediate weaknesses of a few of ... YourMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 28, 1998View SourceBruce,
I don't have time to respond to every single item you compiled to argue
for the Markan style of 16:9-20. The immediate weaknesses of a few of
them leaped off the screen:
>4) It is noted that Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" or "the LordYour collection of the references to Jesus as KURIOS in Mark is
>Jesus" only in this section of Mark;
> a) term "Lord" is also used in reference to Christ in Mark 1:3;
>2:28; 7:28; 11:3; and 12:36-37; and
misleading. Independently, Mark does *not* use KURIOS in a Christological
or messianic fashion in 1:1-16:8.
In Mk 1:3, KURIOS is not Mark's personal choice of words, instead; KURIOS
is nested in a scriptural quotation.
In Mk 2:28, KURIOS is used in a description of Jesus' authority over the
In Mk 7:28, the *vocative* KURIOS is used by the Syrophenecian woman and
should best be translated "sir" (as in the NRSV), unless you think the
householder in Mt 13:27, the father in Mt 21:30, the bridegroom in Mt
25:11, the "master of the slaves" in Mt 25:20, 22, 24, Pilate in Mt 27:63
(among others) should be translated "Lord" and be considered equal in
status to Jesus as KURIOS in Mk 7:28.
In Mark 11:3 KURIOS is found in a quotation that Jesus wants the two
disciples to make if they are questioned about "borrowing" the donkey.
KURIOS is not a Christological or messianic title in 11:3 as in 16:19-20.
Instead, based on Jesus' quotation, the two disciples would end up
looking like servants sent out on business for their earthly master.
In Mk 12:36-37, Jesus is discussing the use of KURIOS in Psalm 110.
Again, the use of KURIOS is not Mark's personal choice of words, but is
based on scriptural citation and related discussion.
> b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only inYou didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in Lk
>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection.
24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; 19:5, 13,
17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. This does not even include the references to the
"Lord Jesus Christ" in Acts 11:17; 28:31. BTW, the phrase (whether
including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere* else in any of the
canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the phrase, not
the Markan nature of the phrase.
Oh, BTW, you still didn't address my previous post. If Mk 16:9-20 is
original to Mark, why no mention of Galilee in Mk 16:9-20 when it's
emphasized in 14:28 and 16:7. This is especially intriguing since 16:7 is
a mere two verses away from the supposedly original longer ending? Did
Mark forget two verses later to mention it? Matthew solved the problem by
mentioning an appearance in Galilee (Mt 28:16). Luke solved the problem
by not mentioning that Jesus would be seen in Galilee (i.e., there are no
parallels to Mk 14:28; 16:7 in Luke) -- of course, Luke needs to keep the
disciples and the appearances in the Jerusalem vicinity for the beginning
of the sequel (Acts). Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20?
Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Christian Studies
California Baptist University
Riverside, California 92508
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Style, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions. The reasons is that evidence can be used to prove just about anyting. Dawsey has made a caseMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 28, 1998View SourceStyle, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions.
The reasons is that evidence can be used to prove just about anyting.
Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different
authors. If that can be deonstrated for Acts, there's no telling what
you could demonstrate with a mere 10 verses of Mark. IMHO, you would
need an enormous sample size to even begin to show what someone's style
cuold be because style differs based on genre. So you need lots of
genres, ots of material and eventhen, no firm decisins can be made. As
noted by Maurice, someone showed that the beginning of mark was unMarkan
as much as theend. That just goes to prove how useless an analysis of
"style" can be. Style should not be used as a criterion for texual
decisions because our decisions about style refelct ONLY what we think
an author would or could have done and say nothing about the actual
possiblities. If you think that Luke and Acts have the same author,
then you shouldn't be using style to ague about the enidngof Mark,
because there is clear stylistic evidence that Luke and Acts had
different authors -- if you accept that kind of data as valid.
Topic: Mk 16:9-20 Style From: Bruce In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98) KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about anything.Message 1 of 10 , Oct 28, 1998View SourceTopic: Mk 16:9-20 Style
In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98)
KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about
Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different
BRUCE: Could I have a more exact reference on this, please?
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:05 -0800 Ken Litwak ... I would be cautious here, because (taken strictly) this could imply that internalMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 29, 1998View SourceOn Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:05 -0800 Ken Litwak <kdlitwak@...>
>Style, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions.I would be cautious here, because (taken strictly) this could imply that
internal evidence itself is not useful or valuable for determining the
text, whether under rigorous eclecticism (e.g. Elliott) or reasoned
eclecticism, or even within what is erroneously thought to be a primarily
external-based Byzantine-priority hypothesis. I for one am not ready to
throw out the baby with the bathwater....
>IMHO, you would need an enormous sample size to even begin to show whatneed lots >of genres, lots of material and even then, no firm decisions
>someone's style could be because style differs based on genre. So you
can be made.
I don't know about that; maybe I'm more skeptical about sweeping
assertions....But I do think Nigel Turner seemed to do fairly well in
describing "style" in his section of Moulton's grammar, and this without
a massive sample size.
>As noted by Maurice, someone showed that the beginning of mark wasanalysis of
>unMarkan as much as the end. That just goes to prove how useless an
>"style" can be.Burgon. But on the contrary, Burgon was not trying to demolish the
argument from style, but only to show that the extreme claims made
against Markan style in the last 12 verses could be shown to apply within
the first 12 verses, which latter in theory no one should consider
inauthentic (but see R. Way-Rider, "The Lost Beginning [sic!] of St.
Mark's Gospel, _Studia Evangelica_ VII: 553-556).
Burgon further went on to note, however, not only evidences of Markan
style in both the first 12 and last 12 verses, but also syntactical and
structural parallels in a chiastic manner which link the opening and
closing of the gospel thematically. So neither I nor Burgon are rejecting
the style criteria or arguing that it is wholly subjective and useless.
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
James M. Dawsey, The Literary Unity of Luke-Acts: Questions of Style. A Task for Literary Critics, NTS (1989) 35:48-66. Parsosn and Pervo, Rethinking theMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 29, 1998View SourceJames M. Dawsey, "The Literary Unity of Luke-Acts: Questions of Style.
A Task for Literary Critics," NTS (1989) 35:48-66.
Parsosn and Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts work from
Dawsey and go further. So if style can be easily identified, and
stylistic criteria can be used to show that Luke and Acts have different
authors, in spie of the fact that most scholars think they have the same
author, what is to be made of arguments from style?
At least may I ask for some methodological rigor? Define exactly what
constitutes style, what are acceptable exceptions to it by an authorand
how one may expectit to regularly be played out in various situations.
SInce we lack so much material, I think it's hard to come up with
conclusions in this regard. How can I validlly say what Mark or LUke or
Paul _could_ have written? Indeed, in my early forties these days, I
find myself writing words that I have never written before, even though
Ihave known them for years and addressing issues I've never addressed
(it was hard to talk about Java programming three years ago). I'm
writing stuff in my dissertation on LUke-Acts in a manner I've never
written anything and discussing topics I've never discussed. It should
be easy to say, based on "style" and vocabulary, that I couldn't
possibly be the author of my dissertation. So if we want to use style
as a basis, what exactly does that mean?
Trinity College/Univiersity of Bristol
(and Java instructor in California)
E. Bruce Brooks wrote:
> Topic: Mk 16:9-20 Style
> From: Bruce
> In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98)
> KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about
> Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different
> BRUCE: Could I have a more exact reference on this, please?
> E Bruce Brooks
> University of Massachusetts
Well for Mark it seems that stylistic matters are confined to the singular Markan text though this certainly does not simplify the issue. What you describeMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 30, 1998View SourceWell for Mark it seems that stylistic matters are confined to the singular
"Markan" text though this certainly does not simplify the issue. What you
describe below is more of an issue for multiple texts written by one author
and is somewhat reductionistic. Since this discussion arose in relation to
Mark, your arguments against style as an issue for making decisions about
the ending of Mark seem to dissipate. What I would like to see is your own
methodological rigor? How or on what basis will you make a textual
decision? Ever by Internal issues? What does legitimately consitute an
internal issue? I must assume that textual decision, for you, will always
have to be the oldest reading available in all cases? Otherwise I cannot
see how you would decide between a newer reading over and older reading
except for some type of internal evidence, whatever that may be for you,
which is essentially a matter of style--especially in the case of Mark.
> At least may I ask for some methodological rigor? Define exactly what
>constitutes style, what are acceptable exceptions to it by an authorand
>how one may expectit to regularly be played out in various situations.
>SInce we lack so much material, I think it's hard to come up with
>conclusions in this regard. How can I validlly say what Mark or LUke or
>Paul _could_ have written? Indeed, in my early forties these days, I
>find myself writing words that I have never written before, even though
>Ihave known them for years and addressing issues I've never addressed
>(it was hard to talk about Java programming three years ago). I'm
>writing stuff in my dissertation on LUke-Acts in a manner I've never
>written anything and discussing topics I've never discussed. It should
>be easy to say, based on "style" and vocabulary, that I couldn't
>possibly be the author of my dissertation. So if we want to use style
>as a basis, what exactly does that mean?
>Trinity College/Univiersity of Bristol
>(and Java instructor in California)
>E. Bruce Brooks wrote:
>> Topic: Mk 16:9-20 Style
>> From: Bruce
>> In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98)
>> KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about
>> Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different
>> BRUCE: Could I have a more exact reference on this, please?
>> E Bruce Brooks
>> University of Massachusetts
... Mike, perhaps I wasn t clear. My point is not about multiple book authorship. My point is that, if so many scholars think that Luke and Acts had the sameMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 30, 1998View SourceMike Logsdon wrote:
>Mike, perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is not about multiple book
> Well for Mark it seems that stylistic matters are confined to the singular
> "Markan" text though this certainly does not simplify the issue. What you
> describe below is more of an issue for multiple texts written by one author
> and is somewhat reductionistic. Since this discussion arose in relation to
> Mark, your arguments against style as an issue for making decisions about
> the ending of Mark seem to dissipate. What I would like to see is your own
> methodological rigor? How or on what basis will you make a textual
> decision? Ever by Internal issues? What does legitimately consitute an
> internal issue? I must assume that textual decision, for you, will always
> have to be the oldest reading available in all cases? Otherwise I cannot
> see how you would decide between a newer reading over and older reading
> except for some type of internal evidence, whatever that may be for you,
> which is essentially a matter of style--especially in the case of Mark.
authorship. My point is that, if so many scholars think that Luke and
Acts had the same author, yet Dawsey and others can argue against common
authorship on stylistic grounds, then "style" must be so slippery a term
that it may be inherently unhelpful. I don't have a definition of style
that would be helpful. That's the point. To make an argument about
style, you need to define the term precisely enough that data you offer
to make an argument should be able to persuade. IF you don't define he
term carefully enough to account for anomalies, changes in rhetorical
strategy, one-time use of a word or phrase, etc., then I don't know what
kind of evidence you could offer for style that should be taken as able
to persuade (not persuasive but even logical to make an argument based
on it). So that's what I'm after: a definition of style that is precise
enough that I can take data, apply it to that definition, and come up
with an answer that some text probably is or probably isn't by a given
author. I don't' expect exactitude, since this is after all the
Humanities, and there's no way to test the validity of our results on
anything other than modern texts. This is like offering an intertextual
analysis of of the use of the Scriptures of Israel in the NT without
ever stopping to say which of several competing, incompatible views of
intertextuality you are using.
As for me, I don't think I rely solely upon external evidence. For
one thing, if I read one MS of John 17 in which Jesus prays that God
will "not keep them from the Evil one" and every other MS says that he
prayed that would would "keep them from the Evil one", then I presume
this one copyist messed up, and it's not hard in the text to see how he
or she might have put an extra negative particle in. I can also surmise
from the content of the prayer in John 17 that such a statement would be
out of keeping with what the rest of the prayer said. So I might well
make a judgment on a reading based on its internal consistency with what
I think the co-text says. I tend to think, based on how I read the
argument of Romans 1-4, that Rom 5:1 should be read with the indicative
of ECW, not the subjunctive.
So turning aside from style as too slippery a criterion doesn't mean
that I am forced to use only external evidence. Internal consistency,
however, is not style. Style would apply more if, say, Mark always the
Greek vocabulary that would have been found on the 1st century
equivalent of the GRE, instead of the sort of Greek vocabulary one would
have found in the equivalent of the Athens TImes (I am of course being
anachronistic but you surely get the point?). SO if Mark ALWAYS used
very rare, pedantic vocabulary, and some disputed verse or verses used
common street vocabulary, the authenticity of those verses might be
argued against on this basis of vocabulary, BUT you would also have to
account for the source of the statement, its rhetorical context and
purpose and so forth, which could easily influence one's choice of
vocabulary. The problem with style, for me, is to assume that it is so
easily quantifiable that apparent exceptions can be clearly identified
and that, a priori, those must be non-Markan, or non-Pauline, etc. What
do you think?
Ph.D. student, NT
Trinity College/Univ. of Bristol
(and Java instructor in California)
... However --your repeated objections not withstanding-- the simple fact that someone can argue against a common theory doesn t, of necessity and byMessage 1 of 10 , Nov 1, 1998View SourceKen Litwak wrote:
> [...] My point is that, if so many scholars think that Luke andHowever --your repeated objections not withstanding-- the simple fact that
>Acts had the same author, yet Dawsey and others can argue against common
>authorship on stylistic grounds, then "style" must be so slippery a term
>that it may be inherently unhelpful.
someone can "argue against" a "common" theory doesn't, of necessity and by
itself, render that theory useless or obsolete.
Thiede has argued for the early dating of the Magdalene fragments.
O'Callaghan has argued for NT texts at Qumran. In other fields I can show
you any number of books and papers that argue against, say, relativity or
Darwinian evolution or for a rational values for Pi. Yet no one would
suggest that any of these objections have turned these respective debates
into slippery slopes.
Any objection should of course be examined. But we need to be wary of the
standard, letter-to-the-editor-ish cant that _any_ objection proves that
"even the experts can't agree" and therefore we can't take anything about
the debate seriously.
In short, there is disagreement and then there is disagreement.
> ... I don't have a definition of stylePerhaps the point is that there are other folks who do.
>that would be helpful. That's the point.
... snip ... Fine Nichael, as I said in my post, I d like to see someone post a definition of style that can account for all possible data and that dealsMessage 1 of 10 , Nov 7, 1998View SourceNichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
> > ... I don't have a definition of styleFine Nichael, as I said in my post, I'd like to see someone post a
> >that would be helpful. That's the point.
> Perhaps the point is that there are other folks who do.
definition of style that can account for all possible data and that
deals intelligently with all the possibilities. For example, should the
delineation of someone's style forbid the use of vocabulary not in this
constructed style? Is Mark allowed to use words not part of his style?
I am not arguing that one critic makes other view points null and void.
On the other hand, is it really academically sound to make an argument
based on style but not be willing to come clean and say what that
definite is? So, if you've got a definition of style that would be
useful for academic study and applicable to TC, please by all means post
it. Don't merely reply to me that others have useful definitions. Is it
problematic to you that I want to be academically rigourous? If you
know of a useful definition of style, please cite it. The fundamental
problem is that everyone here has been using style without defining it.
I submit that this is precisely the problem that I have found in work on
my dissertation, viz., lots of scholars say they are using
intertextuality without delineating what that means and it can mean lots
of things so it does not help particularly to state that you are using
this approach. I am asking for something pretty basic to proper
scholarship: define your terms. Why is that problematic for
Trinity College/University of Bristol