2947Re: [Synoptic-L] Joe Weaks: Reconstructed Mark thesis
- Feb 23, 2011Joe Weaks is quoted as writing:
> The text of MarQ is a poor reconstruction of Mark both in its extent, and inFrom my own experience in reconstructing the logia¹, there seem to be three
> its content. In extent, MarQ is but half of the size of Mark. It lacks
> significant pericopes, many of which are foundational to a typical
> understanding of the literary, theological, redactional characteristics of
> Mark. In terms of content, even within the traditions that have been
> reconstructed, their final forms are at times but a shadow of their instance
> in Mark. The changes in verbal and grammatical frequency are profound evidence
> to this fact. Many of the principle theological and literary features of Mark
> are lost to MarQ. Likewise, there are predominant features in MarQ that have
> no corresponding occurrence in Mark.
conditions which must be satisfied if any such reconstruction is to be
Firstly and most obviously, the material which constituted the source must
all be available in some form in the extant documents.
Secondly it must be possible at the outset to lay down criteria by which it
will be possible to identify the material which belongs to the source to be
reconstructed, and these criteria must be substantially independent of the
(sometimes impenetrable) behaviour of the first century authors of the
Thirdly the source must have been highly coherent, so that when it is being
reconstructed, the original internal links will emerge as if by magic to
facilitate completion of the jigsaw.
As far as Joe¹s experiment is concerned, the third criterion was not
fulfilled. For Mark, though structurally coherent, certainly cannot be said
to be highly coherent. Also I suspect the second criterion was not
fulfilled. If so, then his results may lend some support to the above
As far as Q is concerned, the second criterion was definitely not fulfilled,
for the scope of Q is defined not only by what Matthew and Luke copied, but
also by a narrow hypothesis as to where they were copying from (exclusively
from Q and in no part from each other). Nor, as can be seen in retrospect by
a critical observer, was the third criterion fulfilled.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>