Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2949RE: [Synoptic-L] Joe Weaks: Reconstructed Mark thesis

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    Feb 23, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe presented the results of this at the SBL (Synoptic Gospels section) last fall. It was well received. I found his presentation very convincing.

      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      423-461-8720
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of Wieland Willker
      > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:33 AM
      > To: Synoptic-L
      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Joe Weaks: Reconstructed Mark thesis
      >
      > I am not sure if this has already been posted here, but Joe Weaks' thesis,
      > in which he is studying a reconstructed text of Mark from Mt and Lk, is
      > online available:
      >
      > Go to http://www.worldcat.org
      > And enter: Mark without Mark weaks
      >
      >
      > MARK WITHOUT MARK:
      > PROBLEMATIZING THE RELIABILITY OF A
      > RECONSTRUCTED TEXT OF Q
      > by
      > Joseph Allen Weaks
      > January 2010
      > 383 pages
      >
      > Compare: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/518
      >
      >
      > Here's his conclusion:
      >
      > "Summary Implications
      > The text of MarQ is a poor reconstruction of Mark both in its extent, and
      > in 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.
      > In the end, once Mark has been reconstructed from the common material in
      > Matthew and Luke, several pitfalls are revealed in working with that
      > reconstructed text. Again and again the defining features of Mark are lost
      > in the text of MarQ. In analyzing the reconstruction, predominant and
      > cohesive features of MarQ stand out in such a way that, when compared to
      > canonical Mark, they can be seen to be false positives. Some significant
      > vocabulary occurs in MarQ that never occurs in Mark, and some occurs in
      > Mark that never occurs in MarQ.
      > Scholars that work with the text of Q need to find new analogies for how
      > to make use of any reconstructed text of the Q source. To reclaim a source
      > from Matthew and Luke is to unravel two stages of degradation of the text,
      > both the evangelist's use of the text and then the scholar's process for
      > "de-redacting" it back out. Previous defenses of the resulting text of Q
      > center on the collective wisdom and self-confirming quality of the
      > reconstruction process. The proposal here is that the question to ask is
      > not how good or reliable or easy was the process of reconstructing a text
      > behind Matthew and Luke. The reconstruction here was performed with a set
      > of ideal, implausible (yet possible) methods that are even superior to
      > those used for Q. Rather, the question to ask is how representative is the
      > resulting reconstruction to the actual source document that Matthew and
      > Luke both used. The answer is "Not very."
      > When Matthew's and Luke's Marcan source is reconstructed from their non-Q,
      > common material, the resulting reconstructed text is strikingly
      > differentiated from the canonical text it is approximating. The tremendous
      > difference shines a spotlight on the profoundly tenuous nature of a
      > reconstructed text. It even begs the question as to whether those who work
      > in source and redaction criticism have done a disservice to historians by
      > presenting them with a text of Q, as unreliable as it is, with little
      > guidance regarding the limited level of analysis, dissection, and
      > stratification that a reconstructed text can endure."
      >
      >
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><
      > --------------------------
      > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      > Textcritical commentary:
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic