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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Bruce, This explanation works for new material. But on the Griesbach Theory, most of Mark s material is a rehash of older material. Why bother changing the
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce Brooks wrote:

      > ..... it is not really difficult to imagine a
      > Phrygian speaker coming into the NT business late rather than early, and
      > having trouble with his Greek.

      Bruce,

      This explanation works for new material. But on the Griesbach Theory, most
      of Mark's material is a rehash of older material. Why bother changing the
      Greek to make it less stylish?

      > 3. Mark's Major Gaps are Filled In. People can and do argue forever over
      > whether someone might have wanted to produce a more full or a more spare
      > narrative. This indeterminacy is the analogue of what Griesbach himself
      > pointed out about the ambiguity of the "lectio brevior" rule of thumb.
      > Scribes abbreviate, but scribes also expand, both inadvertently and
      > intentionally. Neither the longer nor the shorter of two parallel versions
      > (of a phrase or of a parable) is a priori the earlier.

      This is now generally accepted. But it hardly applies to Jesus' resurrection
      appearances, which have a trajectory of their own, from suggestive to
      outline to great detail.

      > One must look at the
      > specifics of the respective passages. Here, as it seems to me, is the vice
      > of making a decision based on what one can imagine the motives of a given
      > Gospel to have been.

      Motives provide vital clues when properly understood, as they do also in
      criminal cases. Of course we can't pinpoint the motive for every detail of
      every redaction, but if we can't pick up the broader motives it's time for
      us to give up NT criticism.

      > 5. With Much Duplication. In Mark? Apart from the possibly parallel series
      > including the two Feeding Miracles?

      These parallels, involving Mk 6:30-7:23 // Mk 8:1-8:21 and Mk 7:31-37 // Mk
      8:22-26, are quite extensive for a short gospel. The second passage in each
      pair is arguably a rehash of the first, and represents a 3.5% space
      overhead. Such duplication suggests that there was a shortage of suitable
      material for the number of pages (sic) which Mark had allocated. This is
      inconceivable if Mark had the whole of Matthew and Luke in front of him.

      > 7. No Resurrection Story. Tilt. Mark probably had one, but that original
      > ending is lost.

      You're supporting a dying cause. Nowadays most scholars recognize,
      correctly, that Mark intended to end at 16:8.

      > I know, people go to great lengths arguing that you can end
      > a sentence in Greek with GAR. But not a narrative,

      Now here you underestimate Mark's literary skills.

      > ..... and not after Mark himself has
      > signaled, in what we have left of his text, an intention to write a
      > resurrection narrative.

      Not so in the original text (minus the interpolations 14:28 and 16:7).

      > If they exert themselves, they [interpolators] can cover their
      > tracks pretty well.

      Do you have a case in mind? I don't see how you could detect the work of a
      very skilled interpolator, because presumably he would leave no trace of his
      work. So how do you know that they can cover their tracks?

      > IN SUM: It strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that A, in copying B,
      > would introduce such changes in the B original as to make A appear to
      > contain an interpolated passage.

      Taken at face value this sentence makes no sense to me. I presume you must
      be referring to synoptic editors rather than copyist/interpolators, and that
      you are implying a distinction between deliberate interpolation (plausible)
      and original-work-which-looks-like-an-interpolation (implausible). So if a
      passage has the characteristics of an interpolation, then it is likely to be
      so, and it can therefore be used as a test for directionality. This seems
      reasonable. But finding clear examples among the synoptic editors may not be
      easy because all the synoptic writers were skilful authors.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Directionality of Mark From: Bruce Ron has doubts about some elements in my note on strong and weak
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG
        In Response To: Ron Price
        On: Directionality of Mark
        From: Bruce

        Ron has doubts about some elements in my note on strong and weak arguments
        for Markan Priority. I respond to them below. Markan Priority as a
        conclusion from the evidence *is not here at issue;* we agree on it. My
        interest is in identifying the best evidence for it - in trying to save
        Synoptic time by not getting bogged down in arguments which someone can
        counter by imagining a setting or a motive, and focusing instead on points
        which seem to be, at least for the general observer, genuinely directional.

        I have a more general suggestion too. In order not to bury it at the end of
        this small-detail discussion, which the wise will probably skip anyway, I
        will send it separately a little later on. It involves the question of
        pre-publication changes in a text *by its proprietors,* rather than
        post-publication changes by later copyists; that is, the possibility that
        the Gospels in particular underwent a process of growth and self-adaptation
        before multiple copies started to be made. I think that this model has firm
        precedents in ancient literature generally, and offers important new
        possibilities for the Synoptic perplexity. I am aware that many, apparently
        including Ron, have trouble with that concept, which is fine, but I am
        looking for a few who are willing to entertain that possibility. On this,
        more later. Meanwhile:

        RON [on the possibility that Mark's bad Greek might be due to local causes,
        eg a Phrygian speaker who is late in the Synoptic sequence, but simply
        doesn't do Greek very well]: This explanation works for new material. But on
        the Griesbach Theory, most of Mark's material is a rehash of older material.
        Why bother changing the
        Greek to make it less stylish?

        BRUCE: I was trying to show that the bad-Greek argument can be countered,
        and I was trying to show it by an example where the bad Greek is not the
        result of an intentional change, but simply the reflex of the writer's own
        naturally bad Greek. Bad Greek is a language, just as pidgin English is a
        language, and in my experience (which is direct), pidgin speakers are not
        deterred (or not completely deterred) from their way of speaking English by
        the presence of standard English speakers in the same conversation.

        I don't say this is likely. I wouldn't myself urge that possibility. I agree
        with Ron that Mark's Greek makes best sense as early in the Synoptic scheme
        of things, and that when all Mark had to do to write good Greek was just to
        copy his source, it is a little difficult to seem him as introducing it. I
        just don't want to get into an interminable argument with some Griesbachians
        who feel that their IDEA of that scheme of things is supported by a Phrygian
        Supposition. Or some functional equivalent.

        RON [I had opposed the argument that the fuller narrative has to be later]:
        This is now generally accepted. But it hardly applies to Jesus' resurrection
        appearances, which have a trajectory of their own, from suggestive to
        outline to great detail.

        BRUCE: I agree that trajectory arguments, and not fullness arguments, are
        the way to go. Another trajectory factor, to which I attach importance, is
        the move from Galilean appearances of Jesus (explicitly foretold in Mk) to
        Jerusalem appearances of Jesus (portrayed in Lk, which also has Jesus
        forbidding the disciples to return to Galilee). I think that these and like
        trajectory arguments are strong. But I *don't* think that they derive part
        of their strength from the fullness argument.

        In fact, the fullness argument is easily refuted, and here is how. Let's
        agree that Mt and Mk have SOME relation. But parallel incidents are
        sometimes fuller in Mt, sometimes in Mk. Then whichever hypothesis we adopt,
        we will have to allow that the later of the two SOMETIMES expands and
        SOMETIMES abridges. Then the fullness argument, the length argument, is
        worthless as an index of Synoptic relationships. If worthless, we should not
        build it into our better arguments, since it just makes the better arguments
        vulnerable all over again to the objections that quite validly attach to the
        fullness arguments.

        RON [on my comment that directionality decisions based on imagined motives
        of Evangelists are weak as a group]: Motives provide vital clues when
        properly understood, as they do also in criminal cases. Of course we can't
        pinpoint the motive for every detail of every redaction, but if we can't
        pick up the broader motives it's time for us to give up NT criticism.

        BRUCE: I suspect that we CAN pick them up, or enough of them to make
        plausible sense of Synoptic relationships otherwise established. But I think
        the record will show that not everyone construes those imputed motives the
        same way. I therefore suggest, not that motives are undiscussable, but that
        they are not in practice our strongest argument when reaching Synoptic
        conclusions ab initio. I don't think they are the place to start, and I find
        a lot of Synoptic discussions flawed in that they begin with author
        questions, and indeed with authorial motive questions, before assessing any
        other evidence. I don't think that anyone approaching the Synoptic Problem
        de novo is in possession of firm evidence about the identity of any of the
        Evangelists. The presently assigned authors were early assigned, but maybe
        not ORIGINALLY assigned. I think that any argument which is author-based is
        to that degree perilous. I think that ideally we want to reach conclusions
        about Synoptic order and relationships on other grounds, namely, on textual
        grounds.

        That is not to say that the intentionality of some specific change cannot be
        discussed. We don't have to speculate about the inside of some Synoptic
        author's head, we can inspect what that author has written. I earlier argued
        that the Nazareth episode occupies a different position in Mark and Luke,
        and proceeded to say why one might have changed the other's order. To
        recapitulate: the early position of Nazareth in Lk is in line with the whole
        thesis of Lk as we have it, namely, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, that
        is, by his own people. Lk begins FROM THE FIRST to establish that theme (in
        Mk, if read as a chronological account, that rejection was gradual and
        progressive). So far, we have only established that Nazareth is in a good
        place in both Mk and Lk, relative to what the rest of those texts shows to
        be their larger life-of-Jesus agendas and conceptions. Is there further
        evidence that makes one or the other of them a RELOCATION, and not simply a
        difference? Yes, there is: Lk's Nazareth refers to miracles that Jesus had
        previously done in Capernaum, but in Lk's own narrative, as it now stands,
        Jesus HAS NOT YET GONE TO CAPERNAUM. At this point, Lk is not merely
        different from Mk, which we knew already, he is different FROM HIMSELF. Lk's
        Nazareth is thus problematic simply as it stands, and would be so if we had
        no Mk at all to compare it with. Then the Lukan Nazareth story is the one
        that has been inserted into its present position, and (as I would say) it
        must have originally occupied, in Lk, a position comparable to the one it
        still occupies in Mk, that is, *after* the Capernaum episode. The Lukan
        Nazareth story still bears traces of having originally occupied that
        position itself.

        I think this position is strong. Does it deal in authorial motives? Not
        really. It deals with what the Text at large is up to, to its manifest
        groundplan and design, its idea of Jesus and indeed of all Early Christian
        history. Why a human named Luke (whether or not possessing a medical degree)
        might have wanted to produce this design is not speculated on. Instead, the
        arrangement of the text is relied on. The arrangement of the text is a
        reasonably objective thing, whereas the inner life of "Luke" the supposed
        author is a closed book. I recommend the former kind of argument over the
        latter kind of argument as more effective, and thus less likely to end in
        the usual Synoptic deadlock.

        RON [to my query about doublets in Mk, and asking whether Ron had in mind
        the two Feeding miracles]: These parallels, involving Mk 6:30-7:23 // Mk
        8:1-8:21 and Mk 7:31-37 // Mk 8:22-26, are quite extensive for a short
        gospel. The second passage in each pair is arguably a rehash of the first,
        and represents a 3.5% space
        overhead. Such duplication suggests that there was a shortage of suitable
        material for the number of pages (sic) which Mark had allocated. This is
        inconceivable if Mark had the whole of Matthew and Luke in front of him.

        BRUCE: I am not comfortable with "space allocation" arguments. I do agree
        that the series is effectively a duplication. I note that the writer of Mark
        is at pains to POINT OUT that it is a duplication, and to give or suggest
        the mystic meaning of the two as taken together. I also note that the second
        of the feeding stories, as narrated rather than editorially commented on
        (with Jesus here called into service as the internal commentator), is
        totally unaware of the first.

        What Ron means by "inconceivable" isn't clear to me. I am content to have
        identified what he means by Markan doublets. Thus clarified, he was
        previously referring to one large Markan doublet. There are many more
        doublets than one in Matthew and in Luke. I continue to think that this
        phrase in his original statement is accordingly "not best evidence." Not (to
        repeat) that we don't come out the same way, vis-a-vis the Synoptic position
        of Mk, but there are better and worse ways of convincing others that our way
        is also the RIGHT way.

        RON [on my remark that the original ending of Mk is lost]: You're supporting
        a dying cause. Nowadays most scholars recognize, correctly, that Mark
        intended to end at 16:8.

        BRUCE: I don't mind company, but I am perfectly content to disagree with the
        majority of scholars when those scholars are going against the evidence of
        the text itself. Mk 14:28 and 16:7, the latter of which is aware of the
        former and refers to it, as though to remind the reader that all this is
        foreseen, clearly envision a resurrection appearance in Galilee. Mk as it
        stands does not include a resurrection appearance. Therefore, our Mark has
        been cut off before it reaches the end of the text; before the text gets to
        where the text itself says it was headed.

        I think it has to be realized, in assessing the cogency of "majority"
        opinions, that the Zeitgeist of our age, not only in the NT field but across
        the whole humanities spectrum, is strongly opposed to text arguments of the
        kind that Ron and I are here making. A reluctance to recognize
        interpolations and accretions, for one thing, has been steadily increasing
        since the middle of the previous century. The majority position of 1928 is
        not that of 2008. Are the 2008 people better? Or are they merely reflecting
        a general cultural tendency toward textual credulity which is equally seen
        in, say, Homeric studies? We don't know a priori, and can only try to see
        which position is better supported by the evidence.

        As those who are keeping up with SBL, including its plenary sessions, will
        not need to be told, the "critical-historical" approach as such is under
        explicit attack in the seminaries. That would affect me if I were involved
        in the world of the seminaries, but I'm not, and it doesn't. It terms of
        facing the difficulties in the texts, and reaching, at least in the easy
        cases, the most naturally indicated solution for them, I think the 1928
        people at least sometimes did it better. When on the evidence it seems to me
        that that happens, I feel myself free to agree with them.

        RON [on my thought that ending a narrative with GAR is improbable]: Now here
        you underestimate Mark's literary skills.

        BRUCE: I am frankly weary of arguments which go back and forth between
        Mark's ineptitude in Greek and his skill in Greek. And I think a lot of
        other people may be equally unimpressed. I think Mark was a little not at
        home in the Greek language, and that he was also not very concerned to make
        a highly artistic production, just to tell the story as he saw it, in the
        breathless way that we see he has adopted (with "straightway" all over the
        place). That is a consistent notion of Mark's capabilities and procedures. I
        like that notion better than Ron's, partly because it deals with these
        verbal characteristics of Mk on one consistent assumption, and not in what
        seems to me to be a sporadic and wavering one; in effect, an ad hoc one.

        RON [on my remark that Mark has "signaled his intention to write a
        resurrection narrative"]: Not so in the original text (minus the
        interpolations 14:28 and 16:7).

        BRUCE: Here, as I think, we are coming to the crux. Granted that these two
        passages are interpolations. (Though majority opinion at this time will
        certainly not grant this, as a scan of Mark commentaries in the past 15
        years will display; they no longer even take time to refute the once
        accepted view that these passages are interpolations; they just treat them
        as original). What then? Ron's assumption, as I gather, is that they are
        scribal corruptions, posterior to the "original manuscript" of which text
        critics sometimes incautiously speak.

        Well, let's consider it. It is always good at such points to consult a
        critical apparatus. What is the status of 14:28 in the manuscript witnesses?
        Absolutely all of them have this passage. Freer, to "after I am raised" adds
        EK NEKRWN "from the dead," a fussy though consistent explication. Family 13
        sticks in a KAI toward the beginning. That's it. That's absolutely the sum
        and total of manuscript variation in 14:28. There is no support here,
        repeat, no support here, for the idea of a post-authorial, that is, a
        scribal, interpolation. 16:7, same story. A few extra KAI here and there, an
        extra phrase in Family 1, but nothing whatever that would suggest that these
        passages were not in the archetype, meaning, in the manuscript as it was
        first given to the copyists. If not added *after* that stage, they may well
        have been added *before* it, that is, within the authorial (or
        proprietarial) process that finally led to our present canonical Mk.

        I admit that the implications of this are momentous. That does not make them
        less interesting. The chief implication is that Mk as originally laid out
        did not feature post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, but that this idea
        turns up relatively late in the period covered by the composition of Mk, and
        accordingly appears as a sort of afterthought in Mk. We know, Paul leaves us
        in no doubt, that for him appearances of Jesus were the source of validation
        for later Apostles, himself loudly included. But that's Paul. There were
        certainly varieties of early Christian opinion that held, quite against the
        burial and physical resurrection complex of ideas, that Jesus had been taken
        up to Heaven directly after his death, like Moses and Elijah before him
        (notice, while we are at it, that it is precisely Moses and Elijah who
        figure in a certain scene earlier in Mark, the obvious meaning of which the
        Markan "Jesus" is made to dispute with Peter afterward). Those ideas are a
        matter of record. To that record, I propose to add only this: that Mark or
        the Markan authorial syndicate, the Markan text formation process and its
        unknown roots in real life, at first held views close to those, and only
        later adopted, and made a little room in their text for, the idea that
        Jesus's power of convincement in later days came from his having literally
        risen from the dead: what others held to be the final validating miracle.

        RON [to my thought that interpolators are sometimes skillful]: Do you have a
        case in mind? I don't see how you could detect the work of a very skilled
        interpolator, because presumably he would leave no trace of his
        work. So how do you know that they can cover their tracks?

        BRUCE: From a wide experience of texts in various languages. But we can take
        it as a priori. We may perhaps agree that some interpolations stick out as
        obvious. But it is surely not theoretically excluded that the original
        interpolator might see that also (some of these guys were *almost* as smart
        as you and me), and pick up his pencil again and make a better job of it.
        But the bottom line is that I am content to start with the easy cases, the
        ones where the interpolator has NOT wholly adjusted the surrounding text,
        and we can more easily see him at work. I don't need superfluous
        difficulties, especially not when starting out. I am content to take the
        crumbs that fall from the less skilled interpolator's worktable.

        I had further suggested: "It strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that A,
        in copying B, would introduce such changes in the B original as to make A
        appear to contain an interpolated passage."

        RON: Taken at face value this sentence makes no sense to me. I presume you
        must be referring to synoptic editors rather than copyist/interpolators, and
        that you are implying a distinction between deliberate interpolation
        (plausible) and original-work-which-looks-like-an-interpolation
        (implausible). So if a passage has the characteristics of an interpolation,
        then it is likely to be so, and it can therefore be used as a test for
        directionality. This seems reasonable. But finding clear examples among the
        synoptic editors may not be
        easy because all the synoptic writers were skilful authors.

        BRUCE: Let's leave it at that, except that I still dissent from the
        assumption that "all the Synoptic writers were skillful authors." I am not
        prepared to deduce anything from that assumption, and I therefore avoid
        making it in the first place. Luke, for one, is both a literarily motivated
        author (he has moved Nazareth to the beginning of Jesus's ministry for
        structurally intelligible, and structurally verifiable, reasons; he has in
        mind the whole panorama of Luke-Acts) and a clumsy one (he has carelessly
        left in that story the inconcinnity about the Capernaum miracles).

        Authors are sometimes skillful and sometimes (and when their attention is
        elsewhere, sometimes in the very same passage) clumsy. Later writers
        sometimes abridge, and sometimes expand, a Vorlage passage. Then authorial
        skill is no more a viable criterion than is passage length. They have no
        deductive force. Since they lack deductive force, I would prefer to omit
        them from any argument which is designed to be convincing to those not
        already convinced.

        More perhaps later.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        http://www.umass.edu/wsp
      • Ron Price
        ... Bruce, As we are mostly in agreement on the topic of this thread, I will just take up this one remark. If you are weary, I am surprised. I am surprised
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 11, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce Brooks wrote:

          > ..... I am frankly weary of arguments which go back and forth between
          > Mark's ineptitude in Greek and his skill in Greek.

          Bruce,

          As we are mostly in agreement on the topic of this thread, I will just take
          up this one remark.

          If you are weary, I am surprised. I am surprised that you cannot
          distinguish, at least in theory if not in this particular case, that it is
          possible to write a book in which the grammar and sentence style are less
          than perfect, yet the overall presentation is a masterpiece. In Mark the
          development of the plot, the beautifully crafted characters, the subtle
          innuendos, and the precisely symmetrical structure, all add up in my mind to
          a literary masterpiece. Don't forget that for 20 years or so this book was
          treasured as the only written gospel, and that it was later considered
          suitable to form the basis of two further gospels, and the probable
          inspiration for yet another (i.e. John). So though he was not especially
          skilful from a grammatical point of view, his overall literary skill can
          hardly be questioned. To have written a book which inspired other books
          which together became the sole testimony to the life of the hero of a
          billion people or more is no mean feat in my estimation.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Synoptic Fatigue From: Bruce I had confessed to weariness at the interminable discussions that result when
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Ron Price
            On: Synoptic Fatigue
            From: Bruce

            I had confessed to weariness at the interminable discussions that result
            when certain of the weaker arguments for Markan Priority are adduced in
            mixed company. I think, and recommend, that these arguments should circulate
            only among the safely convinced, leaving other and stronger points to be
            urged upon prospective converts. Here is another argument that keeps coming
            up, and I can only think it would be better for Synoptic progress if it came
            up less frequently:

            RON: To have written a book which inspired other books which together became
            the sole testimony to the life of the hero of a billion people or more is no
            mean feat in my estimation.

            BRUCE: It seems to me just possible that the success of the movement in
            question owes more to the second-tier Synoptics, not to mention Paul and a
            bunch of other people, than it does to the Gospel of Mark. How far were
            Mt/Lk inspired by admiration for Mk, and how far, on the evidence of what
            they did to it, by a desire to replace it? What level of Markan popularity
            do the extant papyri attest? How far did the mediaeval Church rely on Mark
            to populate its lectionaries? How far did mediaeval faith rest on Gospel
            testimony at all? To come to modern times, is it Mark or something else that
            has been publicly called the most beautiful book ever written? And how many
            millions of dollars have been spent in the effort to shore up the Q
            barricade, whose ultimate effect is to cancel the theological implications
            of Mark as the first and thus the most authentic account of Jesus? If love
            of Mark is strongly in evidence at any point in the last 2000 years, I would
            need to have that point more precisely identified.

            In any case, retrospective arguments (including arguments from personal
            conviction or affection in the present tense) remain retrospective
            arguments. My sense of it is that these questions can only be decided, if
            they ever should be decided, on grounds nearer to the 1st century.

            Hopefully submitted,

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Ron Price
            ... Bruce, I agree that Paul was one of the essential ingredients for success. But I suggest that Christianity as we know it might never have arisen if Mark
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 12, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Bruce Brooks wrote:

              > It seems to me just possible that the success of the movement in
              > question owes more to the second-tier Synoptics, not to mention Paul and a
              > bunch of other people, than it does to the Gospel of Mark.

              Bruce,

              I agree that Paul was one of the essential ingredients for success. But I
              suggest that Christianity as we know it might never have arisen if Mark had
              not thought of the idea of writing a "gospel" which combined the basic
              theological outlook of Paul with something he almost totally lacked, namely
              an interest in the life of Jesus.

              > How far were Mt/Lk inspired by admiration for Mk, and how far, on the
              > evidence of what they did to it, by a desire to replace it?

              It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

              > If love of Mark is strongly in evidence at any point in the last 2000
              > years, I would need to have that point more precisely identified.

              Mark's popularity lasted around a generation, from ca. 70 CE ('publication'
              of Mark) to ca. 105 CE ('publication' of the First Edition of John). Mark
              was the starting-point for the more developed gospels of Matthew and Luke.
              Mark was also the inspiration for John (see Schnelle for the heavy
              dependence of John on Mark). John the Evangelist seems to have been the last
              major Christian author to rate Mark's gospel material as more useful
              evangelically than either Matthew or Luke. A few years later John the
              Redactor succeeded in introducing ideas from Matthew into the Johannine
              gospel, and from about that time Matthew and John were established as the
              most popular gospels in the centuries that followed.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Directionality of Mark From: Bruce I had asked: BRUCE: How far were Mt/Lk inspired by admiration for Mk, and how
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic
                In Response To: Ron Price
                On: Directionality of Mark
                From: Bruce

                I had asked:

                BRUCE: How far were Mt/Lk inspired by admiration for Mk, and how far, on the
                evidence of what they did to it, by a desire to replace it?

                RON: It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

                BRUCE: Rewriting a text, cleaning up its language, removing its most
                offensive spots, and then padding it out with as much material again, is not
                a form of flattery, it is a form of one-upmanship. The most that one can say
                of Luke is that he respected Mark as something like a classic in the field,
                and tended to treat it less cavalierly than he did old Matthew. As I think I
                have remarked before, if Luke had really *admired* Mk, in the sense meant in
                the present conversation, then his entire letter to Theophilus would have
                read as follows:

                "Esteemed Theophilus, I have just come across this really terrific account
                of the life and sayings of Jesus. You gotta see it. I am enclosing my copy;
                please be careful of the loose pages. Yours truly, Luke MD."

                I had also asked:

                BRUCE: If love of Mark is strongly in evidence at any point in the last 2000
                years, I would need to have that point more precisely identified.

                RON: Mark's popularity lasted around a generation, from ca. 70 CE
                ('publication' of Mark) to ca. 105 CE ('publication' of the First Edition of
                John). Mark was the starting-point for the more developed gospels of Matthew
                and Luke. Mark was also the inspiration for John (see Schnelle for the heavy
                dependence of John on Mark). John the Evangelist seems to have been the last
                major Christian author to rate Mark's gospel material as more useful
                evangelically than either Matthew or Luke. A few years later John the
                Redactor succeeded in introducing ideas from Matthew into the Johannine
                gospel, and from about that time Matthew and John were established as the
                most popular gospels in the centuries that followed.

                BRUCE: This at least gets rid of the modern faithful as witnesses to the
                brilliance of Mark; we are thus down from 1 billion witnesses to 3, which is
                surely progress. As for this particular scenario, none of the dates is firm
                (we have at most termini post quem in Mt and Lk, and relative chronology
                otherwise). All the rest is inference, and others, as Ron well knows, infer
                differently. It was above noted that Mt, Lk, and to a degree Jn, all
                regarded Mk as a somewhat classical source, of which they made more or less
                respectful use in their own compositions. I think this relationship may be
                itself an argument, of sorts, for Markan priority; nothing else gets even
                *that* good treatment from any second Evangelist.

                But notice the trajectory: Mt includes almost all of Mk, Lk nearer
                two-thirds, and Jn only traces. In parallel, Mt keeps roughly to Mk's
                historical schema, Lk departs from it noticeably, Jn overwrites it almost
                completely (yielding, for starters, a ministry of four years rather than
                one). We have a certain quantum of respect in all cases, but decreasing both
                in its comprehensiveness (how much of Mk the later Evangelists cared to deal
                with) and, in the retained material, in faithfulness to the detail and order
                of that material. It is a diminuendo scenario. Ron himself notes, seemingly
                in agreement with a previous remark of mine, that whatever Mk's popularity
                may earlier have been, it was immediately occluded, so far as we can tell,
                immediately after Jn, and this even in the exurbs of Alexandria, where by
                some accounts John Mark took his newly written Gospel after Peter's death,
                and which thus ought by rights to have been a hotbed of GMark enthusiasm, if
                any such existed. I think there is no evidence that any such existed.

                All this is an excursus from the idea that Mark as written is literarily
                impressive. I still don't think that the case is made, either in the
                gargoyles of Gothic cathedrals or in the sands of Egypt. And for that
                reason, I still don't think this idea has a place among the front-line
                artillery of the Markan Priority Persuasion.

                ---------

                So far has the discussion wandered from a point of essential agreement: the
                chronological priority of Mk. Thank Goodness none of the Tertiarity people
                are joining in; had they done so, the home team, thus divided, would surely
                be facing ignominious rout.

                I continue to recommend the best arguments, and I continue to feel that the
                literary brilliance of Mark (alternating as required with the linguistic
                ineptitude of Mark) is not exactly one of them.

                So what?? I'll tell you so what. Mixing weak and strong arguments does not
                make for a cumulatively strong argument. It makes for an argument of which
                someone can say, "This argument all hangs together, and these weak links
                won't support the rest of the structure, and so the whole thing collapses."

                And then one is reduced to proving, retrospectively, that one's argument did
                NOT after all hang together, so that the failure of one item does not
                logically invalidate the other items. One strengthens one's case by showing
                it to have been incoherent. Good luck on that one.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Ron Price
                ... Bruce, Again I must conclude that there is no point in further continuing this discussion. Distorting the presentation of one s opponent is no way to make
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 13, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce Brooks wrote:

                  > All this is an excursus from the idea that Mark as written is literarily
                  > impressive. I still don't think that the case is made, either in the
                  > gargoyles of Gothic cathedrals or in the sands of Egypt. And for that
                  > reason, I still don't think this idea has a place among the front-line
                  > artillery of the Markan Priority Persuasion.
                  > .....
                  > I continue to recommend the best arguments, and I continue to feel that the
                  > literary brilliance of Mark (alternating as required with the linguistic
                  > ineptitude of Mark) is not exactly one of them.

                  Bruce,

                  Again I must conclude that there is no point in further continuing this
                  discussion. Distorting the presentation of one's opponent is no way to make
                  a case. I never claimed that Mark's great high-level literary skill is an
                  argument for Markan priority, as such. It was rather a defence against your
                  outdated proposition that the ending to Mark's gospel has been lost.

                  > .....
                  > Mixing weak and strong arguments does not
                  > make for a cumulatively strong argument.

                  Indeed. And it does not further the case for Markan priority to suppose the
                  original end of Mark's gospel has been lost. For it implies that Mark was
                  originally as developed as the other gospels in regard to post-resurrection
                  appearances.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic Cc: GPG et al In Response To: Ron Price On: Directionality of Mark From: Bruce RON: . . .It was rather a defence against your outdated
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 13, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    Cc: GPG et al
                    In Response To: Ron Price
                    On: Directionality of Mark
                    From: Bruce

                    RON: . . .It was rather a defence against your outdated proposition that
                    the ending to Mark's gospel has been lost.

                    BRUCE: Is "outdated" an argument? I freely concede that the approach I use
                    was more widely practiced, and that the kind of conclusions I reach by using
                    it were more widely accepted, in the year 1932 than at present. So either I
                    am outdated or the discipline at large is going through a bad period. My
                    suspicion, supported by signs of similar things happening in all the other
                    humanities disciplines, is the latter. Of course anybody in my position
                    would say the same, and saying it proves nothing. But neither does the
                    opposite. In the end, whatever we may mean by "the end," the soundness of an
                    argument, not its date, should determine.

                    RON: . . . it does not further the case for Markan priority to suppose the
                    original end of Mark's gospel has been lost. For it implies that Mark was
                    originally as developed as the other gospels in regard to post-resurrection
                    appearances.

                    BRUCE: I don't suppose that loss. I infer it. Partly from the evidence in
                    the text, and partly from the revealing efforts of later Evangelists and
                    subsequent creative copyists to supply what they felt to be a lack. But the
                    chief tilt here is in the words "original end." Those words assume that
                    every feature of the text of Mark was present in it from the beginning.

                    On evidence (some of it previously discussed on this list), I don't think
                    so.

                    I think - I conclude from examination - that Mark in its final form is the
                    end product of a growth process, taking place over a good number of years,
                    additions being made to it with the intention of keeping it up with
                    developments in early doctrine. The congregation leader continually updating
                    his sermon notes; whatever. The result is that Mark, the thing behind the
                    archetype, is a theological composite, containing both early and not so
                    early ideas about Jesus. Separating these strata of accretion allows one to
                    watch the growth of early doctrine, a perhaps interesting possibility. On
                    performing that separation, or anyway a certain amount of it, I find that
                    the layer of Mark that implies the Resurrection is indeed a very late layer.
                    Meaning, one may most plausibly infer, that the particular stream of
                    doctrine with which GMk was in contact as it grew, and which in its final
                    form it more or less reflects, did not at first hold, *but only later came
                    to adopt,* the Resurrection doctrine. On evidence implicit in the text of
                    our Mark, that group originally held a quite different doctrine, one in fact
                    which seems to have been widespread in early Christianity, and was
                    encountered and condemned by Paul in Corinth. Is the pre-Resurrection
                    doctrine a later divergence, a heresy in the usual sense? I think this is
                    the usual understanding of the Corinthian difference. My evidence (and some
                    of my evidence has been noticed in the literature before) suggests not. It
                    suggests that the Resurrection is a relatively late doctrine, which only
                    after much tension and vituperation (see again Paul in Corinthians) was
                    ousted in favor of the later idea.

                    The word "original" has a somewhat special meaning in situations of this
                    type. There are strata of relative earliness and lateness. We can call the
                    oldest stratum the "original," if we like. If we do, we need to contrast it
                    with the textually much more evolved final product, the Vorlage of the first
                    copyist. It is the latter, as I have come to see things, that contained the
                    implication of a post-Crucifixion appearance of Jesus.

                    Ron and I debated exactly this proposition about Mark two years ago, just
                    days (and in the last exchanges, hours) before my presentation at SBL/NE
                    2006. He seemingly wasn't convinced then, and I gather he continues to be
                    unconvinced now. Fair enough, and this would be a good place to cease
                    troubling the list with these irreconcilable propositions.

                    A PROPOSAL

                    But now I make, to the silent members of Synoptic, the suggestion I
                    mentioned a few days ago.

                    I am still in process of developing a theory of Mark, and indeed of the
                    other Gospels (Luke is also under study at thus moment), which admits the
                    possibility of growth in a text before it reaches the stage of the final
                    copy, the Vorlage, as it was first known to the copyists. I could use some
                    comment on the work so far done, from one or two knowledgeable people who
                    are at least provisionally prepared to accept the premises of the argument.

                    And what are those?

                    Any layer theory of any text relies for its cogency on how we propose to
                    separate the various stages of growth: the layers of the resulting text. My
                    present theory relies at many points on our being able to distinguish, for
                    example, an interpolation *in the absence of a second manuscript which lacks
                    the passage in question,* purely on the classical grounds that it disagrees
                    with its present context, and that the context becomes more concinnitous
                    when the passage in question is experimentally removed. To vary an example
                    of Bruce Metzger's: If we see that a line of print is duplicated one column
                    of our morning newspaper, it means an inadvertence in the composing room, an
                    event happening before the newspaper itself is multiplied. That error might
                    be the double insertion of a stick of type. When later copyists do this it
                    is a retrace error, dittography, as in Acts 19:34 in Vaticanus; its opposite
                    is haplography; on both, see Metzger/Ehrman 254f. We mentally correct such
                    errors forthwith, when we encounter them in contemporary experience. We do
                    not need a second printing of the paper, in which the error is corrected, to
                    draw our attention to the error. The first printing, the evidence of the
                    second line itself, the manifest *superfluity* of that second line, is all
                    we need to reach a philologically valid conclusion about how the text got to
                    be the way it is.

                    If the (conceivably) one or two people out of Synoptic's 183 members (the
                    total membership of 185 minus Ron and myself) who are prepared to admit the
                    validity of what I will call the Metzger procedure, the recognition of
                    interpolations solely from their character in the text before us, would get
                    in touch with me privately, I would be glad to share with them, for their
                    private comment and criticism, preliminary drafts of my 2006 and also my
                    2008 SBL/NE presentations on Mark, and perhaps later on, my parallel effort
                    with Luke. It would be understood that the drafts themselves would remain
                    private, as with any unpublished work, and that helpful criticisms would be
                    acknowledged in any eventual published form. Standard scholarly protocol.

                    Thanks to the one or two for considering this, and thanks to all for their
                    exemplary patience during the previous exchange.

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    Note that all of Ron s evidence for Mark s popularity below depends upon modern source theories for Gospel?writings (stated as though they were fact). Funny
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 13, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Note that all of Ron's "evidence" for Mark's popularity below depends upon modern source theories for Gospel?writings (stated as though they were fact). Funny that all other historical evidence points to (1) a stunning lack of interest in Mark in early Christianity, (2) rather definite, expressed?opinions that Matthew wrote first, and (3) a universal popularity of Matthew in the first Christian centuries, which, given?that Gospel's?extremely Jewish character, can only be accounted for by assuming a widespread belief that it was indeed the first Gospel written (and perhaps also that it had some genuine connection with one of the Twelve). It is historically?unimaginable that (Jewish-Christian!) advocates of Matthew could have pulled that off, with no trace of historical resistance from those in the know about Mark's venerable origin.?Also, I am not impressed with?the idea of Mark as a primary inspiration?for John, at least to the extent that that?hypothesis ignores (as it most often does) the enormous influence of Matthew on John as well. Scholars who hold Markan priority are?often all but blind to the latter (Matthew's influence on John, i.e.).?

                      By the way, there are quite reasonable arguments to counter every one of the arguments for Markan priority that Ron reiterated?recently. I hesitate to?give the responses here,?only because they have all been given many times in the past. My assumption is?that Ron simply never reads them, or he would spare himself the embarrassment of repeating arguments that have long since been?effectively refuted.?

                      Leonard Maluf
                      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                      Weston, MA


                      Mark's popularity lasted around a generation, from ca. 70 CE ('publication'
                      of Mark) to ca. 105 CE ('publication' of the First Edition of John). Mark
                      was the starting-point for the more developed gospels of Matthew and Luke.
                      Mark was also the inspiration for John (see Schnelle for the heavy
                      dependence of John on Mark). John the Evangelist seems to have been the last
                      major Christian author to rate Mark's gospel material as more useful
                      evangelically than either Matthew or Luke. A few years later John the
                      Redactor succeeded in introducing ideas from Matthew into the Johannine
                      gospel, and from about that time Matthew and John were established as the
                      most popular gospels in the centuries that followed.





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Chuck Jones
                      Bruce and Ron, Mark is in fact a literary masterpiece. Its three act narrative structure, use of foreshadowing, and dramatic development of a single theme
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 14, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bruce and Ron,

                        Mark is in fact a literary masterpiece. Its three act narrative structure, use of foreshadowing, and dramatic development of a single theme rank with the best of the dramatic literature in the Gk world. Mk's deficiencies in Gk grammar are oft-noted, but that is a separate issue from his abilities as a story teller.

                        Second, it's interesting to me that Mk 16:1-8 is the account of the resurrection that is most historically accurate, based on the historical reconstructions of modern Jesus scholars and, maybe more importantly, based on internal integrity within the document. Jesus had told the disciples he would appear to them in Galilee. In Mk, and only in Mk, there is no resurrection appearance in Jerusalem. Rather, the disciples are told to go to Galilee where Jesus will appear to them. The Jerusalem appearance traditions of Mt, Lk and Jn have all of the marking of pious legends and hagiography. And they actively conflict with Jesus' promise to appear in Galilee.

                        Rev. Chuck Jones
                        Atlanta, Georgia

                        Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                        Bruce Brooks wrote:

                        > All this is an excursus from the idea that Mark as written is literarily
                        > impressive. I still don't think that the case is made, either in the
                        > gargoyles of Gothic cathedrals or in the sands of Egypt. And for that
                        > reason, I still don't think this idea has a place among the front-line
                        > artillery of the Markan Priority Persuasion.
                        > .....
                        > I continue to recommend the best arguments, and I continue to feel that the
                        > literary brilliance of Mark (alternating as required with the linguistic
                        > ineptitude of Mark) is not exactly one of them.

                        Bruce,

                        Again I must conclude that there is no point in further continuing this
                        discussion. Distorting the presentation of one's opponent is no way to make
                        a case. I never claimed that Mark's great high-level literary skill is an
                        argument for Markan priority, as such. It was rather a defence against your
                        outdated proposition that the ending to Mark's gospel has been lost.

                        > .....
                        > Mixing weak and strong arguments does not
                        > make for a cumulatively strong argument.

                        Indeed. And it does not further the case for Markan priority to suppose the
                        original end of Mark's gospel has been lost. For it implies that Mark was
                        originally as developed as the other gospels in regard to post-resurrection
                        appearances.

                        Ron Price

                        Derbyshire, UK

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







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ron Price
                        ... Leonard, With the advent of what appeared to be more complete gospels (Matthew and Luke) and a theologically much more developed gospel (John), it should
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 14, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Leonard Maluf wrote:

                          > ..... Funny that all other historical evidence points to (1) a stunning lack
                          > of interest in Mark in early Christianity,

                          Leonard,

                          With the advent of what appeared to be more complete gospels (Matthew and
                          Luke) and a theologically much more developed gospel (John), it should not
                          be surprising that ordinary folk were relatively unimpressed by Mark.

                          > (2) rather definite, expressed?opinions that Matthew wrote first,

                          According to R.E.Brown, the hypothesis of Matthean priority goes back to
                          Augustine in the 4th century. But in the absence of a standard tradition of
                          publishing books with author's name and date of publication, and without an
                          understanding of modern source-critical techniques, he would have had no
                          means of knowing who really wrote first.

                          > and (3) a universal popularity of
                          > Matthew in the first Christian centuries, which, given?that Gospel's?extremely
                          > Jewish character, can only be accounted for by assuming a widespread belief
                          > that it was indeed the first Gospel written

                          Matthew's popularity can be accounted for by its perceived completeness,
                          together with its relatively clear structure which would have been so useful
                          for teaching purposes.

                          > It is historically?unimaginable
                          > that (Jewish-Christian!) advocates of Matthew could have pulled that off, with
                          > no trace of historical resistance from those in the know about Mark's
                          > venerable origin.

                          Few early Christians were interested in the order of publication of the
                          gospels. By the 4th c., no living person would have been "in the know" that
                          Mark wrote first.

                          Ron Price

                          Derbyshire, UK

                          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Mark From: Bruce *Everything* that one has read three or more times is a literary masterpiece, especially
                          Message 12 of 13 , Apr 14, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            To: Synoptic
                            Cc: GPG
                            In Response To: Chuck Jones
                            On: Mark
                            From: Bruce

                            *Everything* that one has read three or more times is a literary
                            masterpiece, especially if it has a discoverable groundplan. I don't propose
                            to go further than that into what amounts to the literary equivalent of a
                            music appreciation argument. A point more accessible to philology is:

                            CHUCK: In Mk, and only in Mk, there is no resurrection appearance in
                            Jerusalem. Rather, the disciples are told to go to Galilee where Jesus will
                            appear to them. The Jerusalem appearance traditions of Mt, Lk and Jn have
                            all of the marking of pious legends and hagiography.

                            BRUCE: OK, but in my view it's more than just truth vs legend. Taking the
                            Gospels in their respective final states, which is how they are preserved in
                            the canon, we have (as I think I have mentioned before) a most suggestive
                            trajectory as respects location of Appearances of Jesus after his
                            cruxifixion:

                            Mark: Forecast in Galilee; not actually depicted. [The Gospel of Peter,
                            which is late but which in several points goes back to early tradition, does
                            depict that scene]

                            Matthew: Forecast in Galilee; actually first occurs near Jerusalem, though
                            the Galilee Appearance is duly narrated. Earlier curses the three Galilee
                            churches: Bethsaida, Chorazin, Capernaum.

                            Luke: Retains the Matthean curses against the Galilean churches. The
                            Galilean Appearance forecast is rewritten as a promise *made* in Galilee,
                            but no longer as *referring* to Galilee. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, and the
                            disciples are *ordered by Jesus* not to return to Galilee. In Luke's view,
                            the posthumous church was from the beginning located in Jerusalem.

                            This is what I call the Jerusalem trajectory, which progressively wipes out
                            the fact that the oldest Jesus groups were located where his preaching had
                            also been located, namely in Galilee (but gJn obscures even this, by giving
                            Jesus a longer preaching career, and including not one, but several, visits
                            to Jerusalem and preaching in Judea), and that his after-death appearance
                            was originally thought to be in Galilee. Both the center of the Jesus
                            movement in fact, AND the tradition of the early church as the later church
                            chose to remember it, came to be in Jerusalem. By the time of Paul in
                            Galatians (though, for those of you with no teenaged daughters, there are in
                            fact challenges to the integrity of Galatians; see for one the interesting
                            study J C O'Neill, The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, SPCK
                            1972, and among the passages he challenges are precisely those which bear on
                            Paul's previous career), Jerusalem was IT.

                            The successive Gospels reflect this shift to Jerusalem, and a
                            correspondingly progressive obliteration of the Galilee tradition. This is
                            the sort of thing that is VERY unlikely to have happened in the opposite
                            direction. It suggests the Synoptic sequence of composition Mk > Mt > Lk >
                            Jn. As does every other well-grounded trajectory argument.

                            The trajectory argument does not speak to Synoptic interrelationships, just
                            to order of composition. But order of composition is a useful limiter on
                            interrelation theories.

                            PARAGRAPH 2

                            So far so good, and a considerable number may agree, but now we take, or let
                            me suggest that we take, a second look at Mark. *How well grounded* is the
                            Galilee Appearance in Mark?

                            Answer, not very well. The Appearance itself is never depicted, as I think
                            all will agree. How about the *predictions* of the appearance, which are all
                            that is left of that tradition in Mark? There are two of them, and only two.
                            The second, 16:7, refers back the the first, and so is not independent
                            evidence. The philological (they used to call this "higher criticism")
                            evidence is that both passages are interpolations. And why? Because they
                            make startling and encouraging statements, nothing else than a promise of
                            Life After Death, for Jesus and indeed for the movement comprising his
                            believers. But the making of these statements produces exactly no response
                            in those to whom they are ostensibly made; those persons continue in an
                            attitude of gloom and panic; their hearts are in no way lifted, nor are
                            their immediate concerns distracted. Look at this:

                            Mk 14:27. And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, for it is written,
                            I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.

                            [Mk 14:28. But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee]

                            Mk 14:29. Peter said to him, Even though they all fall away, I will not.

                            Peter in 14:29 walks right past the assurance of 14:28, and responds
                            directly to 14:27. 14:28 might as well not be there, as far as this Peter is
                            concerned, and the indicated philological inference is that, when Mk 14 was
                            first written, 14:28 was indeed NOT there.

                            Of course, it could be some kind of fluke, or fancy rhetoric. Take now
                            16:7 -

                            Mk 16:6. And he said to them, Do not be amazed, you seek Jesus of Nazareth,
                            he is not here; see the place where they laid him.

                            [Mk 16:7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you
                            to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you].

                            16:8. And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and
                            astonishment had come upon them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they
                            were afraid

                            Again the same pattern: the women ignore the Galilee assurance, and react
                            with astonishment to the astonishing fact of the Empty Tomb: Jesus is no
                            longer there.

                            So both these passages are exiguous in context. They *have no effect* on the
                            context; the people in the story in that point react as they might if these
                            things were not there. The inference is that both are interpolations, made
                            at the same time, and intentionally designed to reinforce each other. They
                            do indeed predict a Galilee appearance.

                            But the text of Mark, up to the time when these passages were inserted, DID
                            NOT make that prediction, or have that belief. What did it have instead?
                            Don't ask me; see for example Fitzmyer on the Philippians Hymn and related
                            materials, which testify to an early belief that Jesus was taken directly up
                            to Heaven (just like, ahem, Moses and Elijah in some traditions, and these
                            traditions are explicitly evoked elsewhere in Mk), and never saw the
                            corruption of death and burial as do other mortals.

                            We then have two stages in the growth of conceptions of Jesus. The first
                            stage is the one attested in Philippi and encountered by Paul in Corinth;
                            that is, a geographically widespread pre-Pauline tradition, which did not
                            base itself on the Resurrection Jesus (but rather on the Glorified Jesus in
                            Heaven). The second stage is the more familiar, because more Pauline,
                            Resurrection Jesus. It is in the second stage that we get arguments about
                            where the Appearances occurred, which is now a secondary issue. Dividing
                            Mark into two strata, one of which witnesses to the first stage, and the
                            other to the second, we then have a still strong but now more comprehensive
                            trajectory:

                            Mark A: No appearances, and indeed no Resurrection-centered Christianity
                            Mark B: Appearances predicted in Galilee, not shown.
                            Matthew: Hostility to Galilee; first appearance near Jerusalem; Galilee
                            appearance shown.
                            Luke: Same hostility to Galilee; all appearances near Jerusalem; Disciples
                            ordered to remain in Jerusalem; church history now begins immediately and
                            exclusively in Jerusalem, and the Pauline view of both theology and church
                            history is entirely in place.

                            Respectfully suggested,

                            Bruce

                            E Bruce Brooks
                            Warring States Project
                            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.