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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A Reconstruction of the Pre-MarkanPassionNarrative

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: JSem on Passion Narratives From: Bruce We had this more or less inevitable interchange, in re the Markan Passion
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Ron
      On: JSem on Passion Narratives
      From: Bruce

      We had this more or less inevitable interchange, in re the Markan Passion
      Narrative.

      JSem: "The assertion that the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and the
      Jews responsible is pure Christian propaganda, in the judgment of the
      Seminar. The conspiracy against Jesus and the role of Judas, as well as
      Judas himself, are probably fictions. The story of Peter's denial is a
      fiction. The two trials are fictions; Luke has added a third trial before
      Herod, which is also a fiction. The mocking may be a fiction. Simon of
      Cyrene is a fiction. The burial of Jesus is a fiction carried out by a
      fictional character, Joseph of Arimathea."

      BRUCE: [I had characterized this as pure modern PC].

      RON: What the JSem are saying is that Mark's account is largely the author's
      imaginative elaboration of a small historical core. This is a well-known
      technique which probably goes back at least as far as Homer.

      BRUCE: No. What they are saying, as explicitly as possible, is that the
      whole thing is a fiction. They do not give arguments, they do not
      distinguish core from elaboration, they simply render a blanket judgement.
      The only historical core they acknowledge seems to be the fact of the
      Crucifixion. This is in extreme contrast to the sometimes minute JSem
      consideration of passages elsewhere in the Gospels, and that contrast of
      itself invites attention.

      BRUCE (previous): ..... and to have instead a basis in contemporary emotion.
      I think it has no place in scholarly discourse.

      RON: Surely what has no place in scholarly discourse is discussion of
      another scholar's motive.

      BRUCE: Of course I agree; who would not? But the qualification is "scholarly
      discourse." There is the scholarly end of NT, and there is the other end.
      The intrusion of what is self-characterized as a group "judgement, " without
      evidence or argument, in contrast to their practice elsewhere in the same
      volume, and conspicuously in line with very strong contemporary sentiment,
      seems to me to violate that distinction. I did and do protest the violation.
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: Yarbro Collins Reconstruction of the PPN From: Bruce BRUCE (previous): AYC, in her stratification of the Markan Passion
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: Ron
        On: Yarbro Collins Reconstruction of the PPN
        From: Bruce

        BRUCE (previous): AYC, in her stratification of the Markan Passion
        Narrative, . . . . . . .

        RON: Response forthcoming when I've found out exactly what this
        stratification entails.

        BRUCE: I thought I gave the URL before, but there is no harm repeating it.
        Go to

        http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/quest/index.html

        and click on the appropriate entry; a PDF will come up. I admit I need to
        redo that page, substituting Yarbro Collins' own translation for the
        previously used RSV, so as not to sidetrack the parallel with that
        difference, but perhaps it will do for a first glance at her excisions in
        the canonical Mark. My commentary will follow, one of these days.

        Bruce
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.