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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk 16:7

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Would you be kind enough not only to define what you mean by classical understanding but to show us the evidence that post 70 CE is the classical
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 13, 2008
      Karel Hanhart wrote:
      > Dear Bruce,
      >
      > Without trying to be being presumptuous, I believe important alternative interpretations on the tomb story should be mentioned and discussed for your project to succeed.
      >
      > I am thus far not confronted by any theory except the provocative exegesis by Adele Yarboro Collins which you refute.
      > My own interpretation, namely, that Mark is ending his post-70 gospel with a haggadic midrash on lxx Isa 22,16; 33,16 and Gen 29, 2.3.10 is not discussed, except by a superficial dismissal.
      >
      > If one adopts the classic understanding that this post-70 gospel was written by John Mark,
      Would you be kind enough not only to define what you mean by "classical
      understanding" but to show us the evidence that post 70 CE is the
      "classical understanding" of the date of composition of GMark?

      Jeffrey

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; WSW In Response To: Karel Hanhart On: Mk 16 From: Bruce Nice to hear from a viewer, and thanks to Karel for taking the trouble. In the
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 13, 2008
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG; WSW
        In Response To: Karel Hanhart
        On: Mk 16
        From: Bruce

        Nice to hear from a viewer, and thanks to Karel for taking the trouble. In
        the end, I don't think the objection is cogent, and I invite attention again
        to the main problem, which in my view is this: (1) is Mark stratified, and
        if so, (2) how shall we identify its layers?

        KAREL: Without trying to be being presumptuous, I believe important
        alternative interpretations on the tomb story should be mentioned and
        discussed for your project to succeed.

        BRUCE: Karel means his book. I have had a brief look at it, via Interlibrary
        and therefore under constraints. It is a long book and hard to summarize,
        with or without the constraints. But I think it is safe to say that it
        regards the Empty Tomb, meaning the Resurrection of Jesus, as the central
        fact of Christianity.

        Paul would have agreed, and that right vehemently. But there were those in
        the early Church who felt otherwise, as Paul himself notes with extreme
        exasperation. Here then is the operative question: Were these people
        deviating from a prior acceptance of the Resurrection, or did they represent
        an earlier form of belief, of which the Resurrection doctrine is itself a
        later development? Since there is nothing logically against the latter
        possibility (for instance, one can believe in the Second Coming of Jesus
        without also believing that Jesus was himself resurrected after being
        entombed for three days), and since there is direct evidence for such a form
        of Christianity (the early hymns, ironically enough preserved by
        incorporation in Paul's own epistles, and thus by standard rule earlier than
        Paul's epistles; for details, see Fitzmyer and several others), I think that
        the most reasonable inference, surprising as it may at first seem to those
        accustomed to the Pauline view, is that the Pauline view is a later growth
        in Christianity, and that the non-Resurrection belief is the earlier form.

        (I would even suggest that it might well have been this shift in Christian
        belief that was a factor in the never explained Pauline volte-face, from
        deadly opponent to passionate advocate of Christianity. But that's properly
        another letter for another day).

        KAREL: I am thus far not confronted by any theory except the provocative
        exegesis by Adele Yarboro Collins which you refute.

        BRUCE: I don't exactly refute it; I accept it in spirit, and I accept many
        of its details. I am rather pleased with it. And why? Because here is a
        modern scholar daring to apply standard tools of philology to a canonical
        text, and honestly reporting what she finds. She not only does it, she does
        it better, at least at some points, than the many who have preceded her in
        the same task. My hat is off to her. What I do with her reconstruction is to
        use it as an entry point to the general question of stratification in Mark.
        I do not so much refute it (though I do note some places where her argument
        seems circular, and where I would draw a different philological conclusion)
        as I end by concluding that the right thing to do with it is to extend it.

        What means, Extend it? (Pardon this question style, it comes of too much
        reading the Gungyang Jwan). I think the only really serious error in her
        presentation is not in her distinguishing of layers in the text, which on
        the whole has been rather capably done (as far as my experience with texts
        in these and other traditions enables me to judge), but rather in her
        failure to see that the sort of stratification which she carries out on Mk
        14-15 could with equal validity be carried out on the whole of Mark, since
        the same evidences for interpolation or accretion are abundantly present
        there as well. She has noticed a few of them herself, in her main
        commentary, but she has not combined that data with the points on which she
        concentrates in her reconstruction project. She ends up affirming the
        Pre-Markan Passion Narrative or PPN theory of Schmidt (in play since 1919),
        but as I read the text, and with support at some points from her own reading
        of the rest of Mark, her evidence really tends to support something like the
        Proto-Gospel or PG theory of Wendling (1905, extending and thus improving on
        von Soden 1904). That is, her PPN evidence also counts toward a PG theory,
        in that it supports the general idea of stratification, but it does not of
        itself establish the PPN theory at the points where it contrasts with the PG
        theory, since (as I read it) her resulting reconstruction is not viable as
        an earlier independent document, which is what the PPN theory requires. It
        is viable instead *as a part* of an earlier independent document, that
        document being precisely the Proto-Mark which Wendling more or less
        suggestively envisioned. Wendling's detailed proposal (to my eye) needs a
        lot of work. A lot of work. But I get the impression that he had the general
        situation figured out pretty well.

        KAREL: My own interpretation, namely, that Mark is ending his post-70
        gospel with a haggadic midrash on lxx Isa 22,16; 33,16 and Gen 29, 2.3.10 is
        not discussed, except by a superficial dismissal.

        BRUCE: I don't recall any dismissal, superficial or otherwise. What I do in
        my three Critique notes (and in my later alternate reconstruction of the end
        of Mark) is to put forward a theory of Mark in which the Resurrection
        narrative is late within the text. If this is true, then the Empty Tomb part
        of Mark does not really come up for discussion, and any theory of how it was
        constructed, whether along Haggadic or other lines, is not relevant. That
        is, the Haggadic theory can be absolutely correct, sensationally correct,
        without thereby proving that the passages which it addresses are early in
        Mark. The two questions are separate, and it is the earliness question with
        which I am here concerned.

        INVITATION

        I may add, for those who may be interested in these things, that I have now
        posted all three of my detailed Critiques of the Yarbro Collins
        reconstruction, and also my own alternative reconstruction of all of MK
        14-16, much of the argument for which is given in the Critiques. Like AYC's
        integral reconstruction (on p819 of her commentary), this will allow a
        judgement as to whether the reconstructed text reads convincingly as a
        document. If so, it is not established as correct, but at least it has
        survived a test which might have proved it *in*correct. That is perhaps
        something.

        The URL for the three Critiques and the Reconstruction is:

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

        Would those who may have earlier printed out Critique 1 be kind enough to do
        so again? The current version incorporates a few changes, for greater
        consistency with the other documents in the group. Thanks.

        Comments always welcome.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • Chuck Jones
        Bruce wrote:   ... I think that the most reasonable inference, surprising as it may at first seem to those accustomed to the Pauline view, is that the Pauline
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 14, 2008
          Bruce wrote:
           
          ..."I think that the most reasonable inference, surprising as it may at first seem to those
          accustomed to the Pauline view, is that the Pauline view is a later growth in Christianity, and that the non-Resurrection belief is the earlier form."
          ___________________________
           
          Bruce,
           
          I'd like to make some side-bar observations on the above.  I think you're onto something important.  I would modify it a bit, making a distinction between belief in resurrection vs. belief in post-death appearances.
           
          I believe that reports of Jesus *appearing* to a few disciples after his death go all the way back; i.e., I believe that it is historical that some of the disciples had visions in which they saw Jesus after his death.  These appearances occured in Galilee at an undetermined time.
           
          I believe that for some within Xnty, "appeared" developed fairly quickly into "was exalted" (to god's right hand after his death), which morphed into "was raised" ("didn't stay dead"), and then full-blown resurrection ("conquered death and ushered in death-proof-ness for his followers").
           
          Only then, I think, came the legends of appearances at an empty tomb in Jerusalem on Sunday morning.  What began as "Jesus appeared" was now "the bodily resurrection of Christ on the third day."
           
          If something like this trajectory is historical, then Mk is closer to history than the other canonical gospels.  Even though he has an empty tomb and uses the word "raised," Mk does not have Jesus appear that morning.  Instead, the young man at the tomb sends word to the apostles to go to Galilee because "there you will see him" (i.e., he will appear).
           
          Mk 16:7 is in fact incompatible with the legends of Jerusalem appearances added by Mt, Lk and Jn, and these legends are mostly incompatible with each other, suggesting late, geographically dispersed development.
           
          Finally, I believe it is quite possible that Mk invented the scene at the empty tomb as a narrative device ("...some characters are composites and some scenes are fictionalized for dramatic affect...").
           
          Rev. Chuck Jones
          Atlanta, Georgia
           
           




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: SJS, WSW; Bark Ehrman In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Theories of Jesus in the Early Church From: Bruce I had suggested, . . . I think that
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 14, 2008
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: SJS, WSW; Bark Ehrman
            In Response To: Chuck Jones
            On: Theories of Jesus in the Early Church
            From: Bruce

            I had suggested, ". . . I think that the most reasonable inference,
            surprising as it may at first seem to those
            accustomed to the Pauline view, is that the Pauline view is a later growth
            in Christianity, and that the non-Resurrection belief is the earlier form."

            CHUCK: I'd like to make some side-bar observations on the above. I think
            you're onto something important. I would modify it a bit, making a
            distinction between belief in resurrection vs. belief in post-death
            appearances.

            I believe that reports of Jesus *appearing* to a few disciples after his
            death go all the way back; i.e., I believe that it is historical that some
            of the disciples had visions in which they saw Jesus after his death. These
            appearances occured in Galilee at an undetermined time.

            BRUCE: All appearance stories known to me feature Peter as the leading
            figure in the Appearance scene, and yes, the ones that seem early, or to go
            back to early roots, are always in Galilee. The time, as far as I can see,
            is indeed undetermined, which I take to mean that these stories don't
            necessarily go "all the way back" in the sense that they occur within
            post-Crucifixion Christianity, and were not envisioned within the lifetime
            of the historical Jesus. (See further at end).

            CHUCK: I believe that for some within Xnty, "appeared" developed fairly
            quickly into "was exalted" (to god's right hand after his death), which
            morphed into "was raised" ("didn't stay dead"), and then full-blown
            resurrection ("conquered death and ushered in death-proof-ness for his
            followers").

            Only then, I think, came the legends of appearances at an empty tomb in
            Jerusalem on Sunday morning. What began as "Jesus appeared" was now "the
            bodily resurrection of Christ on the third day."

            BRUCE: That's a plausible possibility, and I have nothing to say against it.
            There may be variants which on our present knowledge are equally plausible.
            One way of assembling the possibilities, before deciding among them, it
            seems to me, is to study more closely the non-Resurrection traditions, which
            are admittedly both scrappy and controversial. But assuming the evidence can
            somehow be assembled, how great a variety of detail do those texts display?
            What features are always associated with others? I haven't carried this out
            to any great extent myself. Has anyone? If so, a reference would be
            appreciated.

            CHUCK: If something like this trajectory is historical, then Mk is closer to
            history than the other canonical gospels. Even though he has an empty tomb
            and uses the word "raised," Mk does not have Jesus appear that morning.
            Instead, the young man at the tomb sends word to the apostles to go to
            Galilee because "there you will see him" (i.e., he will appear).

            BRUCE: [We are here at the parting of the ways, New Testamentically
            speaking. Those who are prepared to see Christianity as evolving, with the
            final evolution product being the Christianity of recent times, will tend to
            agree that Mk is the first of the Gospels, and therefore most likely closer
            to history than the later ones. That view, for example, can accommodate the
            statement that Paul was a major shaper of the form that Christianity
            eventually took (I have heard this acknowledged, comfortably, from more than
            one pulpit). Those who prefer to see Christianity as always the same, from
            the time of Jesus until now, probably won't be prepared to take that option.
            The present discussion is for those who do take that option].

            CHUCK: Mk 16:7 is in fact incompatible with the legends of Jerusalem
            appearances added by Mt, Lk and Jn, and these legends are mostly
            incompatible with each other, suggesting late, geographically dispersed
            development.

            BRUCE: I would largely agree, though I think the time factor is the more
            important one, and that evolution of doctrine over time is the chief thing
            that this sequence of the Gospels (Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn) exhibits. But those
            are points of evidence, and we can let them float. What is important to me,
            because it is what we can see from the texts themselves and thus is
            philologically grounded, is the time sequence. The lines of development
            within the four are what I call Trajectories; I find them, as an argument
            about the large situation, and saving special cases to be dealt with
            specially, irrefutable.

            In addition to that area of present agreement, I think it is possible to
            detect the growth of the tradition, in at least one detail, and it shows
            that the different strata of Mk themselves are witnesses to both doctrinal
            and presentational evolution. I have mentioned it before, but briefly the
            argument for Mk 16:7 notes that it explicitly refers back to Mk 14:28, the
            Appearance Promise of Jesus. Now, it is conspicuous that both of these
            passages (as various commentators have pointed out, though they seem not to
            have drawn the indicated conclusion) are insecure in context. They are
            ignored by the persons in the respective passages. If these two verses are
            removed, the respective passages knit together and flow smoothly. The women
            in Mk 16 become more psychologically intelligible, and the way Peter in Mk
            14 ignores Jesus's assurance in 14:28 and responds instead to the challenge
            of 14:27 gets rationalized if 14:28 was in fact not present in the text when
            it was first written. Peter is a coherent and intelligible figure *in that
            shorter version of the passage."

            This is the classic way in which an interpolation manifests itself, in any
            text in any language, and we may conclude that these two verses were then
            added later to Mk 14-16. Why? Not to foretell the appearance of the Risen
            Jesus, since the story up to that point in Mk 16 (as Matthew for one has
            clearly seen, in improvising the indicated conclusion) does seem to be
            leading to it. Rather, in the fact of Jesus having *previously predicted*
            that appearance. This, like all the other predictions in Mark (the Denial of
            Peter is predicted in precisely the context around Mk 14:28), is meant to
            show, not what happened, and not even that it was somehow cosmically
            foreseen (as the OT echoes here and there in Mark are probably meant to
            suggest), but that Jesus himself was aware of it all in advance. This
            increases the stature of Jesus as a prophet. It also adds to the
            authenticity of the Appearance to Peter, which might otherwise be felt as an
            irrelevant addendum to previous tradition. It avoids the possible objection
            that Christianity, in the sense of the Risen Jesus, was an invention of
            Peter. I would interpret thus: a new element in Christianity which in fact
            may have gone back to a post-Crucifixion vision of Peter has here been more
            firmly incorporated in Christianity by being brought within the
            foreknowledge of Jesus.

            [The "possible objection" strikes me as a live possibility. Accepting the
            John version for the moment, can't you just see the neighbors, Peter's
            fellow converts, when Peter comes in excitedly, saying "I have seen Jesus,
            and he gave me a piece of fish," answering, "You're a piece of fish
            yourself, you nitwit. Jesus never led us to expect anything like that."
            Well, the Gospel of Mark, in 14:28 and 16:7, can be seen precisely as
            answering that objection]

            CHUCK: Finally, I believe it is quite possible that Mk invented the scene at
            the empty tomb as a narrative device ("...some characters are composites and
            some scenes are fictionalized for dramatic affect...").

            BRUCE: Again agreed. Another very dramatically effective Markan scene is the
            Denial of Peter; it was written by someone with a sharp pictorial sense, and
            if a modern movie director were handed Mark as a script, he would take one
            look at that scene and say, Fire the writers; I can shoot this right off the
            page.

            But notice what we have here, at least for those who have had a peek at my
            Critique notes on the AYC Passion Narrative (see at
            http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/quest/index.html ). She and I, with support
            from the previous century, agree that the Denial of Peter is an element
            later added to a more primitive Passion Narrative. If so, it was probably
            added at the same time as the prediction of it in Mk 14:27, again to excuse
            the defection of Peter by making it foreknown and this inevitable, and if
            inevitable, then surely allowable. The prediction puts a better light on
            Peter's known flight from Jerusalem, and the story shows him as having the
            courage to go as far as he could in following Jesus after Jesus's arrest,
            thus mending his reputation insofar as it could be done without
            transgressing the prediction itself. We would then have these three layers
            (listed with the earliest on the bottom, like an archeological
            stratification:

            3. Prediction (Mk 14:28, interpolated in #2; also Mk 16:7) of Jesus's
            Appearance
            2. Prediction (Mk 14:27, 29-31) and dramatization of Peter's Denial
            1. Basic Passion Narrative, with no entombment story at all (Mk 15:38)

            This strikes me as textual evidence; indications *in the text* of how the
            text got to be the way it presently is. I feel that it gives a solid
            evidential reason for preferring one possible scenario for early
            Christianity over another.

            In that indicated textual evolution, I submit, we can see not only an
            increase in cinematographic skill, among the successive contributors to Mk
            (for all I care, they may have been the same person at different times), but
            also and more consequentially the growth of doctrine. The growth of doctrine
            lies in the fact that the Basic Passion Narrative made no mention of the
            later Appearance of the Risen Jesus. That was not part of Christianity as
            Mark was meant to convey the substance of Christianity. It was a detail that
            was added at a later stage in the formation of Mark as a text.

            Meaning that the opponents of Paul in Corinth and other places already knew
            this earliest form of Christian belief, and had not been affected by the
            later, Resurrection development. Paul on this account is not merely the
            missionary of Christianity to the heathen; he is the envoy of Later
            Christianity to enclaves still harboring Earlier Christianity. And a lively
            enough time he had of it.

            I don't think that exactly this has been suggested before, but I venture to
            suggest it. I think it may lead to a useful clarification of Paul. But then,
            anything we can clarify about the earliest Christianity is probably going to
            clarify Paul in turn. The present clarification, it seems to me, gives Paul
            a more specific role, in a situation slightly more complicated, than the
            average reader of Corinthians may be aware.

            Notice, in conclusion, that Paul is explicitly not concerned "to know Christ
            after the flesh," meaning that what Jesus did or did not do during his
            lifetime was irrelevant to (perhaps even inconsistent with) the content of
            his own belief. Paul's own belief was based exclusively on what happened
            after Jesus's death. On his own testimony, and the weight he attaches to the
            testimony of the many witnesses to Jesus's appearances (his list is longer
            than anything in the Gospels), the Appearances were everything to him. His
            own commission as an Apostle, after all, the Last and Littlest Apostle, was
            by the same channel: a direct manifestation of Jesus to him personally. It
            put him on a par with Peter, or what of Peter he cared to acknowledge.

            Always excepting Eusebius, the serious study of early heresy goes back to
            Bousset, and continues under Ehrman. I think Ehrman's basic point is well
            taken. Some heresies really were divergences from original doctrine. In this
            class I would put the Gnostic group, not that I dislike the Gnostics,
            necessarily, but that such ideas don't seem to turn up until late in the
            Gospel sequence. But other heresies, such as what I have called Ascension
            Christianity, seem to have antedated the eventually victorious Resurrection
            Christianity, and were victims of its success. The early views were squashed
            out by the later ones. (For Chinese-aware persons, there is a neat parallel
            in the way Analects 9:1 argues, on behalf of LI Confucianism but against the
            textual facts, that Confucius himself had never advocated the earlier RVN
            Confucianism; see my article in Van Norden (ed) Confucius and the Analects:
            New Essays, Oxford 2002). To borrow a title from Ehrman, they are among the
            Lost Christianities; Christianities That Might Have Been, and even that
            *were* for a while, in places as far flung as Corinth and Philippi, until
            overtaken by the somehow more persuasive Resurrection version, with no less
            than the indefatigable Paul to beat its drum.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Chuck Jones
            Bruce,   Excellent thoughts, well communicated.  I comment on one brief passage.   Bruce wrote:  ...the fact of Jesus having *previously predicted* that
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 15, 2008
              Bruce,
               
              Excellent thoughts, well communicated.  I comment on one brief passage.
               
              Bruce wrote:  "...the fact of Jesus having *previously predicted*
              that appearance...., like all the other predictions in Mark (the Denial of
              Peter is predicted in precisely the context around Mk 14:28), is meant to
              show, not what happened, and not even that it was somehow cosmically
              foreseen (as the OT echoes here and there in Mark are probably meant to
              suggest), but that Jesus himself was aware of it all in advance. This
              increases the stature of Jesus as a prophet. It also adds to the
              authenticity of the Appearance to Peter, which might otherwise be felt as an
              irrelevant addendum to previous tradition. It avoids the possible objection
              that Christianity, in the sense of the Risen Jesus, was an invention of
              Peter. I would interpret thus: a new element in Christianity which in fact
              may have gone back to a post-Crucifixion vision of Peter has here been more
              firmly incorporated in Christianity by being brought within the
              foreknowledge of Jesus."
               
              I agree with this analysis of the purpose of the prediction passages in Mk.
               
              I believe that Peter and others experienced unexpected visions of Jesus post-death.  I believe these experiences caused them to conclude Jesus was the Messiah after all.  They then went tanakh spelunking to authenticate the view.  And they also created scenes like the ones you describe because it would be pretty implausible for the Messiah to be surprised by his own (long-predicted) resurrection to glory!

              Rev. Chuck Jones
              Atlanta, Georgia




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Peter and Resurrection Theory From: Bruce Chuck had begun, and I hope I may be forgiven for repeating
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 15, 2008
                To: Synoptic
                Cc: GPG, WSW
                In Response To: Chuck Jones
                On: Peter and Resurrection Theory
                From: Bruce

                Chuck had begun, and I hope I may be forgiven for repeating it to our other
                list:

                CHUCK: Excellent thoughts, well communicated. I comment on one brief
                passage.

                BRUCE: The passage in question was my suggestion that the Predictions of
                Jesus in Mk are meant to "increase his stature as a prophet," as well as to
                "add to the authenticity of the Appearance to Peter."

                And I concluded: ". . . I would interpret thus: a new element in
                Christianity which in fact may have gone back to a post-Crucifixion vision
                of Peter has here been more firmly incorporated in Christianity by being
                brought within the foreknowledge of Jesus."

                CHUCK: I agree with this analysis of the purpose of the prediction passages
                in Mk.

                I believe that Peter and others experienced unexpected visions of Jesus
                post-death. I believe these experiences caused them to conclude Jesus was
                the Messiah after all. They then went tanakh spelunking to authenticate the
                view. And they also created scenes like the ones you describe because it
                would be pretty implausible for the Messiah to be surprised by his own
                (long-predicted) resurrection to glory!

                BRUCE: This seems a convincing account of the scenario I have mentioned:
                prevention of embarrassment. And I think the is also a larger dimension.
                Those who know the Dzwo Jwan (a world-famous Chinese text, but perhaps not
                equally famous in all worlds) will see there the same mix of narratively
                fulfilled and prospectively unfulfilled predictions. The fulfilled ones are
                to establish the higher knowledge of the text, and lend weight to what turn
                out to be its unfilled ones (predictions about the future course of the
                Unification wars, then vigorously in progress). They validate it as a
                political oracle. So the first function of the Markan and other predictions
                may well be to incorporate post-Crucifixion experiences into the
                pre-Crucifixion narrative. But the second function is to validate Jesus
                himself as a predictor; in this case, a predictor of his own second coming.
                As many of the canonical texts show us, the continually retreating "horizon
                of fulfilment" of this prediction, which was the one they really cared
                about, greatly disheartened the early Christians. So the reinforcement of
                faith in Jesus as a predictor would have been a welcome second effect of
                these other narrative closures.

                The same problem of delayed vindication continually bedevils the Psalms, and
                it was evidently to the Psalms that the early Christians turned, among other
                places, for justification of the timetable they were actually experiencing.

                EXCURSUS ON PETER

                To me, the role of Peter before and after the Crucifixion is still one of
                the riddles of the record as we have it (including the Petrine apocrypha). I
                hope it will get a little clearer as the reconstruction of Markan
                stratigraphy proceeds. The problem at present seems to be that some layers
                of Mark are pro-Petrine, and others anti-Petrine. But next week is another
                week, and perhaps we shall see, in a little more detail than at right this
                minute.

                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.