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

Dates in Mark

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW On: Dates in Mark From: Bruce Several things in Karel Hanhart s Open Tomb book interest me; I think he is onto something. I will take
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 31, 2008
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG, WSW
      On: Dates in Mark
      From: Bruce

      Several things in Karel Hanhart's Open Tomb book interest me; I think he is
      onto something. I will take up one or two such points presently, if the
      members will permit. But it's a thick book, and there are also places where
      I think another opinion is possible. The date of Mark (for him, 72) is one
      of them.

      I pause to cite a parallel. Orthodox opinion in China is that the sometimes
      very sophisticated poems of the Classic of Poetry (Shr) were all written
      before about 0600 at the latest, and that, for the next four centuries until
      the beginning of the unified Empire, when prose developed into sophisticated
      forms, when the essay began and blossomed, when the art of persuasion
      cultivated what amounts to a conscious rhetoric of design and even paradox,
      when in short the culture was literarily and philosophically at its highest
      point, not a single poem was written, above the level of children's ditties
      and occasional banquet brawls. Four. hundred. years. I am sorry, but
      whatever the contrary evidence might be, such a Poem Gap is forever
      impossible.

      I take a somewhat similar view of the Gospel Gap which standard opinion sees
      in the chronology of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The theory is that Jesus was
      crucified in 30, bringing about an instant crisis of Jesus theory among his
      followers, but that 40 years, for. ty. years, almost two generations,
      elapsed before even the first of these Jesus apologia was written - and even
      then, the stimulus was not curiosity about Jesus as such, but rather some
      sort of reaction to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70. My sense
      of the probabilities is that the followers of Jesus would have been asking
      questions about the nature of Jesus long before that.

      In a field not my own, I hesitate to say "regardless of any evidence to the
      contrary." What I say instead is that there seems to be direct evidence,
      evidence in the text itself, in support of a much earlier date of Mark. I
      notice three points.

      1. Mk 13 has been thought to be a prediction of the destruction of the
      Temple in 70, hence Karel's date for Mark (and almost everybody else's). But
      it has also been thought to be an anticipation of the threatened desecration
      of the Temple by the intrusion of Roman standards, which was announced in
      40, and only canceled in 41. The text, which draws heavily on previous
      Jewish apocalyptic texts, will countenance either a desecration or a
      destruction. But why, if a destruction was envisioned, would it be worth
      anyone's time to prefigure a desecration? Whereas, if desecration was
      feared, images of destruction might thinkably be imported also, by way of
      dramatic overstatement. I thus feel that the year 40 is not only possible,
      but in a literary sense somewhat more likely.

      2. James (actually Jacob, as our German colleagues seem to be aware) and
      John, sons of Zebedee, ask Jesus for a favor in Mk 10; they want to occupy
      the places of honor beside him in the coming Kingdom. He asks them if they
      can "drink the cup" that he will drink (death), and they say Yes. He then
      tells them that they will indeed, but that in any case places of honor are
      not his to assign, and they will have to take their chances. The strong
      impression one gets is that it was, for the readers of Mark, a fulfilled
      prediction, and thus a validation of the prophetic accuracy of Mark. We then
      ask, *when* was that prediction fulfilled? There are two traditions, one
      slightly more orthodox than the other. It is the slightly less orthodox one
      (apparently attested, however, in Papias as well as in other areas) that
      matches the expectation generated by reading Mk 10. That tradition is that
      both James and John (not James alone) were martyred in Jerusalem about the
      year 44. The prediction could not have been written before that year. It
      might well have been seized on, around the year 45, by someone wishing to
      improve the seeming infallibility of the text of Mark, by adding a
      prediction known to have been fulfilled (perhaps all the more so as the
      prediction of 40, about the coming desecration of the Temple, had in fact
      fizzled).

      So there are two numbers, 40 and 45, which are about a generation earlier
      than the earliest date which the standard commentaries are willing to
      entertain for the composition of Mark. Commentaries or no, I think the
      numbers deserve a look.

      3. It may further be noted that neither passage is textually secure in Mark;
      that is, both can be regarded as interpolations, lying in an upper and thus
      later layer of the stratified text. The argument in the case of Jacob/John
      consists of more than one step. But for one thing, notice that their request
      for a place of honor can be seen as a development of a tiny hint of the same
      kind earlier in Mk, namely at 9:35, where the disciples in general dispute
      about which of them is (or is going to be) the greatest. Jesus rebukes them
      with the suggestion that the greatest is the one who serves. In the Mk 10
      version, there is the same rebuke, only at greater length and with greater
      theological specificity. I suggest, not that these are doublets, but that
      the elaborate one is a later development out of the simpler one.

      Something similar seems to be happening with the Woman With a Flow of Blood,
      Mk 5:24-34. This, I would suggest, picks up a single sentence in Mk 6:56 and
      makes a whole story out of it. A story which, moreover (see previous
      postings) can be shown to be interpolated in its context, and to have
      features (the central role of adult women) which are common to other clearly
      interpolated and thus late passages in Mk, but are not found in what seem
      philologically to be the earliest layers. The atypical nature of this cure
      is manifest: Jesus does not touch the patient, and indeed, much is made of
      this fact; his power is stronger here than in the more typical healings
      which occur in the earliest layer of the text, where he works through
      physical contact. Jesus is on the way to being more iconic, more possessed
      of intrinsic magic, than the earliest author of Mark portrayed him. The
      Woman cure is thus in all probability a later item than, say the healing of
      Peter's mother-in-law.

      Here are two cases where an elaborate story later in Mk seems to have been
      developed out of a sentence or a simpler story elsewhere in Mk. In one of
      the cases directly, and in the other case more circuitously, the "developed"
      cases can be shown to be intrusive textually, or late thematically, or both.

      If so, then it would follow that not only was the Zebedees' Request story
      quite possibly added in 45, it was added on top of material written *earlier
      than* that year. The same inference applied to the very atypical passage
      taking up all of Mk 13 (whose more likely date was 40; see above) would take
      us back into the first decade after the Crucifixion, for the noninterpolated
      and thus primary textual layer in Mark. This, as I see it, would bring the
      text much closer to the time when the questions which the text seems
      concerned to *answer,* were in fact first *asked,* by the momentarily
      shocked early followers of Jesus.

      This is why I am uncomfortable with Karel's date 72 for Mark. I am
      uncomfortable with it because everything that the text of Mark seems to be
      up to points me in a different direction. And also because the idea of a
      forty-year lull during which the followers of Jesus give no consecutive
      thought to the question of who Jesus was borders, for me, on the fantastic.

      Offered for consideration,

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Karel Hanhart
      Thank you, Bruce, for your first evaluation of the thesis of my book. May I point out with reference to the date of writing that (a) I date the known edition
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 31, 2008
        Thank you, Bruce, for your first evaluation of the thesis of my book.
        May I point out with reference to the date of writing that
        (a) I date the known edition of Mark approximately 72 CE.
        (b) our Nestle edition is, however, a radical revision of an earlier document
        (c) the earlier document reflected the ecclesia expected the parousia was impending. The catastrophic ending of the war made this rethinking and reformulating of the meaning of the resurrection necessary in view of the delay of the parousia.
        (d) since one isnot able to detect a difference in style or vocabulary in sections of our known Gospel, the pre/70 document was probably written by John Mark as well. He revised his own document.
        (e) I may add the earlier pre/70 version was written with the knowledge of Peter as Papias suggests.

        cordially

        Karel Hanhart




        ----- Original Message -----
        From: E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG ; WSW
        Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 8:32 AM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Dates in Mark


        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG, WSW
        On: Dates in Mark
        From: Bruce

        Several things in Karel Hanhart's Open Tomb book interest me; I think he is
        onto something. I will take up one or two such points presently, if the
        members will permit. But it's a thick book, and there are also places where
        I think another opinion is possible. The date of Mark (for him, 72) is one
        of them.

        I pause to cite a parallel. Orthodox opinion in China is that the sometimes
        very sophisticated poems of the Classic of Poetry (Shr) were all written
        before about 0600 at the latest, and that, for the next four centuries until
        the beginning of the unified Empire, when prose developed into sophisticated
        forms, when the essay began and blossomed, when the art of persuasion
        cultivated what amounts to a conscious rhetoric of design and even paradox,
        when in short the culture was literarily and philosophically at its highest
        point, not a single poem was written, above the level of children's ditties
        and occasional banquet brawls. Four. hundred. years. I am sorry, but
        whatever the contrary evidence might be, such a Poem Gap is forever
        impossible.

        I take a somewhat similar view of the Gospel Gap which standard opinion sees
        in the chronology of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The theory is that Jesus was
        crucified in 30, bringing about an instant crisis of Jesus theory among his
        followers, but that 40 years, for. ty. years, almost two generations,
        elapsed before even the first of these Jesus apologia was written - and even
        then, the stimulus was not curiosity about Jesus as such, but rather some
        sort of reaction to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70. My sense
        of the probabilities is that the followers of Jesus would have been asking
        questions about the nature of Jesus long before that.

        In a field not my own, I hesitate to say "regardless of any evidence to the
        contrary." What I say instead is that there seems to be direct evidence,
        evidence in the text itself, in support of a much earlier date of Mark. I
        notice three points.

        1. Mk 13 has been thought to be a prediction of the destruction of the
        Temple in 70, hence Karel's date for Mark (and almost everybody else's). But
        it has also been thought to be an anticipation of the threatened desecration
        of the Temple by the intrusion of Roman standards, which was announced in
        40, and only canceled in 41. The text, which draws heavily on previous
        Jewish apocalyptic texts, will countenance either a desecration or a
        destruction. But why, if a destruction was envisioned, would it be worth
        anyone's time to prefigure a desecration? Whereas, if desecration was
        feared, images of destruction might thinkably be imported also, by way of
        dramatic overstatement. I thus feel that the year 40 is not only possible,
        but in a literary sense somewhat more likely.

        2. James (actually Jacob, as our German colleagues seem to be aware) and
        John, sons of Zebedee, ask Jesus for a favor in Mk 10; they want to occupy
        the places of honor beside him in the coming Kingdom. He asks them if they
        can "drink the cup" that he will drink (death), and they say Yes. He then
        tells them that they will indeed, but that in any case places of honor are
        not his to assign, and they will have to take their chances. The strong
        impression one gets is that it was, for the readers of Mark, a fulfilled
        prediction, and thus a validation of the prophetic accuracy of Mark. We then
        ask, *when* was that prediction fulfilled? There are two traditions, one
        slightly more orthodox than the other. It is the slightly less orthodox one
        (apparently attested, however, in Papias as well as in other areas) that
        matches the expectation generated by reading Mk 10. That tradition is that
        both James and John (not James alone) were martyred in Jerusalem about the
        year 44. The prediction could not have been written before that year. It
        might well have been seized on, around the year 45, by someone wishing to
        improve the seeming infallibility of the text of Mark, by adding a
        prediction known to have been fulfilled (perhaps all the more so as the
        prediction of 40, about the coming desecration of the Temple, had in fact
        fizzled).

        So there are two numbers, 40 and 45, which are about a generation earlier
        than the earliest date which the standard commentaries are willing to
        entertain for the composition of Mark. Commentaries or no, I think the
        numbers deserve a look.

        3. It may further be noted that neither passage is textually secure in Mark;
        that is, both can be regarded as interpolations, lying in an upper and thus
        later layer of the stratified text. The argument in the case of Jacob/John
        consists of more than one step. But for one thing, notice that their request
        for a place of honor can be seen as a development of a tiny hint of the same
        kind earlier in Mk, namely at 9:35, where the disciples in general dispute
        about which of them is (or is going to be) the greatest. Jesus rebukes them
        with the suggestion that the greatest is the one who serves. In the Mk 10
        version, there is the same rebuke, only at greater length and with greater
        theological specificity. I suggest, not that these are doublets, but that
        the elaborate one is a later development out of the simpler one.

        Something similar seems to be happening with the Woman With a Flow of Blood,
        Mk 5:24-34. This, I would suggest, picks up a single sentence in Mk 6:56 and
        makes a whole story out of it. A story which, moreover (see previous
        postings) can be shown to be interpolated in its context, and to have
        features (the central role of adult women) which are common to other clearly
        interpolated and thus late passages in Mk, but are not found in what seem
        philologically to be the earliest layers. The atypical nature of this cure
        is manifest: Jesus does not touch the patient, and indeed, much is made of
        this fact; his power is stronger here than in the more typical healings
        which occur in the earliest layer of the text, where he works through
        physical contact. Jesus is on the way to being more iconic, more possessed
        of intrinsic magic, than the earliest author of Mark portrayed him. The
        Woman cure is thus in all probability a later item than, say the healing of
        Peter's mother-in-law.

        Here are two cases where an elaborate story later in Mk seems to have been
        developed out of a sentence or a simpler story elsewhere in Mk. In one of
        the cases directly, and in the other case more circuitously, the "developed"
        cases can be shown to be intrusive textually, or late thematically, or both.

        If so, then it would follow that not only was the Zebedees' Request story
        quite possibly added in 45, it was added on top of material written *earlier
        than* that year. The same inference applied to the very atypical passage
        taking up all of Mk 13 (whose more likely date was 40; see above) would take
        us back into the first decade after the Crucifixion, for the noninterpolated
        and thus primary textual layer in Mark. This, as I see it, would bring the
        text much closer to the time when the questions which the text seems
        concerned to *answer,* were in fact first *asked,* by the momentarily
        shocked early followers of Jesus.

        This is why I am uncomfortable with Karel's date 72 for Mark. I am
        uncomfortable with it because everything that the text of Mark seems to be
        up to points me in a different direction. And also because the idea of a
        forty-year lull during which the followers of Jesus give no consecutive
        thought to the question of who Jesus was borders, for me, on the fantastic.

        Offered for consideration,

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst





        --
        I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
        We are a community of 5.5 million users fighting spam.
        SPAMfighter has removed 2925 of my spam emails to date.
        Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

        The Professional version does not have this message


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Karel Cc: GPG, WSW On: Dates in Mark From: Bruce KAREL: May I point out with reference to the date of writing that (a) I date the
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 31, 2008
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Karel
          Cc: GPG, WSW
          On: Dates in Mark
          From: Bruce

          KAREL: May I point out with reference to the date of writing that
          (a) I date the known edition of Mark approximately 72 CE.

          BRUCE: I know. It's in the subtitle of your book. I didn't miss it. I have
          been commenting on it these many days, and I must confess that I find it
          dubious.

          KAREL: (b) our Nestle edition is, however, a radical revision of an earlier
          document

          BRUCE: Why just Nestle? Surely by now Nestle-Aland? And one might perhaps
          more simply say, our modern critical text (all of them descendants in some
          degree of WH).

          If this present best hypothesis as to the archetype of Mark is in fact a
          "radical revision" of an earlier document, then any statements made about
          that "radical revision" are likely to be misleading for the earlier
          document, and we should accordingly not be talking about the year 72 (which
          I suppose is what you mean in your book by "Mark II"), but about the earlier
          document, presumably "Mark I." But this seems to be impossible, because so
          far as I have found, you nowhere describe Mark I. You are thus operating in
          this conversation with an offstage quantity. Could you post to the list (or
          give page references to a published version of) an outline or summary of how
          you see Mark I? Otherwise, there is really nothing to discuss. It's weird
          work evaluating a supposed revision unless we can compare it with the thing
          supposedly revised.

          KAREL: (c) the earlier document reflected the ecclesia expected the parousia
          was impending. The catastrophic ending of the war made this rethinking and
          reformulating of the meaning of the resurrection necessary in view of the
          delay of the parousia.

          BRUCE: Well, that's at least a start. In considering it, I find that you
          seem to be mixing two factors. One, the delay of whatever event it was the
          Jesus followers were expecting, after the year 30, and Two, their reaction
          to the destruction of the Temple in the year 70. You seem to be saying that
          the latter event produced the reaction that I would have been willing to
          attribute to the former anxiety alone. To ask the question yet again: Why
          should the destruction of the Temple have produced a crisis of expectation?
          More precisely: Where can we see, in what look like reports of early
          Christian belief, any role for the Temple in that expectation; expectations
          that might have been upset by its destruction? Does Paul, for example, who
          is continually concerned with future expectations, and with people's
          increasing anxiety about their nonfulfilment (years before the destruction
          of the Temple) ever connect the Temple with those expectations? I don't
          recall an instance, but I am quite willing to be informed otherwise.
          Reference appreciated.

          Pending same, I think it highly unrealistic to suppose that people would
          have waited 40 years before becoming anxious about the nonfulfilment of
          their apocalyptic or other expectation (see previous posts). You haven't yet
          said why you think this issue slumbered in people's minds until the
          destruction of the Temple 40 years later reminded them of it, or why the
          Temple was connected with it in their minds in the first place.

          KAREL: (d) since one is not able to detect a difference in style or
          vocabulary in sections of our known Gospel, the pre/70 document was probably
          written by John Mark as well. He revised his own document.

          BRUCE: To this "one is not able," and to all statements of similar tendency,
          my reply is, "How hard have you tried?" This or any other assertion of
          stylistic identity cannot be tested until meaningful differences are
          isolated, and their style separately assessed. This seems not to be widely
          appreciated in the field, and I pause for some examples of the technique. I
          number them from 1 to 3, for easier skipping by those familiar with standard
          philological methods.

          1. If you mean, for example, that EUQUS "straightway" occurs in all the
          chapters of our Mark, I would be tempted to agree. But in fact we would both
          be wrong. There is no EUQUS in the Apocalyptic insert Mk 13, nor, slightly
          more puzzling, are there any in the more typical Markan narrative chapter
          12. (Also not in Mk 16, but that is just a few lines: not statistically
          significant). Is this result just a chance anomaly? I think not. I turn to
          my reconstruction of Accretional Mark, and I find that there is not a single
          line of Mk 13 that figures in the lowest (earliest) layer of that
          reconstruction, and of Mk 12, only three lines out of 44. Looking at the
          statistics in terms of that model, I would say, EUQUS is abundant in the
          earliest layer of Mark, and very rare in the later layers. That is, when
          tested against a hypothesis otherwise formed (my present layer theory), we
          do indeed see usage differences in the different parts of Mark, even at the
          simple level of the word EUQUS. The assumption of Markan stylistic
          uniformity cannot be maintained against that result. It was a reasonable
          enough first expectation, but it fails under test. If it fails, it is in
          fact not after all reasonable, whatever we might have expected, and it has
          to go.

          [Somebody with a Moulton/Geden or equivalent will now pipe up: "There is
          only one EUQUS in Mk 3. What about that in terms of the supposed Accretional
          Theory of Mark?" I reply: Of the 34 verses into which Mk 3 (not a very long
          chapter) is conventionally divided, only 10 verses figure in the
          reconstruction of the earliest layer of Mark. The same pattern thus seems to
          hold, but in fairness I must add that the one EUQUS occurs in 3:6, where the
          aggrieved Pharisees "immediately" go out from their confrontation with Jesus
          (healing on the Sabbath) to confer with "the Herodians, how to destroy him."
          This in my view is a non-prime-layer EUQUS; there are, as above mentioned,
          several of these. The later layers do not entirely dispense with this very
          conspicuous feature of the earlier layers, perhaps in a conscious effort to
          make their additions stylistically appropriate.

          What is the NT position? EUQUS is confined in the NT *entirely* to the
          Gospel area (including Acts). By far the greater part of it is in Mark. In
          Matthew, EUQUS is retained in only 7 of the cases where it occurs in Mark,
          and no new ones are added. In Luke, all Markan cases, whether or not
          retained in Matthew, are eliminated, and only one new one is introduced (at
          6:49, the "immediate" fall of the insecurely built house). There are a few
          further novelties (Ac 10:16, where the sheet with the animals "was at once
          taken up to Heaven," Jn 13:30 "[Judas] immediately went out," 13:32 "and
          will glorify him at once," and 19:34 "and at once there came out blood and
          water." None of these Lk - Ac - Jn occurrences have anything to do with
          Markan precedent, whether or not mediated through Matthew; they are new
          cases. I suppose they represent the rather low frequency of EUQUS in
          Biblical Greek at large (at least its Gospel version; the word is never used
          in the Pauline or Johannine segments of NT). Against this background, we
          have to say that Mark, and I would myself specify, the earliest author of
          the Markan text, had a special predilection for EUQUS; it suited the
          breathlessness of his style, which has other features as well. (I pointed
          out two of those other features in an earlier message).

          2. So much for that, and now take an Indian example. Hartmut Scharfe noticed
          that all the chapters of the Arthashastra contained, amid the basic Vedic
          Sanskrit, elements of Pali language. Pali-isms in Sanskrit are agreed to be
          a sign of linguistic lateness. Scharfe thus wrote a book attributing all the
          Arthashastra to a late period, a post-Asokan period. And the Indologists
          seem to have approved his result. But if we isolate within the huge
          Arthashastra the parts *explicitly attributed* to its supposed author, the
          lawgiver Kautilya, and their close contexts, we find that those sections of
          the text, collectively, are free of Pali-isms. That means that there are
          linguistically Pali-ized but also linguistically Pali-free sectors within
          the Arthashastra, and they can be isolated by criteria which are not
          themselves linguistic in nature, and thus noncircular. When I had finished
          presenting this result at a mini-conference at Harvard some years back,
          Patrick Olivelle (whose critical edition of the Laws of Manu came out a few
          years ago) shook his head and said, "Scharfe didn't do his homework." The
          final result is that the Arthashastra is not a late text, it rather is a
          small early text which has expended enormously over later years to keep up
          with the increasing commercial complexity and financial savvy of the Mauryan
          Empire. The accountant's Bible of that time and place.

          3. Finally, a third example, from my own home area. The book of Mencius
          (seminarians seem not to have heard of Mencius; he is the Chinese
          philosopher central to Neo-Confucian thinking, and thus the core text of
          Confucianism for the last eight hundred years, including the present moment)
          is thought to be exceptionally free of contamination, "the purest of the
          pure" stylistically as well as doctrinally. It is the text that is relied on
          repeatedly by linguists who want a pure, untainted, unmixed sample of
          standard Classical Chinese language. Very well, we have that assurance of
          the ages ringing in our ears.

          And now we ignore the ringing, and start to do our homework. The first of
          the seven Books of Mencius consists of transcripts of 23 interviews of
          Mencius with the rulers of his time. The rest is conversations, and who
          knows how disciple-contaminated these might be? But the MC 1 interviews
          ought to be, linguistically and stylistically, the purest of the "purest of
          the pure." But if we separate into two groups the interviews which do, and
          which do not, presume Confucian acquaintance on the part of the rulers
          addressed, we find that those groups are also defined by independent
          criteria, including some that suggest a slight dialect difference. Other
          points of difference turn up, to parallel and reinforce our first
          hypothetical division of the corpus. Then that division is confirmed as real
          and not specious. That is, the assumption of uniformity of style for this
          highly select corpus fails against a properly defined test.

          What we have in Book 1, it turns out, is a core of probably genuine
          transcripts of the Historical Mencius (a thing incalculable precious to the
          historical linguist and the historical historian alike), mixed with some
          later imagined interviews which are pleased to assert the universality of
          Confucian learning in Mencius's time (probably not true), and which also
          attribute to Mencius an impossibly arrogant and accusatory stance toward the
          various sovereigns of the day. These latter look very much like Monday
          morning wishful thinking of the later Mencians, esprits d'escalier; and of a
          particularly irascible sort. (The failure of Mencius as Prime Minister of
          Chi - he led Chi into a near national disaster - really grated with his
          later followers, and much of their writing is merely retrospective shifts of
          blame for that result).

          (I could go on to mention the supposedly uniform rhyming of the Chinese
          Classic of Poetry (our Rg Veda or Psalms, though nowhere near as old as
          either), but I think it already came up in an earlier message. Same story.
          The supposed uniform rhyming applies only to what an NT person would
          probably call the redactional layer, which happens to be very large in
          extent (the moralists were hard at work to sanitize the original, sometimes
          indecorous, material before them), and not to the pieces which have any
          change of being from a folk level, or of relating to a specific local
          tradition; compare the Northern elements in the Psalms).

          CONCLUSION

          These are some of the ways we might test for "uniformity of style" in a
          supposedly uniform text. All of them, and all the others I have noticed,
          involve a certain amount of homework. Have you done your homework for the
          Gospel of Mark? Have you in fact isolated Mark I amid Mark II? If so, what
          is the result, and what are the implications for uniformity of style across
          that division? If you find a clustering of features in your Mark I that are
          rarer or absent in your Mark II, perhaps we have after all an agreement in
          the making. And if not, then not; we will have to see.

          KAREL: (e) I may add the earlier pre/70 version was written with the
          knowledge of Peter as Papias suggests.

          BRUCE: On p61, one of only two places at which, according to the Index, the
          question of "Mark, John, date and provenance of Gospel of" is discussed, you
          in effect delegate authorship and all kindred questions to Papias. Your
          explicit principle is "Because there is a good deal of uncertainty about the
          Gospel, I have adopted the principle in dubio traditio." And you add, "It is
          a good course to follow." How good a course it is in practice can only be
          tested by subjecting it to practice: by following it out. As far as I can
          see, you simply accept tradition. There is no test of tradition.

          You go on to state "the earliest testimony we have is that of Papias
          (140-150)." I should have thought that the first external witness we have to
          Mark is Matthew, about a century earlier than Papias. But even Papias might
          do as a starting point, as long as one in fact starts from that point, and
          does things that develop, and test, the consequences of starting from that
          point. It seems to me that you take Papias rather as an endpoint; a source
          of assured results. I am afraid I don't see the methodological soundness of
          this. If we are going to accept tradition, we can save ourselves a lot of
          highly laborious book writing, but it is wrong to give to our acceptance the
          same name as would properly describe the results of a philological
          investigation.

          So, Yes, you may add it, but I feel myself free to disregard it. If I bother
          with it, I prefer to investigate it. And frankly, having read the rest of
          what Eusebius says about Papias, and not just this incessantly quoted
          passage, I am that much less inclined to bother with it.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts
        • Karel Hanhart
          ... From: E Bruce Brooks To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com Cc: WSW ; GPG Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Dates in Mark To:
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 19, 2008
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: WSW ; GPG
            Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:38 AM
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Dates in Mark


            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: Karel
            Cc: GPG, WSW
            On: Dates in Mark
            From: Bruce

            Below I'll respond with Karel II

            KAREL: May I point out with reference to the date of writing that
            (a) I date the known edition of Mark approximately 72 CE.

            BRUCE: I know. It's in the subtitle of your book. I didn't miss it. I have
            been commenting on it these many days, and I must confess that I find it
            dubious.

            KAREL: (b) our Nestle edition is, however, a radical revision of an earlier
            document

            BRUCE: Why just Nestle?

            Karel II. I am simply referring to the earliest version we have edited by Nestle. My complaint is that Nestle in his list of references to the Tanakh omits the ones in the opened monumental grave narrative, that Mark composed for his post-70 edition.

            If this present best hypothesis as to the archetype of Mark is in fact a
            "radical revision" of an earlier document, then any statements made about
            that "radical revision" are likely to be misleading for the earlier
            document, and we should accordingly not be talking about the year 72 (which
            I suppose is what you mean in your book by "Mark II"), but about the earlier
            document, presumably "Mark I." But this seems to be impossible, because so
            far as I have found, you nowhere describe Mark I. You are thus operating in
            this conversation with an offstage quantity. Could you post to the list (or
            give page references to a published version of) an outline or summary of how
            you see Mark I?

            Karel II - I wish I were able to offer a neat document of pre-70 gospel by Mark or by someone else which he edited. Indeed an "off stage quantity." It is not my failing - all adherents to the conclusion that the present gospel shows sign of editing fail to com up with the pre-70 document. In fact that is. I think, what your are after in your project. In my book I did - with fear and trembling - list some items that I think belonged to pre-70 Mark.

            --------------------

            KAREL: (c) the earlier document reflected the ecclesia expected the parousia
            was impending. The catastrophic ending of the war made this rethinking and
            reformulating of the meaning of the resurrection necessary in view of the
            delay of the parousia.

            BRUCE: ...To ask the question yet again: Why
            should the destruction of the Temple have produced a crisis of expectation?


            Karel II . Here we part ways I believe. Having lived through WW II and followed world news up till now, I donot doubt a) that most pre-70 Judeans, including the followers of Jesus (Acts 1,6!!) fervently awaited the establishment of the kingdom of David; b) the end of the war with all its violence produced a deep shock in the Land itself and in the diaspora. It seems to me there is somewhat a divide between exegetes who lived under a dictatorial regime and those who havenot shared that experience.

            Bruce: Does Paul, for example, who is continually concerned with future expectations, and with people's increasing anxiety about their nonfulfilment (years before the destruction of the Temple) ever connect the Temple with those expectations? I don't
            recall an instance, but I am quite willing to be informed otherwise. Reference appreciated.

            Karel II For instance. 1 Thessaloninans and especialy 2 Thessalonians 2. I agree with Russels that apocalyptic language is partly subversive language. One doesnot write openly of the Roman oppressor and or of those involved with them.





            KAREL: (d) since one is not able to detect a difference in style or
            vocabulary in sections of our known Gospel, the pre/70 document was probably
            written by John Mark as well. He revised his own document.

            BRUCE: To this "one is not able," and to all statements of similar tendency,
            my reply is, "How hard have you tried?"

            Karel II - I tried years on end; I could not detect hard evidence.

            BRUCE 1. If you mean, for example, that EUQUS "straightway" occurs in all the
            chapters of our Mark, I would be tempted to agree.

            Karel II - I am writing an article both on euthus and on palin, formidable words in the structure of Mark. I cannot go into it here. It is important to know Hebrew and be familiar with Judean thought. Unfortunately I donot know the Arthashastra to which you refer.

            Cordially yours,

            Karel Hanhart


            Recent Activity
            a.. 1New Members
            Visit Your Group
            Ads on Yahoo!
            Learn more now.

            Reach customers

            searching for you.

            Y! Groups blog
            the best source

            for the latest

            scoop on Groups.

            Special K Group
            on Yahoo! Groups

            Join the challenge

            and lose weight.
            .


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.