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

Re: [Synoptic-L] SBL Report

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that
      of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
      presumptive Eleventh Apostle, the one who held the camera?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe Weaks recruited from the sidelines. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        E Bruce Brooks wrote:
        > Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that
        > of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
        > presumptive Eleventh Apostle, the one who held the camera?
        >
        Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
        Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

        Jeffrey

        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        Chicago, Illinois
        e-mail jgibson000@...
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... I dimly recall the recruit in question was German or perhaps Scandinavian. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University Author of
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Nov 28, 2008 10:25 AM, "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...> wrote:
          >E Bruce Brooks wrote:
          >> Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that
          >> of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
          >> presumptive Eleventh Apostle, the one who held the camera?
          >>
          >Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
          >Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

          I dimly recall the recruit in question was German or perhaps
          Scandinavian.

          Stephen

          --
          Stephen C. Carlson
          Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
          Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
        • archeboc
          ... Did he escape naked ? Thanks for the report. a+ manu
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            >Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
            >Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

            :shock:

            Did he escape naked ?

            Thanks for the report.

            a+
            manu
          • Weaks, Joe
            For what it s worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth). And further, when he
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              For what it's worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth).
              And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to the complimentary coffee pot.

              Joe Weaks

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com on behalf of archeboc
              Sent: Fri 11/28/2008 12:05 PM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] SBL Report


              >Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
              >Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

              :shock:

              Did he escape naked ?

              Thanks for the report.

              a+
              manu


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

              Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... Was the name on the tag Jeffrey Gibson ? I am a photographer, too, you know. ... And what compliment did the coffee pot give him? Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B.
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Weaks, Joe wrote:
                > For what it's worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth).
                >
                Was the name on the tag "Jeffrey Gibson"? I am a photographer, too, you
                know.
                > And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to the complimentary coffee pot.
                >
                And what compliment did the coffee pot give him?

                Jeffrey

                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                Chicago, Illinois
                e-mail jgibson000@...
              • Jim West
                Oh you re so observant! ... ++++++ Jim West, ThD http://jwest.wordpress.com - Blog http://sites.google.com/site/biblicalstudiesresources/ - Biblical Studies
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oh you're so observant!

                  Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                  >
                  > > And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to
                  > the complimentary coffee pot.
                  > >
                  > And what compliment did the coffee pot give him?
                  >
                  > Jeffrey
                  >
                  ++++++

                  Jim West, ThD

                  http://jwest.wordpress.com - Blog
                  http://sites.google.com/site/biblicalstudiesresources/ - Biblical Studies Resources
                • J. R. LEE
                  Can anyone please give a report on the review session of Adela Yarbro Collins Markan commentary (SBL 22-22)? Thank you much in advance. John (Jang Ryul) Lee
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Can anyone please give a report on the review session of Adela Yarbro
                    Collins' Markan commentary (SBL 22-22)? Thank you much in advance.

                    John (Jang Ryul) Lee


                    --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Weaks, Joe wrote:
                    > > For what it's worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was
                    not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth).
                    > >
                    > Was the name on the tag "Jeffrey Gibson"? I am a photographer, too,
                    you
                    > know.
                    > > And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to
                    the complimentary coffee pot.
                    > >
                    > And what compliment did the coffee pot give him?
                    >
                    > Jeffrey
                    >
                    > --
                    > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                    > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                    > Chicago, Illinois
                    > e-mail jgibson000@...
                    >
                  • E Bruce Brooks
                    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; XTalk On: Mark Session (AYC Commentary) From: Bruce In response to John Lee s query (on Synoptic), and in the absence of more
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To: Synoptic
                      Cc: GPG; XTalk
                      On: Mark Session (AYC Commentary)
                      From: Bruce

                      In response to John Lee's query (on Synoptic), and in the absence of more
                      authoritative responses from those so situated as to make them, perhaps I
                      should expand my earlier brief account of the SBL session, posted to
                      Synoptic on 11/27, which was devoted to a consideration of Adela Yarbro
                      Collins' new commentary on Mark. I don't do stenography, more's the pity,
                      and my own notes are mixed on the page with my reactions to them (and with
                      my memoranda about things to do next), but such as they are, here are a few
                      more details, necessarily intermingled with my comments because that is how
                      I work.

                      The listing of the panel in the program was as follows:

                      SBL22-22 Mark Group / 9:00 AM-11:30 AM / Book Review: Adela Yarbro Collins,
                      Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Augsburg Fortress) / James W. Voelz,
                      Concordia Seminary, Presiding / Panelists: / Tom Shepherd, Andrews
                      University (20min) / Rikki Watts, Regent College (20 min) / J. Keith
                      Elliott, Leeds University (20 min) / Response: Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale
                      University (30 min) / Discussion (60 min)

                      1. The session in general abounded with assertions of "the unity of Mark"
                      and, as a variant, "the stylistic unity of Mark." These are unexamined
                      postulates, and are directly contradicted by the manifest inconsistency of
                      the work, its mutual contradictions and explicit reversals of doctrine, and
                      yes, the fact that its famed stylistic markers cluster in some kinds of
                      material more than in others. I also note that many of them ("straightway,"
                      beginning every other sentence with "and," and adding parenthetical
                      explanations after "for") are obvious even in post-King James English, and
                      are the first mark of authenticity that a later writer would be likely to
                      seize upon in order to render his additions consistent, and palatable to an
                      audience already accustomed to the previous text. The ancient writers were
                      not as stupid, or as stylistically insensitive, as modern experts are
                      sometimes pleased to think them. Only a suitably arranged test of deeper
                      structure will prove anything about the unity or disunity of Markan style,
                      and pending the results of a little more library work on my part, that
                      investigation seems never to have been seriously undertaken, in a way that
                      would pass muster with someone who knows what stylometrics is all about.

                      2. Tom Shepherd objected to Adela's PPN (Pre-Markan Passion Narrative)
                      reconstruction, presented on p819 of her commentary and argued for ad locc
                      in the main commentary. Tom wanted to save the burial narrative (excluded
                      from Adela's PPN) as original. He challenged in particular Adela's criterion
                      of "vague spatial markers" after Mk 15:38 (the rending of the veil, which is
                      where she ends her reconstruction of the original PPN). She later conceded
                      (there was an audience question also, slightly later) that of her two
                      categories of vague markers after that point, the other one is the more
                      valid. Tom seemed also to rely (my notes are indeterminate at this point) on
                      the "sandwich" theory, due to Edwards and to several before him, as an
                      explanation of structures in Mk which to the unprejudiced philological eye
                      tend to indicate a later interpolation (eg, 14-3-9, the Woman at Bethany)
                      and not a piece of Markan authorial felicity. I have refuted this theory on
                      an earlier occasion. My own preference is to follow out the indications of
                      added material, and see if they lead anywhere. If further support of the
                      Resurrection as original doctrine, Tom adduced 1 Cor 15:1-8 as containing
                      the Gospel as transmitted to Paul, and noticed that it included a
                      Resurrection. This, to him, proves the case. The fallacy here is to have
                      ignored the possibility that the Gospel About Jesus may have evolved from a
                      simpler state before reaching the form in which it was transmitted to Paul.
                      This possibility would in principle be supported if early strata of Mark are
                      earlier in date than the conversion of Paul, or anyway Paul's consultation
                      with Jerusalem orthodoxy some years later. There turns out to be good
                      evidence that such was indeed the case (the latest strata of Mark contain
                      datable events which all cluster in the early 40's, while Paul was still
                      alive and preaching, thus putting the earlier strata well back in the 30's).
                      In my terms, Adela's reconstruction of this segment of Mark is actually
                      testifying to Layer 1, the base narrative, not just of the Passion but of
                      the whole of Mark, whereas the Resurrection doctrine belongs to Layer 3. The
                      way to interpret Corinthians, in my opinion, is thus to say that Paul tapped
                      into Christian doctrine at the point where, at least in one locality, it had
                      reached Stage 3 of its early evolution.

                      It is well known that not everyone at Corinth accepted the Resurrection,
                      another sign that their doctrine may have been early, and that Paul, coming
                      on the scene later, represented the newer doctrine. This idea too I have
                      expounded at greater length elsewhere.

                      3. It is not for nothing that Australian movies are sometimes issued with
                      English subtitles. To my ear, Rikk Watts' comments on this panel could have
                      used them at a few points, and his off-mike undertone asides to Adela
                      (seated next to the lectern) were totally lost to me, even though, fearless
                      of new knowledge as always, I was seated in the front and not the back of
                      the room. There was something said about general prophetic terms in Mk 13,
                      and about a "high" interpretation of Jesus (meaning, in my terms, an
                      interpretation of Jesus such as is reflected in Mark Layer 2 or higher), and
                      about Jesus's deeds as equivalent to the deeds of Yahweh. A propos miracles
                      of this sort, it was noted that Adela in her book had cited instances in
                      non-Christian literature about "walking on water," usually as an impossible
                      feat, but sometimes attributed to people, all of whom turn out to be rulers
                      or the equivalent. The progressive deification of Jesus is indeed a feature
                      of early Church theories of Jesus (it constitutes one of the major Synoptic
                      Trajectories, along with Jerusalemization, the rise in power of Jesus's
                      family, and the attenuated role assigned to John the Baptist). It does not
                      characterize Mark the way it characterizes John, and I will now add, it does
                      not characterize the early layers of Mark in the same way that it
                      characterizes the later layers of Mark.

                      There was also a question about the Markan audience: Christians? Preachers?
                      The point is well enough taken, though my notes do not show that it was
                      answered. The "unity of Mark" spectre was raised here as well. See above.

                      Somebody or other complained that though Adela marshals an impressive number
                      of previous opinions (as well as much valuable background from Greco-Roman
                      culture), she often simply presents them without deciding between them; it
                      seemed to be a complaint that she does not emerge with a single theory of
                      Mark. I would respond that to one used to Chinese commentaries, what she
                      does is wholly and entirely familiar. Where the commentator has a
                      preference, including a negative preference, the reader has no real trouble
                      identifying it. The rest are there for completeness, and (perish the
                      thought) to allow the reader a little thinking room. Myself, I am far from
                      faulting Adela for taking a "non liquet" view of many points in Mark. There
                      are some nubbins that are probably never going to be satisfactorily
                      explained (inside jokes like the naked young man; whatever), and for a
                      commentary to take positive stands on each and every one of them is to risk
                      refutation as a whole. The wise course, it has always seemed to me, is to
                      say what can be said, and on the unpronounceable parts, not to make a
                      pronouncement, but rather to cite reputable previous opinion or add relevant
                      new facts, and move on. The objection seemed to me to be distinctly
                      wrongheaded.

                      4. Keith Elliott, coming out of the textual critical corner, commended Adela
                      for speaking of the "earliest recoverable text," not of the "original
                      manuscript." Elliott is an eclectic critic, and he criticized in Adela's
                      book the tendency to respect "the best text" (Vaticanus), a category which
                      he does not recognize, and in many cases to prefer the shorter variant as
                      original. On the latter point, he has indeed a point, and he cited a couple
                      of places where skipping to a like wording further down (homoioteleuton, or
                      anyway an error based on it) would be a better explanation, in these cases
                      the longer text being better. Among them, as I recall (they went by a little
                      too fast for scribal comfort; here perhaps is a brand new type of scribal
                      error - too much allegro in the one reading the text to be copied) were
                      9:44, 46; 11:26, and 9:38. I have not yet had time to investigate the
                      specifics of these or other mentioned passages, and so have no opinion to
                      offer as of this date. These and some of the following text critical points,
                      I may mention, were the only corrections offered at this session which Adela
                      herself seemed to take very seriously, and she, like myself, made notes at
                      this point. I hope hers were a little more complete and tidy than my own.

                      At 6:23 (W omits the first half of the verse), the matter of "Markan style,"
                      presumably in its reduplicative propensities, came up again. So did the
                      problem of "OT in NT," in 10:19 ("do not defraud," which is not actually in
                      the Decalogue), where some MSS (eg Vaticanus corrected, Sinaiticus original,
                      Alexandrinus, Bezae) have the phrase MH APOSTERHSHS "do not defraud" and
                      others (eg Vaticanus original, Koridethi, Washingtoniensis, not to mention
                      Matthew and Luke) do not, and thus have a shorter reading. As I read the
                      evidence, Matthew and Luke wrongly excise what was very likely a part of the
                      original Jesus teaching, which eliminated temple piety from the Decalogue
                      and extended what was left a little further in the direction of economic
                      justice. Some MSS follow Mt/Lk, or follow a like principle (in the end, a
                      pedantic principle) in arriving at the shorter reading. In my view, the
                      longer reading should be maintained.

                      However that may be, I noted in listening to several of Elliott's remarks a
                      general principle, which was this: Text criticism, the juxtaposition of
                      manuscript variants, solves nothing, since the interpretation of those
                      differences is done either by mindless rules of thumb (brevior or its
                      reverse, both well attested in the literature) or by reference to some
                      unexamined and usually simplistic theory of the author or the text, which in
                      the lack of a previous *investigation* of the text, to see if in fact it
                      implies a single author, can only be arbitrary. Or to put it in terms which
                      were still current at mid-century, the higher criticism is sometimes
                      prerequisite to the lower criticism. Since the reverse is also true,
                      criticism in general must proceed in the usual series of spirals, gradually
                      reaching an understanding from which the basis of that understanding itself
                      may plausibly be established. Things get clear gradually, at one end and
                      also at the other. It's not exactly circular, but it is sometimes
                      agonizingly slow.

                      Another crux was the name of John the B, whether Baptist (8:28) or Baptizer
                      (6:25). Elliott remarked that "the nominal form [that is, BAPTIST] is
                      textually insecure in Mark." Well, maybe. Most texts have BAPTISTOU at 6:25,
                      but L and 700 exceptionally have BAPTIZONTOS. And at 8:28, most texts have
                      BAPTISTHN whereas 28 and 565 [I am looking at Swanson] have BAPTIZONTA. It
                      would seem that both the nominal and verbal forms are pretty secure in their
                      respective places. It will do no harm to list all the occurrences of this
                      epithet in Mk. WH followed by RSV have:

                      BAPTIST: Mk 6:25, 8:28; common in Mt, 3x in Lk.
                      BAPTIZER: Mk 1:4, 6:14, 6:24, never in Mt/Lk.

                      There are some nominal variants in the latter cases. It is easy from this to
                      formulate a theory that BAPTIZER is the old form, which has been replaced by
                      BAPTIST in Mt/Lk, and scribally overridden at most points of Mk also,
                      perhaps in some cases by Mt/Lk harmonization, a process which is definitely
                      attested in certain places. But the question is, why only *at certain
                      points* in Mk? It would also account for the evidence to say that Mk has a
                      mixed usage, and that where he has the nominal form, a very few minor MSS
                      have normalized it to the verbal counterpart which is admittedly more common
                      in Mk. But what accounts for the mixed form in the first place?

                      [Answer: the narrative voice in Mk uses the verbal form, whereas quoted
                      speeches (whether of Salome or of the disciples) use the nominal form. The
                      difference between 6:24 (indirect reported speech; verbal form) and 6:25
                      (direct quote, nominal form) is the crux; the minimal pair. I venture to
                      suggest that it matters, not only what the reading IS, but what the reading
                      DOES].

                      There was also the matter of OCLOS (Mk passim) / OCLOI (Mk 10:1 only;
                      Vaticanus original, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Washingtoniensis, but OCLOS in
                      Bezae, Koridethi, 700, Family 1, and several others). Adela did not notice
                      the variant in the notes attached to her translation (p457). The point is
                      amenable to explanation, but I decline to add a further excursus to a
                      perhaps already overly excursive note.

                      Elliott did pay Adela the compliment of saying, at the end, that he had been
                      accustomed to going to Taylor for Markan commentary, but that her book would
                      now become his first reference. I have felt exactly the same way, and was
                      pleased to hear that thought expressed by someone in authority.

                      What no one observed, but has seemed obvious to me as a reader, was that in
                      addition to the immense amount of work that it represents, Adela's
                      commentary is distinguished by a more acute literary sensibility than many
                      of its competitors, past and not so past.

                      INTERMISSION

                      As noted in my earlier brief report, the session had no more than begun
                      reassembling for the general discussion when the hotel fire alarm sounded,
                      and second floor persons were eventually advised to evacuate. When after ten
                      minutes or so the coast was again clear, only about half the audience, and
                      virtually none of the panelists except the author, were present. Discussion
                      was less than edifying, and I forbear to report on it.

                      SECURITY PS

                      [Also less than edifying is the fact, which became apparent only on later
                      analysis, that the Sheraton Boston hotel valet parking personnel steal
                      things out of cars left in their care, including credit cards that one had
                      thought were lodged in inconspicuous places. If anyone else had this
                      problem, they are welcome to contact me off list; I have information that
                      may be of assistance to them].

                      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.