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

Streeter's own words

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    (Thanks for the tip that Streeter s book is online!)   Bruce,   Here is the passage in which Streeter introduces his theory that Lk had a mutilated copy of
    Message 1 of 23 , May 13, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      (Thanks for the tip that Streeter's book is online!)
       
      Bruce,
       
      Here is the passage in which Streeter introduces his theory that Lk had a mutilated copy of Mk.  Note the respect Streeter has for other evidence and views, and especially the last sentence (!).  I have a pet peeve about authors being mischaracterized in discussion groups like this one.  If we can't rely on each other to accurately summarize the work of others, what will be the factual basis of our conversations?
       
      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia
      ______________________
       
      "The precise weight to be attached to these two objections [to the theory that Luke had an early, shorter edition of Mk] will be estimated differently by different people.  But at least they are serious enough to compel us to ask whether Luke's "great omission" can be explained by any other hypothesis than the absence of this material from his source.
       
      "Now it is a fact that plausible reasons can be produced why most of the contents of this particular section of Mark would not have appealed to Luke.  Motives which might have induced him to omit each separate item are put forward by Sir John Hawkins; moreover, if, as I argue in Chap. VIII., Luke regarded Mark, not as his main authority, but as a supplementary source, the hypothesis of intentional omission cannot be ruled out.
       
      "My own mind has of late been attracted by a third alternative, that Luke used a mutilated copy of Mark.  The case for this I state, but merely as a tentative suggestion."
















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Characterizing Streeter From: Bruce STREETER: My own mind has of late been attracted by a third alternative, that
      Message 2 of 23 , May 13, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: Chuck Jones
        On: Characterizing Streeter
        From: Bruce

        STREETER: "My own mind has of late been attracted by a third alternative,
        that Luke used a mutilated copy of Mark. The case for this I state, but
        merely as a tentative suggestion."

        CHUCK (having quoted the above): I have a pet peeve about authors being
        mischaracterized in discussion groups like this one. If we can't rely on
        each other to accurately summarize the work of others, what will be the
        factual basis of our conversations?

        BRUCE: The characterization of Streeter's Lukan Omission suggestion as both
        convincing and irrefutable was, obviously, mine. I did not purport to be
        quoting Streeter's own words or opinions. Streeter's diffidence was both
        comely and appropriate, in the best British style, especially when one is
        venturing beyond the findings of one's seniors (ie, the older members of the
        Oxford group). I continue to think that Streeter then proceeded to present
        an unanswerable case that Luke at this point, in departure from his
        treatment of Mark at any other point, has jumped from the middle of one
        sentence to the middle of a remotely distant sentence, and struggled to make
        sense of the resulting harsh join. I do not think that any other account can
        equally well explain what (with Streeter's help) we see Luke doing here.

        That's my estimation, and I stick to it. Counterexamples (consisting of
        similar Lukan behavior elsewhere) are welcome as always, but pending such, I
        think we have here something unusually solid in the quagmire of Synoptic
        speculations generally.

        Streeter was no dummy. My suspicion is that he realized, at some level, that
        this particular Lukan scenario worked against other conclusions of his which
        he put forward with more confidence, such as his remark that "a theory [that
        Luke knew Matthew] which would make an author capable of such a proceeding
        would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was
        a crank." That Streeter remark has gone echoing down the decades, which at
        this point are eight in number, and counting. That remark has provided a
        nucleus of agreement for those who, on whatever grounds, reject the
        possibility that Luke knew Matthew. I like Streeter's "tentative suggestion"
        much better. I think it is far more perceptive, far less colored by emotion,
        and far better grounded in the word-by-word examination, and reflective
        interpretation, of the Greek text of Luke (vis-a-vis that of Mark) as
        reflecting Luke's authorial behavior. Of the two, I think it is Streeter's
        Omission suggestion, and not Streeter's "crank" dismissal, that will stand
        the test of time.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • stephanie fisher
        Bruce, I m glad you have corrected the wrong impression that Streeter might have claimed to be irrefutable . Personally don t think it s probable that a bit
        Message 3 of 23 , May 13, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce,

          I'm glad you have corrected the wrong impression that Streeter might have claimed to be 'irrefutable'. Personally don't think it's probable that a bit of Mark would go missing in the middle of a scroll, and what I really can't see is how someone with Luke's resources available to him could have failed to find an undamaged copy of the Gospel of Mark, which was probably highly prized in the churches that they kept it when Matthew and Luke had both rewritten it. Luke's gospel is as big as the longest lives by Plutarch and co., which was good reason for him to leave some things out, and its logical that he should choose Mark 7.1-23 and a second feeding miracle to go.

          Stephanie Fisher
          Nottingham University


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:45 AM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Chuck Jones
          On: Characterizing Streeter
          From: Bruce

          STREETER: "My own mind has of late been attracted by a third alternative,
          that Luke used a mutilated copy of Mark. The case for this I state, but
          merely as a tentative suggestion."

          CHUCK (having quoted the above): I have a pet peeve about authors being
          mischaracterized in discussion groups like this one. If we can't rely on
          each other to accurately summarize the work of others, what will be the
          factual basis of our conversations?

          BRUCE: The characterization of Streeter's Lukan Omission suggestion as both
          convincing and irrefutable was, obviously, mine. I did not purport to be
          quoting Streeter's own words or opinions. Streeter's diffidence was both
          comely and appropriate, in the best British style, especially when one is
          venturing beyond the findings of one's seniors (ie, the older members of the
          Oxford group). I continue to think that Streeter then proceeded to present
          an unanswerable case that Luke at this point, in departure from his
          treatment of Mark at any other point, has jumped from the middle of one
          sentence to the middle of a remotely distant sentence, and struggled to make
          sense of the resulting harsh join. I do not think that any other account can
          equally well explain what (with Streeter's help) we see Luke doing here.

          That's my estimation, and I stick to it. Counterexamples (consisting of
          similar Lukan behavior elsewhere) are welcome as always, but pending such, I
          think we have here something unusually solid in the quagmire of Synoptic
          speculations generally.

          Streeter was no dummy. My suspicion is that he realized, at some level, that
          this particular Lukan scenario worked against other conclusions of his which
          he put forward with more confidence, such as his remark that "a theory [that
          Luke knew Matthew] which would make an author capable of such a proceeding
          would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was
          a crank." That Streeter remark has gone echoing down the decades, which at
          this point are eight in number, and counting. That remark has provided a
          nucleus of agreement for those who, on whatever grounds, reject the
          possibility that Luke knew Matthew. I like Streeter's "tentative suggestion"
          much better. I think it is far more perceptive, far less colored by emotion,
          and far better grounded in the word-by-word examination, and reflective
          interpretation, of the Greek text of Luke (vis-a-vis that of Mark) as
          reflecting Luke's authorial behavior. Of the two, I think it is Streeter's
          Omission suggestion, and not Streeter's "crank" dismissal, that will stand
          the test of time.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst






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


          Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
          Checked by AVG.
          Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic In Response To: Stephanie Fisher On: The Lukan Omission From: Bruce STEPHANIE: Personally don t think it s probable that a bit of Mark would go
          Message 4 of 23 , May 14, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
            On: The Lukan Omission
            From: Bruce

            STEPHANIE: Personally don't think it's probable that a bit of Mark would go
            missing in the middle of a scroll,

            BRUCE: As a personal thought, there can be no objection to it. In the case
            of this particular personal thought, I would agree with it, though on
            physical rather than personal grounds. The grounds are these: If a scroll
            was torn, it would probably have been repaired. If it was torn in two
            places, and the middle piece was lost, and the two ends were joined together
            smoothly, then we might have the situation that seems to have confronted
            Luke. Except that this scenario does not work when closely examined. If I am
            correctly visualizing the arrangement of text on the scrolls of the time, a
            tear across the width of the scroll would be across lines, not between
            lines, and no two tears with subsequent joining of the ends only, could
            result in the omission of text rather than the omission of half of a whole
            series of lines.

            However, if we visualize instead a codex (and every known Gospel papyrus, if
            I remember correctly, is a codex or a fragment of a codex, not a scroll or a
            fragment of a scroll), the coefficient of plausibility goes up dramatically.
            Loss of a leaf or several leaves from within a codex would leave the rest of
            the book still present, with no patching necessary, and might easily present
            to Luke the problem which Streeter shows us Luke in the process of solving.

            STEPHANIE: and what I really can't see is how someone with Luke's resources
            available to him could have failed to find an undamaged copy of the Gospel
            of Mark, which was probably highly prized in the churches that they kept it
            when Matthew and Luke had both rewritten it.

            BRUCE: About Luke's resources, I for one am entirely ignorant. Perhaps some
            are better informed, and I will be glad to hear from them. Further, this
            assumes that Mark was widely available at the time. I think that assumption
            is perilous.

            Was Mark "highly prized in the churches?" I don't know of a scrap of
            evidence in support. The tiny number of Mark fragments among the early
            papyri seem to argue against any great popularity for Mark. Is there any
            solid counterevidence?

            As for 1c evidence, we know of exactly two people who had definitely read
            Mark: Matthew and Luke (maybe John, as has recently been suggested; call it
            three). Paul's contacts with Jesus sayings, such as they are (at any rate,
            in Koester's list) seem to somewhat favor Mark, but we don't know if he got
            those from reading the book or from contacts with little groups who had the
            tradition of those sayings independently. Of those options, I think it would
            be hard to argue that he knew the book. To take a relatively decidable
            parallel: Paul's embedded quotations from early Church hymns, some of which
            are evidently very early, but which also differ among themselves
            theologically, are thus not likely to represent a single hymnological
            tradition, and thus unlikely to be combined in a single book, Then Paul most
            likely got them, not from written documents, but from community practice.

            In any case, Streeter's evidence suggests that, whether or not Luke could
            have replaced his defective copy, he did not.

            STEPHANIE: Luke's gospel is as big as the longest lives by Plutarch and
            co., which was good reason for him to leave some things out, and its
            logical that he should choose Mark 7.1-23 and a second feeding miracle to
            go.

            BRUCE: I don't know if "logical" is warranted here. Almost any Lukan
            omission would equally fit a scenario of need to reduce the size of Luke's
            manuscript, as such. Some commentators have felt that the omitted material,
            so far from being dispensable, was likely to have appealed particularly
            strongly to Luke's propensities, as known from elsewhere in his Gospel. A
            commonly adduced example is the Syrophoenician woman. As for the second
            feeding miracle, Mark makes a big deal of it, as containing the secret of
            both feeding miracles, with hints about the Mission to the Gentiles, a topic
            which seems, on first glance, to have been unlikely to have offended Luke.
            So not everyone sees the same logic, or plausibility, behind this particular
            omission, assuming it to have been an intentional omission.

            And there is another consideration. Apart from the long lacuna here being
            considered, Luke omits, meaning *totally* omits, very little of Mark (though
            he does compress a good deal of it). Quite apart from where the edges of it
            fall in terms of story modules, this makes the Great Omission rather
            prominent, and notably anomalous, in Luke's practice generally. It is in
            such situations that the possibility of a singular event, such as a gap in
            the Vorlage, rather than an argument from general Lukan propensities (which
            finds a useful place in the discussion of many other passages), has its
            attractions for this particular passage.

            All this is argument from general probabilities, for some of which
            probabilities we have very small or zero samples. I still think that the
            specifics of the Streeter case are compellingly convincing, and I continue
            to invite interested persons to consider them (The Four Gospels, 172-178).

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Dave Gentile
            Stephanie, I prefer a third alternative. Mark was updated over time by the same author or authors. Luke, while he might have had access to a later version
            Message 5 of 23 , May 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Stephanie,

              I prefer a third alternative. Mark was updated over time by the same author or authors. Luke, while he might have had access to a later version preferred the earlier version to which perhaps he had become accustomed. Block insertions a priori seem more likely than block omissions. But also, I see reasons to connect this material to more developed Theology than other material in Mark. I think Mark before development on this gospel stops is starting to head off in a somewhat John-like direction. (I also think, for example, the one pericope where John is the questioner, which is also omitted by Luke is inserted into Mark along with the great omission material).

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, IL
            • Dave Gentile
              Bruce, I ll give Streeter another look today, and see if I see anything new this time around. Dave Gentile Riverside, IL
              Message 6 of 23 , May 14, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Bruce,

                I'll give Streeter another look today, and see if I see anything new this time around.

                Dave Gentile
                Riverside, IL
              • Chuck Jones
                Bruce, What would the world be like if we learned something from Streeter s style, not just his content? Chuck ... From: E Bruce Brooks
                Message 7 of 23 , May 14, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce,
                  What would the world be like if we learned something from Streeter's style, not just his content?
                  Chuck

                  --- On Wed, 5/13/09, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

                  From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words
                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 11:45 PM
























                  To: Synoptic

                  In Response To: Chuck Jones

                  On: Characterizing Streeter

                  From: Bruce



                  STREETER: "My own mind has of late been attracted by a third alternative,

                  that Luke used a mutilated copy of Mark. The case for this I state, but

                  merely as a tentative suggestion."



                  CHUCK (having quoted the above): I have a pet peeve about authors being

                  mischaracterized in discussion groups like this one. If we can't rely on

                  each other to accurately summarize the work of others, what will be the

                  factual basis of our conversations?



                  BRUCE: The characterization of Streeter's Lukan Omission suggestion as both

                  convincing and irrefutable was, obviously, mine. I did not purport to be

                  quoting Streeter's own words or opinions. Streeter's diffidence was both

                  comely and appropriate, in the best British style, especially when one is

                  venturing beyond the findings of one's seniors (ie, the older members of the

                  Oxford group). I continue to think that Streeter then proceeded to present

                  an unanswerable case that Luke at this point, in departure from his

                  treatment of Mark at any other point, has jumped from the middle of one

                  sentence to the middle of a remotely distant sentence, and struggled to make

                  sense of the resulting harsh join. I do not think that any other account can

                  equally well explain what (with Streeter's help) we see Luke doing here.



                  That's my estimation, and I stick to it. Counterexamples (consisting of

                  similar Lukan behavior elsewhere) are welcome as always, but pending such, I

                  think we have here something unusually solid in the quagmire of Synoptic

                  speculations generally.



                  Streeter was no dummy. My suspicion is that he realized, at some level, that

                  this particular Lukan scenario worked against other conclusions of his which

                  he put forward with more confidence, such as his remark that "a theory [that

                  Luke knew Matthew] which would make an author capable of such a proceeding

                  would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was

                  a crank." That Streeter remark has gone echoing down the decades, which at

                  this point are eight in number, and counting. That remark has provided a

                  nucleus of agreement for those who, on whatever grounds, reject the

                  possibility that Luke knew Matthew. I like Streeter's "tentative suggestion"

                  much better. I think it is far more perceptive, far less colored by emotion,

                  and far better grounded in the word-by-word examination, and reflective

                  interpretation, of the Greek text of Luke (vis-a-vis that of Mark) as

                  reflecting Luke's authorial behavior. Of the two, I think it is Streeter's

                  Omission suggestion, and not Streeter's "crank" dismissal, that will stand

                  the test of time.



                  Bruce



                  E Bruce Brooks

                  Warring States Project

                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst






























                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Streeter: Style and Substance From: Bruce Chuck gives no sign of having looked at Streeter s argument, or having
                  Message 8 of 23 , May 14, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    In Response To: Chuck Jones
                    On: Streeter: Style and Substance
                    From: Bruce

                    Chuck gives no sign of having looked at Streeter's argument, or having
                    independently looked at the Greek text of Mark (matched against that of Luke
                    in the same section), and of telling us what his own evaluation might be.
                    Instead, he seems to be still caught up in the fact that I am prepared to be
                    more positive in my evaluation of Streeter's "Lukan Omission" proposal than
                    was Streeter himself, in proposing it back in 1924. He asks:

                    CHUCK: What would the world be like if we learned something from Streeter's
                    style, not just his content?

                    BRUCE: I think I can answer that. It would be very like the world we have
                    now.

                    The world we have now (slightly to simplify) is one where all HJ
                    possibilities, and all textual results relevant to evaluating the HJ
                    possibilities, are put forward diffidently and graciously, so as to cause no
                    problem for those who prefer not to accept them. The result is that the good
                    ideas get ignored by those with other ideas (many of them centering on the
                    concept of the Nice Jesus, whether in the Jesus Seminar or other variant),
                    and have no effect on the ongoing conversation. As will be seen in the fact
                    that it is now more than 80 years since Streeter's proposal, and that
                    proposal, sound as it is (and I have not yet heard a refutation from those
                    who have examined the situation - the way Luke drops Mark in the middle of
                    one line, and resumes in the middle of another line, more than one Markan
                    chapter away), has made no impression whatever on mainstream scholarship.

                    The conversation in fact goes on forever, to the point where even NT is
                    tiring of it (the "Synoptic" list founders no longer participate in the
                    "Synoptic" conversation), and where Biblical Studies as a whole is turning
                    away from it (look at the TOC of your last two issues of JBL, and tell me
                    how you interpret the NT/OT balance). Collegiality is massively preserved,
                    but the discussion in substance goes nowhere, and finally (in our time) it
                    is being abandoned without conclusion, unless the community's initial
                    devotion to the Nice Jesus picture, the point at which the discussion
                    started more than a century ago, can be called a conclusion.

                    And now I have a question of my own. What would the world be like if people
                    pursued the HJ question as though the result mattered?

                    I think we would then see the better results being given greater weight, in
                    subsequent deliberations, than the less good results. There would be
                    cumulation, and there would be progress, and the state of knowledge at the
                    end of, say, five years would be better than that at the beginning of the
                    five years. We would not, for example, still be giving airspace to the
                    umpteenth device for getting around the priority of Mark; we would be acting
                    on the priority of Mark (widely acknowledged in a token way, but everywhere
                    evaded in practice) and moving forward, wherever that happened to lead.

                    The conversation would still be collegial, but there would be a decision at
                    the end of it. As things now stand, the feeling of collegiality itself seems
                    to be the major result, and indeed the major desidaratum, of the
                    conversation.

                    It's a different culture of discourse. Discourse not for the sake of
                    discourse, with more discourse as its major product, but discourse for the
                    sake of getting somewhere. One way I can briefly describe how that other
                    culture of discourse works is by quoting a couple of paragraphs from Richard
                    Feynman, Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman, p108-109, where he describes one
                    of the discussions about how to build the atomic bomb. Here they are,
                    appended below, and I add in advance my agreement with Feynman's final
                    assessment: "These were very great men."

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                    ------FEYNMAN EXCERPT------

                    One of the first interesting experiences I had in this project at Princeton
                    was meeting great men. I had never met very many great men before. But there
                    was an evaluation committee that had to try to help us along, and help us
                    ultimately decide which way we were going to separate the uranium. This
                    committee had men like Compton and Tolman and Smyth and Urey and Rabi and
                    Oppenheimer on it. I would sit in because I understood the theory of how our
                    process of separating isotopes worked, and so they'd ask me questions and
                    talk about it. In these discussions one man would make a point. Then
                    Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. He would say
                    it should be *this* way, and he was perfectly right. Another guy would say,
                    well maybe, but there's this other possibility we have to consider against
                    it.

                    So everybody is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and
                    disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally at
                    the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, Well, having heard all these
                    arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and
                    now we have to go ahead.

                    It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a
                    whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what
                    the other fella said, so that at the end, the decision is made as to which
                    idea was the best - summing it all up - without having to say it three
                    times. These were very great men indeed.

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

                    BRUCE: And in what did their greatness consist? In being able to tell which
                    of many responsibly and sincerely proposed ideas were after all the more
                    productive ones, and in moving ahead on that basis.
                  • stephanie fisher
                    Bruce, Mark would have been valued in churches othewise it would not both have been copied by Matthew and Luke and kept after it had been so well rewritten for
                    Message 9 of 23 , May 14, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bruce,

                      Mark would have been valued in churches othewise it would not both have been copied by Matthew and Luke and kept after it had been so well rewritten for Jews (Matthew) and Gentiles (Luke). I think it entirely rational for Luke to omit Mark 7.1-23 as his gospel was for Gentiles who did not need to know about incidences revolving around arguments over handwashing in Jewish law. As far as I can see there is not a "scrap" of evidence for Luke having a copy of Mark with a chunk missing. Maurice Casey has of course already published work on Lukan sources in Aramaic Sources of Q. I didn't find Streeter's theory at all 'compellingly convincing' when I read it.

                      Stephanie Fisher
                      Nottingham /Napier
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:08 AM
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                      To: Synoptic
                      In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
                      On: The Lukan Omission
                      From: Bruce

                      STEPHANIE: Personally don't think it's probable that a bit of Mark would go
                      missing in the middle of a scroll,

                      BRUCE: As a personal thought, there can be no objection to it. In the case
                      of this particular personal thought, I would agree with it, though on
                      physical rather than personal grounds. The grounds are these: If a scroll
                      was torn, it would probably have been repaired. If it was torn in two
                      places, and the middle piece was lost, and the two ends were joined together
                      smoothly, then we might have the situation that seems to have confronted
                      Luke. Except that this scenario does not work when closely examined. If I am
                      correctly visualizing the arrangement of text on the scrolls of the time, a
                      tear across the width of the scroll would be across lines, not between
                      lines, and no two tears with subsequent joining of the ends only, could
                      result in the omission of text rather than the omission of half of a whole
                      series of lines.

                      However, if we visualize instead a codex (and every known Gospel papyrus, if
                      I remember correctly, is a codex or a fragment of a codex, not a scroll or a
                      fragment of a scroll), the coefficient of plausibility goes up dramatically.
                      Loss of a leaf or several leaves from within a codex would leave the rest of
                      the book still present, with no patching necessary, and might easily present
                      to Luke the problem which Streeter shows us Luke in the process of solving.

                      STEPHANIE: and what I really can't see is how someone with Luke's resources
                      available to him could have failed to find an undamaged copy of the Gospel
                      of Mark, which was probably highly prized in the churches that they kept it
                      when Matthew and Luke had both rewritten it.

                      BRUCE: About Luke's resources, I for one am entirely ignorant. Perhaps some
                      are better informed, and I will be glad to hear from them. Further, this
                      assumes that Mark was widely available at the time. I think that assumption
                      is perilous.

                      Was Mark "highly prized in the churches?" I don't know of a scrap of
                      evidence in support. The tiny number of Mark fragments among the early
                      papyri seem to argue against any great popularity for Mark. Is there any
                      solid counterevidence?

                      As for 1c evidence, we know of exactly two people who had definitely read
                      Mark: Matthew and Luke (maybe John, as has recently been suggested; call it
                      three). Paul's contacts with Jesus sayings, such as they are (at any rate,
                      in Koester's list) seem to somewhat favor Mark, but we don't know if he got
                      those from reading the book or from contacts with little groups who had the
                      tradition of those sayings independently. Of those options, I think it would
                      be hard to argue that he knew the book. To take a relatively decidable
                      parallel: Paul's embedded quotations from early Church hymns, some of which
                      are evidently very early, but which also differ among themselves
                      theologically, are thus not likely to represent a single hymnological
                      tradition, and thus unlikely to be combined in a single book, Then Paul most
                      likely got them, not from written documents, but from community practice.

                      In any case, Streeter's evidence suggests that, whether or not Luke could
                      have replaced his defective copy, he did not.

                      STEPHANIE: Luke's gospel is as big as the longest lives by Plutarch and
                      co., which was good reason for him to leave some things out, and its
                      logical that he should choose Mark 7.1-23 and a second feeding miracle to
                      go.

                      BRUCE: I don't know if "logical" is warranted here. Almost any Lukan
                      omission would equally fit a scenario of need to reduce the size of Luke's
                      manuscript, as such. Some commentators have felt that the omitted material,
                      so far from being dispensable, was likely to have appealed particularly
                      strongly to Luke's propensities, as known from elsewhere in his Gospel. A
                      commonly adduced example is the Syrophoenician woman. As for the second
                      feeding miracle, Mark makes a big deal of it, as containing the secret of
                      both feeding miracles, with hints about the Mission to the Gentiles, a topic
                      which seems, on first glance, to have been unlikely to have offended Luke.
                      So not everyone sees the same logic, or plausibility, behind this particular
                      omission, assuming it to have been an intentional omission.

                      And there is another consideration. Apart from the long lacuna here being
                      considered, Luke omits, meaning *totally* omits, very little of Mark (though
                      he does compress a good deal of it). Quite apart from where the edges of it
                      fall in terms of story modules, this makes the Great Omission rather
                      prominent, and notably anomalous, in Luke's practice generally. It is in
                      such situations that the possibility of a singular event, such as a gap in
                      the Vorlage, rather than an argument from general Lukan propensities (which
                      finds a useful place in the discussion of many other passages), has its
                      attractions for this particular passage.

                      All this is argument from general probabilities, for some of which
                      probabilities we have very small or zero samples. I still think that the
                      specifics of the Streeter case are compellingly convincing, and I continue
                      to invite interested persons to consider them (The Four Gospels, 172-178).

                      Bruce

                      E Bruce Brooks
                      Warring States Project
                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst






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


                      Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                      Checked by AVG.
                      Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • stephanie fisher
                      Dave, I find more convincing the early dating of Mark, and in particular the early dating of Mark 7 which deals with a historical episode involving a debate
                      Message 10 of 23 , May 14, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dave,

                        I find more convincing the early dating of Mark, and in particular the early dating of Mark 7 which deals with a historical episode involving a debate with Pharisees over handwashing. This has been expresses I think convincingly by James Crossley and further Maurice Casey (forthcoming).

                        Stephanie Fisher
                        Nottingham/Napier
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Dave Gentile
                        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:15 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                        Stephanie,

                        I prefer a third alternative. Mark was updated over time by the same author or authors. Luke, while he might have had access to a later version preferred the earlier version to which perhaps he had become accustomed. Block insertions a priori seem more likely than block omissions. But also, I see reasons to connect this material to more developed Theology than other material in Mark. I think Mark before development on this gospel stops is starting to head off in a somewhat John-like direction. (I also think, for example, the one pericope where John is the questioner, which is also omitted by Luke is inserted into Mark along with the great omission material).

                        Dave Gentile
                        Riverside, IL






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


                        Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                        Checked by AVG.
                        Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Dave Gentile
                        Stephanie: there is not a scrap of evidence for Luke having a copy of Mark with a chunk missing . Dave: Well, surely that s not true. Stephanie: Maurice
                        Message 11 of 23 , May 15, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Stephanie:

                          "there is not a "scrap" of evidence for Luke having a copy of Mark with
                          a chunk missing".

                          Dave: Well, surely that's not true.

                          Stephanie: Maurice Casey has of course already published work on Lukan
                          sources in Aramaic Sources of Q. I didn't find Streeter's theory at all
                          'compellingly convincing' when I read it.

                          Dave: O.K., that I can accept. But did you try to explain Streeter's observations?

                          In general it sounds like we're in a different enough place that any real agreement is unlikely. However, a priori Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text. Rather, my first guess would be that it was contemporary with Paul's later writings and controversies about how to integrate Gentile's and what Jewish requirements would be binding on them.

                          Dave Gentile
                          Riverside, IL
                        • stephanie fisher
                          ... From: Dave Gentile To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter s own words Stephanie: there is
                          Message 12 of 23 , May 15, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Dave Gentile
                            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:41 AM
                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                            Stephanie:

                            "there is not a "scrap" of evidence for Luke having a copy of Mark with
                            a chunk missing".

                            Dave: Well, surely that's not true.

                            Stephanie: Maurice Casey has of course already published work on Lukan
                            sources in Aramaic Sources of Q. I didn't find Streeter's theory at all
                            'compellingly convincing' when I read it.

                            Dave: O.K., that I can accept. But did you try to explain Streeter's observations?

                            In general it sounds like we're in a different enough place that any real agreement is unlikely. However, a priori Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text. Rather, my first guess would be that it was contemporary with Paul's later writings and controversies about how to integrate Gentile's and what Jewish requirements would be binding on them.

                            Dave Gentile
                            Riverside, IL






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


                            Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                            Checked by AVG.
                            Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • stephanie fisher
                            Dave, Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk missing? A priori Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text. Rather, my first guess...
                            Message 13 of 23 , May 15, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dave,

                              Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk missing?

                              "A priori Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text. Rather, my first guess..."

                              Perhaps you have not come across James Crossley's explanation of the Jewish context of Mark 7 in "The Date of Mark". I would rather not do too much guessing :-)

                              Stephanie Fisher
                              Nottingham / Napier

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Dave Gentile
                              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:41 AM
                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                              Stephanie:

                              "there is not a "scrap" of evidence for Luke having a copy of Mark with
                              a chunk missing".

                              Dave: Well, surely that's not true.

                              Stephanie: Maurice Casey has of course already published work on Lukan
                              sources in Aramaic Sources of Q. I didn't find Streeter's theory at all
                              'compellingly convincing' when I read it.

                              Dave: O.K., that I can accept. But did you try to explain Streeter's observations?

                              In general it sounds like we're in a different enough place that any real agreement is unlikely. However, a priori Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text. Rather, my first guess would be that it was contemporary with Paul's later writings and controversies about how to integrate Gentile's and what Jewish requirements would be binding on them.

                              Dave Gentile
                              Riverside, IL






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


                              Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                              Checked by AVG.
                              Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • E Bruce Brooks
                              To: Synoptic In Response To: Stephanie Fisher (answering Dave Gentile) On: Mark as Seen by Luke From: Bruce The question of a single-composition vs an
                              Message 14 of 23 , May 15, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To: Synoptic
                                In Response To: Stephanie Fisher (answering Dave Gentile)
                                On: Mark as Seen by Luke
                                From: Bruce

                                The question of a single-composition vs an accretional-composition model for
                                Mark comes up obliquely in one recent exchange. This is a point of interest
                                to me, and I add a comment accordingly.

                                STEPHANIE (to Dave): Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk
                                missing?

                                BRUCE: The subject under discussion is, precisely, whether Luke may possibly
                                be based on a Vorlage consisting of Mark with a chunk missing. The strongest
                                way to assess that possibility is to examine the nature of the boundaries of
                                that chunk in Luke. Streeter has showed that they are ragged: Luke breaks
                                off in the middle of a Markan sentence (6:47a) and resumes in the middle of
                                another Markan sentence, more than a chapter away (8:27b). That situation,
                                which may be verified by anyone who cares to compare the respective Greek
                                texts, and should perhaps be let alone by anyone not willing to make that
                                comparison, is very difficult to explain on any other basis save that of a
                                defective Vorlage. Here, then, would be the required evidence.

                                DAVE: "Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text."

                                BRUCE: This offers another way in which Mk 7 might have been absent for
                                Luke, namely, it had not been written yet. As will be made presently clear,
                                I agree with certain elements of that idea. But in the present discussion,
                                it is not only Mk 7 with which we have to deal, and the whole passage with
                                which we DO have to deal is not such as an early Markan author might have
                                inserted into the work of a still earlier Markan author. The problem of the
                                ragged edges is therefore not addressed by this or any similar proposal.

                                One can entertain the possibility that things in the vicinity of Mark 7 were
                                late in the Markan compilation process (as I do, but only in part; see
                                below), without losing one's grip on the fact that the implied Vorlage of
                                Luke seems to be, not an incompletely composed Mark, but a composed and
                                subsequently mutilated Mark. The two questions (what Mark wrote, and what
                                Luke saw) are separate, and I think they are better kept separate.

                                On what I think is the inevitable interpretation of the picture Streeter
                                presents, what Luke saw was identical to what Matthew saw - minus a couple
                                of leaves torn out or otherwise lost from the codex. This puts any question
                                of early and late compositional strata within Mark to an earlier period
                                altogether, and makes it unavailable to resolve the Great Omission problem.

                                That much by the way. Dave had said (to repeat):

                                DAVE: "Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text."

                                STEPHANIE (to Dave, snittily): Perhaps you have not come across James
                                Crossley's explanation of the Jewish context of Mark 7 in "The Date of
                                Mark". I would rather not do too much guessing :-)

                                BRUCE: I for one can do without the archness of expression. But I will
                                nevertheless consider the suggestion. The reference to Crossley could have
                                been more compassionately and precisely given, and I here supplement
                                accordingly: see Crossley Chapter 7 (p183-209). I can report in general that
                                Crossley's final conclusion is that Mark is early. As earlier noted, I agree
                                with that, on somewhat different though not necessarily incompatible
                                grounds. On the point here at issue, I quote from the beginning and end of
                                the chapter above mentioned, which deals with Mk 7:

                                CROSSLEY p183: "To anticipate the conclusion, it will be argued . . that an
                                alternative reading makes much better sense of the passage: Mark, like
                                Matthew, attacks handwashing and accurately portrays Jewish legal practices
                                but Mark was writing when the food laws were largely observed by Christians
                                thereby making certain assumptions which Matthew could not."

                                [The implication is that Mark is situationally earlier than Matthew, with
                                which again I would agree - EBB].

                                CROSSLEY p205: "[a particular view of Biblical law and its expansion] is
                                assumed by Mark but could no longer be assumed by the time Matthew wrote
                                because there were Christians claiming that the Biblical food laws did not
                                have to be observed. Matthew therefore made it explicitly clear that Jesus
                                was attacking handwashing and not the Biblical food laws. The passage is
                                omitted by Luke, probably because it would cause problems for his view of a
                                law observant Jesus and because he has a tradition of Peter having a vision
                                which not only allows the possibility of non-observance of food laws but
                                also implies a prior observance."

                                BRUCE: The suggestion as to Luke's motives in omitting "this passage" (Mk 7
                                or any part of it) are of little value, because, as noted above, what Luke
                                *actually* omits is not only all of Mk 7, but also material on both sides of
                                Mk 7, the whole of the Lukan omission being bounded by ragged and not by
                                clean boundaries. It is the ragged boundaries which make the Lukan omission
                                likely to be enforced rather than voluntary, and make any speculation as to
                                Luke's motives in doing so accordingly moot. We do not have a motive
                                scenario in the first place, and there is thus nothing for this or any other
                                motive hypothesis to explain.

                                CODA

                                I note however, with interest, that Crossley's discussion focuses
                                particularly on Mk 7:15 and 19 (p204). These, for me, fall within a segment
                                of Mk 7 which is later than, and was added subsequently to, the remainder of
                                the chapter. Thus, Mk 7:1-13 focuses on handwashing, and goes on to denounce
                                other rulings of the Pharisees that are likely to have little acceptance
                                among the people Jesus was trying to reach, such as the filial general
                                public to whom the Korban casuistry in Mk 7:10-12 would have seemed
                                outrageous. So far Crossley's focus on handwashing as the point at issue
                                seems accurate. We can add that Jesus in this passage is not only trying to
                                refute the Pharisees, but to stir up public indignation against the
                                Pharisees, in very much the vein (though, fortunately, not at the length) of
                                Pascal's Provincial Letters.

                                We then get something of a different character. Mk 7:14 artificially
                                reassembles the crowd that was already present in the first place (this is a
                                familiar device of Markan interpolation, and the coming and going of these
                                cardboard crowds becomes in turn a focus of derision for recent critics of
                                Mark), and proceeds to get into food purity issues, which were not present
                                in Mk 7:1-13. For me, these recognizably Pauline issues come in what I
                                presently and tentatively call Layer 5 of Mark, and are there functioning as
                                a legal revisionist element in Mark. Keeping Mark up to date with current
                                controversies, and thus responsive to the needs of a community which somehow
                                had to make up its mind about those issues.

                                That is, on legal as well as on other issues which were evidently important
                                to Mark, at one stage or another, I see evidences of doctrinal evolution
                                corresponding to evidences of text alteration. In sum, I find that Mark was
                                not composed on one occasion, with a single consistent theological or
                                ethical message, but grew in stages: that it had a formation process, and
                                that one later stage in that formation process took account (inter alia) of
                                several issues raised by the doctrines, and even by the personal presence,
                                of Paul.

                                It thus seems to me that the technical legal issues noticed by Crossley can
                                be still more easily analyzed on the basis of a Markan formation process,
                                rather than on the basis of a static one-time Mark. The above would be one
                                case in point.

                                Bruce

                                E Bruce Brooks
                                Warring States Project
                                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                              • stephanie fisher
                                Bruce, I will respond regarding James work when I have time. But in regard to your accusation of me being snitty , the :-) is a happy face and I meant no
                                Message 15 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bruce,

                                  I will respond regarding James' work when I have time. But in regard to your accusation of me being "snitty", the :-) is a happy face and I meant no offence to Dave. In regard to precise references, I would have thought that would be condescending as discussion on Mark 7 in James' book should be quite clear from the contents page. In any case ALL my books are currently in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean due to arrive back in Nottingham on June 5th.

                                  I was however peeved at your dismissal of my suggestion that Mark was a valued gospel (because otherwise it would not both have been copied by Matthew and Luke and kept after it had been so well written for Jews by Matthew and Gentiles by Luke and remembered by Papias) with 'there is not a scrap of evidence'.

                                  I responded to your suggestion that there was not a "scrap of evidence" for Mark being a valued gospel, with my suggestion that there was not a "scrap of evidence" for a Mark missing a chunk. Inference - your suggestion was as just as mine. There are however arguments for both Mark being valued and Mark missing a chunk (of which quite clearly have been persuaded by the former but not the latter). So my response to Dave was with inference to this "scrap of evidence".

                                  Stephanie Fisher
                                  Nottingham / Napier

                                  --- Original Message -----
                                  From: E Bruce Brooks
                                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:10 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                                  To: Synoptic
                                  In Response To: Stephanie Fisher (answering Dave Gentile)
                                  On: Mark as Seen by Luke
                                  From: Bruce

                                  The question of a single-composition vs an accretional-composition model for
                                  Mark comes up obliquely in one recent exchange. This is a point of interest
                                  to me, and I add a comment accordingly.

                                  STEPHANIE (to Dave): Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk
                                  missing?

                                  BRUCE: The subject under discussion is, precisely, whether Luke may possibly
                                  be based on a Vorlage consisting of Mark with a chunk missing. The strongest
                                  way to assess that possibility is to examine the nature of the boundaries of
                                  that chunk in Luke. Streeter has showed that they are ragged: Luke breaks
                                  off in the middle of a Markan sentence (6:47a) and resumes in the middle of
                                  another Markan sentence, more than a chapter away (8:27b). That situation,
                                  which may be verified by anyone who cares to compare the respective Greek
                                  texts, and should perhaps be let alone by anyone not willing to make that
                                  comparison, is very difficult to explain on any other basis save that of a
                                  defective Vorlage. Here, then, would be the required evidence.

                                  DAVE: "Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text."

                                  BRUCE: This offers another way in which Mk 7 might have been absent for
                                  Luke, namely, it had not been written yet. As will be made presently clear,
                                  I agree with certain elements of that idea. But in the present discussion,
                                  it is not only Mk 7 with which we have to deal, and the whole passage with
                                  which we DO have to deal is not such as an early Markan author might have
                                  inserted into the work of a still earlier Markan author. The problem of the
                                  ragged edges is therefore not addressed by this or any similar proposal.

                                  One can entertain the possibility that things in the vicinity of Mark 7 were
                                  late in the Markan compilation process (as I do, but only in part; see
                                  below), without losing one's grip on the fact that the implied Vorlage of
                                  Luke seems to be, not an incompletely composed Mark, but a composed and
                                  subsequently mutilated Mark. The two questions (what Mark wrote, and what
                                  Luke saw) are separate, and I think they are better kept separate.

                                  On what I think is the inevitable interpretation of the picture Streeter
                                  presents, what Luke saw was identical to what Matthew saw - minus a couple
                                  of leaves torn out or otherwise lost from the codex. This puts any question
                                  of early and late compositional strata within Mark to an earlier period
                                  altogether, and makes it unavailable to resolve the Great Omission problem.

                                  That much by the way. Dave had said (to repeat):

                                  DAVE: "Mark 7 does not strike me as a likely early text."

                                  STEPHANIE (to Dave, snittily): Perhaps you have not come across James
                                  Crossley's explanation of the Jewish context of Mark 7 in "The Date of
                                  Mark". I would rather not do too much guessing :-)

                                  BRUCE: I for one can do without the archness of expression. But I will
                                  nevertheless consider the suggestion. The reference to Crossley could have
                                  been more compassionately and precisely given, and I here supplement
                                  accordingly: see Crossley Chapter 7 (p183-209). I can report in general that
                                  Crossley's final conclusion is that Mark is early. As earlier noted, I agree
                                  with that, on somewhat different though not necessarily incompatible
                                  grounds. On the point here at issue, I quote from the beginning and end of
                                  the chapter above mentioned, which deals with Mk 7:

                                  CROSSLEY p183: "To anticipate the conclusion, it will be argued . . that an
                                  alternative reading makes much better sense of the passage: Mark, like
                                  Matthew, attacks handwashing and accurately portrays Jewish legal practices
                                  but Mark was writing when the food laws were largely observed by Christians
                                  thereby making certain assumptions which Matthew could not."

                                  [The implication is that Mark is situationally earlier than Matthew, with
                                  which again I would agree - EBB].

                                  CROSSLEY p205: "[a particular view of Biblical law and its expansion] is
                                  assumed by Mark but could no longer be assumed by the time Matthew wrote
                                  because there were Christians claiming that the Biblical food laws did not
                                  have to be observed. Matthew therefore made it explicitly clear that Jesus
                                  was attacking handwashing and not the Biblical food laws. The passage is
                                  omitted by Luke, probably because it would cause problems for his view of a
                                  law observant Jesus and because he has a tradition of Peter having a vision
                                  which not only allows the possibility of non-observance of food laws but
                                  also implies a prior observance."

                                  BRUCE: The suggestion as to Luke's motives in omitting "this passage" (Mk 7
                                  or any part of it) are of little value, because, as noted above, what Luke
                                  *actually* omits is not only all of Mk 7, but also material on both sides of
                                  Mk 7, the whole of the Lukan omission being bounded by ragged and not by
                                  clean boundaries. It is the ragged boundaries which make the Lukan omission
                                  likely to be enforced rather than voluntary, and make any speculation as to
                                  Luke's motives in doing so accordingly moot. We do not have a motive
                                  scenario in the first place, and there is thus nothing for this or any other
                                  motive hypothesis to explain.

                                  CODA

                                  I note however, with interest, that Crossley's discussion focuses
                                  particularly on Mk 7:15 and 19 (p204). These, for me, fall within a segment
                                  of Mk 7 which is later than, and was added subsequently to, the remainder of
                                  the chapter. Thus, Mk 7:1-13 focuses on handwashing, and goes on to denounce
                                  other rulings of the Pharisees that are likely to have little acceptance
                                  among the people Jesus was trying to reach, such as the filial general
                                  public to whom the Korban casuistry in Mk 7:10-12 would have seemed
                                  outrageous. So far Crossley's focus on handwashing as the point at issue
                                  seems accurate. We can add that Jesus in this passage is not only trying to
                                  refute the Pharisees, but to stir up public indignation against the
                                  Pharisees, in very much the vein (though, fortunately, not at the length) of
                                  Pascal's Provincial Letters.

                                  We then get something of a different character. Mk 7:14 artificially
                                  reassembles the crowd that was already present in the first place (this is a
                                  familiar device of Markan interpolation, and the coming and going of these
                                  cardboard crowds becomes in turn a focus of derision for recent critics of
                                  Mark), and proceeds to get into food purity issues, which were not present
                                  in Mk 7:1-13. For me, these recognizably Pauline issues come in what I
                                  presently and tentatively call Layer 5 of Mark, and are there functioning as
                                  a legal revisionist element in Mark. Keeping Mark up to date with current
                                  controversies, and thus responsive to the needs of a community which somehow
                                  had to make up its mind about those issues.

                                  That is, on legal as well as on other issues which were evidently important
                                  to Mark, at one stage or another, I see evidences of doctrinal evolution
                                  corresponding to evidences of text alteration. In sum, I find that Mark was
                                  not composed on one occasion, with a single consistent theological or
                                  ethical message, but grew in stages: that it had a formation process, and
                                  that one later stage in that formation process took account (inter alia) of
                                  several issues raised by the doctrines, and even by the personal presence,
                                  of Paul.

                                  It thus seems to me that the technical legal issues noticed by Crossley can
                                  be still more easily analyzed on the basis of a Markan formation process,
                                  rather than on the basis of a static one-time Mark. The above would be one
                                  case in point.

                                  Bruce

                                  E Bruce Brooks
                                  Warring States Project
                                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst






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


                                  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                                  Checked by AVG.
                                  Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • E Bruce Brooks
                                  To: Synoptic In Response To: Stephanie Fisher On: The Popularity of Mark From: Bruce STEPHANIE: I responded to your suggestion that there was not a scrap of
                                  Message 16 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    To: Synoptic
                                    In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
                                    On: The Popularity of Mark
                                    From: Bruce

                                    STEPHANIE: I responded to your suggestion that there was not a "scrap of
                                    evidence" for Mark being a valued gospel, with my suggestion that there was
                                    not a "scrap of evidence" for a Mark missing a chunk. Inference - your
                                    suggestion was as just as mine.

                                    BRUCE: This amounts to the equation "suggestion = suggestion," which
                                    eventually reduces all questions to personalities. Taking a more objective
                                    path, I suspect that some suggestions may be better supported than others.
                                    Thus:

                                    1. The Popularity of Mark. This is assumed by those, like Bacon, who
                                    conclude that Mark was a Roman Gospel; it follows that with such authority,
                                    it would have been widely known. But that is an inference from a conclusion,
                                    not an observation in its own right. And the conclusion itself may involve
                                    putting more faith in the tradition of John Mark as Peter's amanuensis than
                                    the character of Mark, and the treatment of Peter in Mark, will easily
                                    support. The use of Mark by both Matthew and Luke is also supposed to be
                                    evidence of wide currency. The location of Matthew and Luke, like that of
                                    Mark, is not certainly known, but suggestions tend to cluster around Syria
                                    for both of them, and that suggestion has been made for Mark also (so has
                                    Galilee, which I don't think quite works, despite the undoubted Galilean
                                    focus of Mark). If so, Mark will have been a neighborhood gospel for both
                                    Matthew and Luke, and no wide celebrity of Mark in other places would be
                                    required. Further, on the negative side, a census of surviving copies of the
                                    Gospels shows Mark in last place. For what this late fact may be worth, and
                                    it is at least not a figment of imagination, it signally fails to support a
                                    hypothesis of wide circulation.

                                    I think the evidence here, most of it at bottom supposition rather than
                                    observation, and some of it contradicted by such observations as we can
                                    make, is distinctly weak.

                                    2. Mark Missing a Chunk. I can only repeat my suggestion to compare the
                                    Greek texts of Mark and Luke in the area in question, and see what they
                                    suggest. The situation (to repeat it yet again) is that Luke jumps from the
                                    middle of one line of Mark to the middle of another line of Mark, more than
                                    a chapter away. This behavior of Luke, so far as I know, is without parallel
                                    elsewhere in Luke. It thus constitutes a unique instance, and one for which
                                    voluntary choice not to include one or another Markan story unit cannot be
                                    invoked, or why the ragged edges of the material omitted? The inference of a
                                    missing chunk does not work well for a scroll (which is how Streeter and
                                    others usually frame it), but very well for a codex. Is a codex itself
                                    plausible? We are ill informed about the 1c, but we do know that (a) the
                                    codex was from the beginning a medium much favored by Christians, and (b)
                                    all surviving early New Testament MSS are either codices or leaves from
                                    codices. There is thus very little to object to in the assumption that
                                    Luke's Mark, chunk or no chunk, was in codex form.

                                    I think the evidence here, most of it objective and not suppositional, is
                                    strongly in favor.

                                    For such reasons, I decline to equate all opinions with all other opinions.
                                    I think some are better founded than others, and I recommend that these
                                    should be the ones on which further investigations, or conjectures, might
                                    best be based.

                                    Bruce

                                    E Bruce Brooks
                                    Warring States Project
                                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                  • stephanie fisher
                                    Bruce, Just quickly I think the best evidence for Mark being preserved is his presence in the canon. Stephanie Fisher Nottingham Napier ... From: E Bruce
                                    Message 17 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Bruce,

                                      Just quickly I think the best evidence for Mark being preserved is his presence in the canon.

                                      Stephanie Fisher
                                      Nottingham Napier
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: E Bruce Brooks
                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:46 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                                      To: Synoptic
                                      In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
                                      On: The Popularity of Mark
                                      From: Bruce

                                      STEPHANIE: I responded to your suggestion that there was not a "scrap of
                                      evidence" for Mark being a valued gospel, with my suggestion that there was
                                      not a "scrap of evidence" for a Mark missing a chunk. Inference - your
                                      suggestion was as just as mine.

                                      BRUCE: This amounts to the equation "suggestion = suggestion," which
                                      eventually reduces all questions to personalities. Taking a more objective
                                      path, I suspect that some suggestions may be better supported than others.
                                      Thus:

                                      1. The Popularity of Mark. This is assumed by those, like Bacon, who
                                      conclude that Mark was a Roman Gospel; it follows that with such authority,
                                      it would have been widely known. But that is an inference from a conclusion,
                                      not an observation in its own right. And the conclusion itself may involve
                                      putting more faith in the tradition of John Mark as Peter's amanuensis than
                                      the character of Mark, and the treatment of Peter in Mark, will easily
                                      support. The use of Mark by both Matthew and Luke is also supposed to be
                                      evidence of wide currency. The location of Matthew and Luke, like that of
                                      Mark, is not certainly known, but suggestions tend to cluster around Syria
                                      for both of them, and that suggestion has been made for Mark also (so has
                                      Galilee, which I don't think quite works, despite the undoubted Galilean
                                      focus of Mark). If so, Mark will have been a neighborhood gospel for both
                                      Matthew and Luke, and no wide celebrity of Mark in other places would be
                                      required. Further, on the negative side, a census of surviving copies of the
                                      Gospels shows Mark in last place. For what this late fact may be worth, and
                                      it is at least not a figment of imagination, it signally fails to support a
                                      hypothesis of wide circulation.

                                      I think the evidence here, most of it at bottom supposition rather than
                                      observation, and some of it contradicted by such observations as we can
                                      make, is distinctly weak.

                                      2. Mark Missing a Chunk. I can only repeat my suggestion to compare the
                                      Greek texts of Mark and Luke in the area in question, and see what they
                                      suggest. The situation (to repeat it yet again) is that Luke jumps from the
                                      middle of one line of Mark to the middle of another line of Mark, more than
                                      a chapter away. This behavior of Luke, so far as I know, is without parallel
                                      elsewhere in Luke. It thus constitutes a unique instance, and one for which
                                      voluntary choice not to include one or another Markan story unit cannot be
                                      invoked, or why the ragged edges of the material omitted? The inference of a
                                      missing chunk does not work well for a scroll (which is how Streeter and
                                      others usually frame it), but very well for a codex. Is a codex itself
                                      plausible? We are ill informed about the 1c, but we do know that (a) the
                                      codex was from the beginning a medium much favored by Christians, and (b)
                                      all surviving early New Testament MSS are either codices or leaves from
                                      codices. There is thus very little to object to in the assumption that
                                      Luke's Mark, chunk or no chunk, was in codex form.

                                      I think the evidence here, most of it objective and not suppositional, is
                                      strongly in favor.

                                      For such reasons, I decline to equate all opinions with all other opinions.
                                      I think some are better founded than others, and I recommend that these
                                      should be the ones on which further investigations, or conjectures, might
                                      best be based.

                                      Bruce

                                      E Bruce Brooks
                                      Warring States Project
                                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst






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


                                      Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                                      Checked by AVG.
                                      Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • stephanie fisher
                                      PS and Mark is third (not last ) possibly because he was shorter. And for what it s worth my argument is not an assumption and neither is it based on Mark
                                      Message 18 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        PS and Mark is third (not "last") possibly because he was shorter. And for what it's worth my argument is not an 'assumption' and neither is it based on Mark being a Roman Gospel. I won't repeat myself on Mark's missing chunk and as my texts are in transit I am unable to demonstrate how Luke has rewritten Mark and exactly left these passages out of his already long gospel. I will respond regarding James when I have consulted my notes and had time to read what you wrote.

                                        Stephanie Fisher
                                        Nottingham, Napier
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: E Bruce Brooks
                                        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:46 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                                        To: Synoptic
                                        In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
                                        On: The Popularity of Mark
                                        From: Bruce

                                        STEPHANIE: I responded to your suggestion that there was not a "scrap of
                                        evidence" for Mark being a valued gospel, with my suggestion that there was
                                        not a "scrap of evidence" for a Mark missing a chunk. Inference - your
                                        suggestion was as just as mine.

                                        BRUCE: This amounts to the equation "suggestion = suggestion," which
                                        eventually reduces all questions to personalities. Taking a more objective
                                        path, I suspect that some suggestions may be better supported than others.
                                        Thus:

                                        1. The Popularity of Mark. This is assumed by those, like Bacon, who
                                        conclude that Mark was a Roman Gospel; it follows that with such authority,
                                        it would have been widely known. But that is an inference from a conclusion,
                                        not an observation in its own right. And the conclusion itself may involve
                                        putting more faith in the tradition of John Mark as Peter's amanuensis than
                                        the character of Mark, and the treatment of Peter in Mark, will easily
                                        support. The use of Mark by both Matthew and Luke is also supposed to be
                                        evidence of wide currency. The location of Matthew and Luke, like that of
                                        Mark, is not certainly known, but suggestions tend to cluster around Syria
                                        for both of them, and that suggestion has been made for Mark also (so has
                                        Galilee, which I don't think quite works, despite the undoubted Galilean
                                        focus of Mark). If so, Mark will have been a neighborhood gospel for both
                                        Matthew and Luke, and no wide celebrity of Mark in other places would be
                                        required. Further, on the negative side, a census of surviving copies of the
                                        Gospels shows Mark in last place. For what this late fact may be worth, and
                                        it is at least not a figment of imagination, it signally fails to support a
                                        hypothesis of wide circulation.

                                        I think the evidence here, most of it at bottom supposition rather than
                                        observation, and some of it contradicted by such observations as we can
                                        make, is distinctly weak.

                                        2. Mark Missing a Chunk. I can only repeat my suggestion to compare the
                                        Greek texts of Mark and Luke in the area in question, and see what they
                                        suggest. The situation (to repeat it yet again) is that Luke jumps from the
                                        middle of one line of Mark to the middle of another line of Mark, more than
                                        a chapter away. This behavior of Luke, so far as I know, is without parallel
                                        elsewhere in Luke. It thus constitutes a unique instance, and one for which
                                        voluntary choice not to include one or another Markan story unit cannot be
                                        invoked, or why the ragged edges of the material omitted? The inference of a
                                        missing chunk does not work well for a scroll (which is how Streeter and
                                        others usually frame it), but very well for a codex. Is a codex itself
                                        plausible? We are ill informed about the 1c, but we do know that (a) the
                                        codex was from the beginning a medium much favored by Christians, and (b)
                                        all surviving early New Testament MSS are either codices or leaves from
                                        codices. There is thus very little to object to in the assumption that
                                        Luke's Mark, chunk or no chunk, was in codex form.

                                        I think the evidence here, most of it objective and not suppositional, is
                                        strongly in favor.

                                        For such reasons, I decline to equate all opinions with all other opinions.
                                        I think some are better founded than others, and I recommend that these
                                        should be the ones on which further investigations, or conjectures, might
                                        best be based.

                                        Bruce

                                        E Bruce Brooks
                                        Warring States Project
                                        University of Massachusetts at Amherst






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


                                        Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                                        Checked by AVG.
                                        Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                        Chuck stated, I have a pet peeve about authors being mischaracterized in discussion groups like this one. If we can t rely on each other to accurately
                                        Message 19 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Chuck stated, "I have a pet peeve about authors being mischaracterized in discussion groups like this one. If we can't rely on each other to accurately summarize the work of others, what will be the factual basis of our conversations?"


                                          All have preconceptions going into reading and interpreting what an author writes. All pick, all choose what best refelects what they want to gain (in agreement or disagreement) from the author in question. Reading and comprehending is not entirely a mechanical skill - It at best is interpretive. If not, there would be no divergency in thought. Certainly, there would be no reason for folks to discuss various and varied thoughts about the Bible. Everyone would have the same view - that of the author(s) of each book!
                                          Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                          Dahlonega, Ga.






                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Dave Gentile
                                          Stephanie: Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk missing? Dave: I think there is good evidence of versions of Mark with chunks missing, yes. I
                                          Message 20 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Stephanie:

                                            Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk missing?

                                            Dave:

                                            I think there is good evidence of versions of Mark with chunks missing, yes. I think the text grew over time. I don't want to go into the evidence at this time, but Streeter at least provides some evidence in that direction, even if you disagree with the conclusion. What I found unlikely was the idea of a damaged copy of Mark, and Luke not being able to acquire a whole copy, when I can lay my hands on one and so could Matthew.

                                            Stephanie:

                                            Perhaps you have not come across James Crossley's explanation of the Jewish context of Mark 7 in "The Date of Mark".

                                            Dave: Nope. Is it easy to summarize?

                                            Dave Gentile
                                            Riverside, IL
                                          • stephanie fisher
                                            Dave: Crossley s work is an investigation of early Jewish law and how it affects Mark s gospel. He demonstrates that Mark takes for granted that Jesus fully
                                            Message 21 of 23 , May 16, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dave:

                                              Crossley's work is an investigation of early Jewish law and how it affects Mark's gospel. He demonstrates that Mark takes for granted that Jesus fully observed biblical law and that Mark could only make such an assumption at a time when Christianity was largely law observant. This could not have been later than the mid-40s, from which time on certain Jewish and gentile Christians were no longer observing some biblical laws such as food laws and the Sabbath. He argues with justification that in all three Synoptic Gospels Jesus is portrayed as a Torah observant Jew in conflict with Jews dedicated to expanding and developing the Biblical laws and concludes that this must reflect the views of the historical Jesus. He claims that the early church would not have had so much internal controversy over the observance of the Biblical Torah if Jesus had deliberately challenged it or told others to challenge it. He also notes what is particularly significant: that both Matthew and Luke show clear signs that traditions concerning the Torah must not be interpreted as challenging it. This is not an issue that is not found in Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke were written up in the context of non-observant Christians. Crossley challenges the use of the external evidence (such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria) often used for dating Mark, relying instead on internal evidence from the gospel itself. Crossley also questions the view that Mark 13 reflects the Jewish war, arguing that there are other plausible historical settings. He also details the unfulfilled predictions in Mark. Here we have for example the prediction that James and John would "taste the cup" with him (Mark 10.38ff) with the cup being a metaphor for death so that James and John were to have died with Jesus, and the unfulfilled prediction in Mark 9.1 which anticipates the coming of the kingdom before the deaths of some alive now. The former passage is omitted by Luke and altered by Matthew and the latter respectively altered and toned down by Matthew and Luke, an indication that for Mark the coming of the kingdom will be a past event before "some standing here" die. There is a chapter on Mark 7 in which he demonstrates it's historicity as a conflict with the Pharisees over the issue of handwashing. There is also demonstration of Aramaic origin of the sources. I haven't got the book handy as it is on a ship. It is available in paperback for about 20 pounds I think but all good :-) libraries should have it now.

                                              I have just found Streeter's book on line so later I will try to find his evidence for the great omission. However so far I have only found a paragraph with the suggestion that Luke's copy lacked that chunk.

                                              Steph Fisher, Nottingham / Napier.







                                              I



                                              T


                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: Dave Gentile
                                              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:54 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words





                                              Stephanie:

                                              Have you got evidence of a copy of Mark with a chunk missing?

                                              Dave:

                                              I think there is good evidence of versions of Mark with chunks missing, yes. I think the text grew over time. I don't want to go into the evidence at this time, but Streeter at least provides some evidence in that direction, even if you disagree with the conclusion. What I found unlikely was the idea of a damaged copy of Mark, and Luke not being able to acquire a whole copy, when I can lay my hands on one and so could Matthew.

                                              Stephanie:

                                              Perhaps you have not come across James Crossley's explanation of the Jewish context of Mark 7 in "The Date of Mark".

                                              Dave: Nope. Is it easy to summarize?

                                              Dave Gentile
                                              Riverside, IL






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


                                              Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                                              Checked by AVG.
                                              Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Dave Gentile
                                              Stephanie, Thanks for this. It sounds like I could agree with a good deal of the details without necessarily adopting the conclusion. I think the gospel of
                                              Message 22 of 23 , May 17, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Stephanie,

                                                Thanks for this. It sounds like I could agree with a good deal of the details without necessarily adopting the conclusion. I think the gospel of Mark probably started quite early as well, but then evolved. So finding a number of indicators that Mark was early would not, for me at least, show that ALL of Mark was early.

                                                I won't comment on Ch. 7 specifically, because I'd have to see the specific arguments.

                                                In thinking about this, however, something that has always been in the back of my mind here became explicit. There are approximately 9 pericopes in the great omission. Luke retains most of Mark's pericopes. (Let's just say 90%, the exact number is not important). If we suppose that Luke goes through Mark, retaining most pericopes and rejecting those that displease him (10%), what are the chances that Mark would have placed 9 such pericopes in a row? Something on the order of 100,000,000 to 1. Again the exact number is not important, but just by order of magnitude calculations this is not a random event. Even if we can argue that all 9 displeased Luke, why were they all together like this in Mark? Combined with other observations, like those by Streeter, and my own observations that lead me to think that much of this insertion is about extending the message of Jesus to include not only Jews, but also Gentiles, I am left very convinced that this text (or at least much of it) was inserted into an earlier version of Mark.

                                                Changing topics a bit, I thought I'd add a bit about the other place where I think an insertion in Mark's text is most obvious. Mark 3:22-30. Here the text interrupts text related to the family of Jesus. One might argue such sandwich techniques are Mark's style, but I would argue that Mark is just full of insertions, as it appears.

                                                Bruce has also argued that "Holy Spirit" is a later development, and all instances of this seem rather un-secure in the text of Mark.

                                                Then we have Luke's behavior. Luke follows Matthew's text here. There is no connection to the text of Mark at all, as if he never saw it. Also, Luke does not locate this in the same position Mark does, rather he places it in his travel narrative, one of his two large sections where he places things he got from Matthew. These actions need not be connected. That is - Luke could have used Mark's text, but relocated it. Or he could have used Matthew's text, but kept it in Mark's location. Thus the fact that he does neither amounts to two separate indications that Luke has not seen this part of Mark, which combined with the break in the text of Mark itself, makes me near certain that this is a late insertion, absent in Luke's text of Mark (or at least Luke's favorite text of Mark).

                                                Dave Gentile
                                                Riverside, IL
                                              • stephanie fisher
                                                Dave, Regarding Mark 3.22 ff, I disagree that it is later and agree that this points to historical Aramaic tradition. Can I recommend the chapter on The
                                                Message 23 of 23 , May 17, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Dave,

                                                  Regarding Mark 3.22 ff, I disagree that it is later and agree that this points to historical Aramaic tradition. Can I recommend the chapter on The Beelzebul Controversy in Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. He reconstructs it, describes the historical context and tradition in Matthew and Luke. There is too much too summarise especially without the book in front of me.

                                                  Stephanie Fisher
                                                  Nottingham
                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: Dave Gentile
                                                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:51 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Streeter's own words







                                                  Stephanie,

                                                  Thanks for this. It sounds like I could agree with a good deal of the details without necessarily adopting the conclusion. I think the gospel of Mark probably started quite early as well, but then evolved. So finding a number of indicators that Mark was early would not, for me at least, show that ALL of Mark was early.

                                                  I won't comment on Ch. 7 specifically, because I'd have to see the specific arguments.

                                                  In thinking about this, however, something that has always been in the back of my mind here became explicit. There are approximately 9 pericopes in the great omission. Luke retains most of Mark's pericopes. (Let's just say 90%, the exact number is not important). If we suppose that Luke goes through Mark, retaining most pericopes and rejecting those that displease him (10%), what are the chances that Mark would have placed 9 such pericopes in a row? Something on the order of 100,000,000 to 1. Again the exact number is not important, but just by order of magnitude calculations this is not a random event. Even if we can argue that all 9 displeased Luke, why were they all together like this in Mark? Combined with other observations, like those by Streeter, and my own observations that lead me to think that much of this insertion is about extending the message of Jesus to include not only Jews, but also Gentiles, I am left very convinced that this text (or at least much of it) was inserted into an earlier versin of Mark.

                                                  Changing topics a bit, I thought I'd add a bit about the other place where I think an insertion in Mark's text is most obvious. Mark 3:22-30. Here the text interrupts text related to the family of Jesus. One might argue such sandwich techniques are Mark's style, but I would argue that Mark is just full of insertions, as it appears.

                                                  Bruce has also argued that "Holy Spirit" is a later development, and all instances of this seem rather un-secure in the text of Mark.

                                                  Then we have Luke's behavior. Luke follows Matthew's text here. There is no connection to the text of Mark at all, as if he never saw it. Also, Luke does not locate this in the same position Mark does, rather he places it in his travel narrative, one of his two large sections where he places things he got from Matthew. These actions need not be connected. That is - Luke could have used Mark's text, but relocated it. Or he could have used Matthew's text, but kept it in Mark's location. Thus the fact that he does neither amounts to two separate indications that Luke has not seen this part of Mark, which combined with the break in the text of Mark itself, makes me near certain that this is a late insertion, absent in Luke's text of Mark (or at least Luke's favorite text of Mark).

                                                  Dave Gentile
                                                  Riverside, IL






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


                                                  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
                                                  Checked by AVG.
                                                  Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 5:53 p.m.


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