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

Mark

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Stephanie Fisher On: Mark From: Bruce This is wandering far from topic, though presumably all topics are valid. Hence: STEPHANIE:
    Message 1 of 3 , May 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
      On: Mark
      From: Bruce

      This is wandering far from topic, though presumably all topics are valid.
      Hence:

      STEPHANIE: I think the best evidence for Mark being preserved is his
      presence in the canon.

      BRUCE: And I can give you earlier: Apart from the three later Synoptists,
      Mark was known to Papias, to Justin Martyr, and to Origen, not to mention
      Tatian. But that it was not lost in the 2c and 3c does not prove that it was
      popular in the 1c. The two propositions are different.

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • stephanie fisher
      Yes - didn t Koester say something like that? By the way I never said popular - I think valued was what I said and there is a difference. No Papias and the
      Message 2 of 3 , May 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes - didn't Koester say something like that? By the way I never said popular - I think 'valued' was what I said and there is a difference. No Papias and the canon aren't proof, just pretty good evidence - we never have 'proof' in the Synoptic Problem, just arguments, and Matthew and Luke having had Mark are fairly good evidence of it being valued and the suggestion that it was not valued and suddenly valued and restored, I find distinctly weak.

        Stephanie Fisher
        Nottingham, Napier

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:41 AM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Mark





        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
        On: Mark
        From: Bruce

        This is wandering far from topic, though presumably all topics are valid.
        Hence:

        STEPHANIE: I think the best evidence for Mark being preserved is his
        presence in the canon.

        BRUCE: And I can give you earlier: Apart from the three later Synoptists,
        Mark was known to Papias, to Justin Martyr, and to Origen, not to mention
        Tatian. But that it was not lost in the 2c and 3c does not prove that it was
        popular in the 1c. The two propositions are different.

        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: Mark From: Bruce STEPHANIE: Matthew and Luke having had Mark are fairly good evidence of it being valued. . .
        Message 3 of 3 , May 16, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Stephanie Fisher
          On: Mark
          From: Bruce

          STEPHANIE: Matthew and Luke having had Mark are fairly good evidence of it
          being valued. . .

          BRUCE: Matthew and Luke using Mark certainly shows that they valued it. I
          would call that point decisively established. But it doesn't say how widely
          Mark was esteemed, outside that possibly narrow circle. Further, its being
          valued (perhaps despite, in Luke's case, its being in pretty bad condition),
          might reflect its rarity rather than its wide acceptance.

          For those who think that the ending of Mark is abridged, and they seem to
          have Matthew for company, there is also this: Why was not this lacuna made
          good, either by getting another copy or by asking the home Markan church to
          supply it from memory? I would suggest that this question is easier to
          answer if Mark was *not* widely circulated, and also if the home Markan
          church was no longer in existence by the time of Matthew and Luke. This
          latter detail would be consistent with the conclusion of some (myself
          included) who reach a pre-45 date for even the latest addenda to Mark. Given
          a post-70 date for Matthew and Luke, this makes a gap between them of at
          least one generation and probably more, which given the fairly high level of
          persecution that we seem to see signs of in the text, is plenty of time for
          a once thriving and even important local church to simply vanish.

          STEPHANIE: . . . and the suggestion that it was not valued and suddenly
          valued and restored, I find distinctly weak.

          BRUCE: Not previously proposed, and hence not here defended.

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.