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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Was Matthew's Sermon broken up?

Expand Messages
  • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Was Matthew s Sermon Broken Up? From: Bruce As usual, I agree a good part of the way with Ron. There is no
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 21, 2010
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Ron Price
      On: Was Matthew's Sermon Broken Up?
      From: Bruce

      As usual, I agree a good part of the way with Ron. There is no point
      here rehashing yet again the small zones of divergence. I might pick
      up just one of his points.

      RON: Farrer Theory supporters are often asked why, if Luke used
      Matthew, would he
      break up Matthew's impressive Sermon on the Mount. Of course the judgement
      as to whether Matthew's placement of sayings is more artistic than Luke's
      placement of sayings is a subjective one. But this defence is rather weak if
      it lacks a comparison of the placements and a portrayal of the merits of
      Luke's placement (virtually impossible for anyone who doesn't know what
      structure Luke had in mind for his gospel).

      BRUCE: Artistic, schmartistic. The real question here has always been
      the emotional one. It is not "Why did Luke break up Matthew's Sermon,"
      but rather, "Why did Luke break up Jesus's sermon?" If it could be
      established beforehand that the sermon is Matthew's assemblage and not
      Jesus's lecture notes, the thing could be approached with a more
      appropriate level of mental equilibrium than heretofore.

      So can that be established? I should think with a fair degree of
      operational probability. Never mind this or that Sermon; the whole of
      Matthew is obviously an assemblage, a construct, a piece of artifice
      and a personal design, from its five-part Pentateuch-referential large
      structure to its instence on "every jot" of the Law, not to mention
      its slavish and imperceptive misreading of Hebrew parallelism in a
      certain Psalm, leading to a screamingly funny picture of Jesus riding
      into Jerusalem on - get this - not one animal but two. Matthew is
      Christianity crammed back as far as was then possible, and in the case
      of the two animals, perhaps a little farther than was possible, into
      an OT framework.

      Once the beholder gets the idea of Matthew as constructing his
      account, rather than blindly transcribing it from one or seventeen
      conjectural "sources," the Sermon question (which is really, let us be
      reminded, just the first of Five sermon questions in Matthew) can
      perhaps be taken up at a more suitable pulse rate.

      There is maybe hope. In my experience people don't get all hot under
      the collar or red in the face, they don't pound on the table or fling
      disparagements at persons, on the question, "Why did 2 Peter break up
      the symbolism of Jude?"

      Which is not to say that they get even *that* directionality right.
      Surveying commentaries over the past century or so, I find that
      opinions turn out to be divided: better, but not a whole lot better,
      than a random result. The standard treatment of these questions, I
      grieve to discover (I came here hopefully from classical China, hat in
      hand and ready to be enlightened, looking to the elder sister
      discipline for examples of problems convincingly solved) turns out to
      be not exactly conspicuous for its mastery of philological technique.

      But still, calmness of spirit is doubtless the right weather in which
      to seek for skill of hand, and I conclude by recommending both the
      calmness and the seeking.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ron Price
      ... Jeff, Thanks for your comments. Two points in reply. Firstly your conclusion as explained above depends on interpreting the wording of the short statement
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 22, 2010
        I had written:

        >> Because on the 3ST, for the aphorisms of Jesus the scholarly Luke went
        >> back to his oldest source, namely the logia mentioned by Papias, and
        >> translated them from there (and there are a couple of
        >> translation errors to back this up).

        Jeff Peterson replied:

        > One problem for this proposal is that by *logia* Papias doesn't mean
        > "sayings"; he means "divine oracles" or "teachings." He describes Mark as
        > having set these down, though not in order, by having written up "things
        > said or done by the Lord," and Matthew as having "made a [pleasing]
        > arrangement of the *logia*." Papias understands the *logia* to have been
        > embodied in biographical narratives like those transmitted under the names
        > of Matthew and Mark, not in sayings collections like the *Gospel according
        > to Thomas*.

        Jeff,

        Thanks for your comments. Two points in reply.

        Firstly your conclusion as explained above depends on interpreting the
        wording of the short statement about Matthew in the light of the longer
        statement about Mark. But the styles of these two statements are quite
        different. The latter has the appearance of much-embellished apologetic, and
        some of it (such as Mark being Peter's interpreter) is now known to be
        mistaken. The former reads like a modest historical claim. I think we should
        consider the possibility that Papias was not always entirely consistent in
        his terminology.

        Secondly I'm not sure how you interpret: "made a [pleasing] arrangement of
        the *logia*". You may be assuming it refers to the five pairs of
        discourse/narrative sections in Matthew's gospel. But my reconstruction of
        the aphorism collection (see the web page below), with its poetry, its
        arrangement in 36 linked pairs, and division into four themed sections,
        surely presents a source which would have been much more likely to attract
        the commendation: "pleasing arrangement".

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html
      • Chuck Jones
        Bruce wrote: The real question here has always been the emotional one. It is not Why did Luke break up Matthew s Sermon, but rather, Why did Luke break up
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 22, 2010
          Bruce wrote:
          "The real question here has always been the emotional one. It is not "Why did Luke break up Matthew's Sermon," but rather, "Why did Luke break up Jesus's sermon?" If it could be established beforehand that the sermon is Matthew's assemblage and not Jesus's lecture notes, the thing could be approached with a more appropriate level of mental equilibrium than heretofore."

          Bruce,
          You are definitely on to something here.  Recognizing that Mt crafted sayings material into five sermons, including the famous Sermon on the Mount, certainly should free one from some emotional baggage.
          It also, though, creates a methodological probability that would favor Lk's not knowing Mt.  Mt is an example of arranging previously random materials to suite his rhetorical purposes.  Mk does the same thing with his narrative materials.  Likewise, Lk creates his trip to Jerusalem motif.
          Do we have any examples of the evangelists dis-assembling material, other than the Sermon on the Mount?  I believe I recall that Mt and Lk tend to leave Mk's order of events alone, but beyond that don't recall having read anything on the topic.
          Chuck
          Rev. Chuck JonesInterim Executive DirectorWestar InstituteThe Jesus Seminar       




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Order in Matthew From: Bruce [Chuck began by agreeing with me on the deleterious effects of approaching
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 22, 2010
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Chuck Jones
            On: Order in Matthew
            From: Bruce

            [Chuck began by agreeing with me on the deleterious effects of
            approaching the Mt Sermon #1 as though it were ipsissima, which is
            always nice. I had perhaps just a few doubts from there on / EBB].

            CHUCK: Recognizing that Mt crafted sayings material into five sermons,
            including the famous Sermon on the Mount, certainly should free one
            from some emotional baggage.
            It also, though, creates a methodological probability that would favor
            Lk's not knowing Mt.

            BRUCE: What Mt did to Mk (or any conjectural source) has, as such,
            nothing whatever to do with Lk. I would think we are free to approach
            that problem separately. And probably should. Time's a-wastin'

            CHUCK: Mt is an example of arranging previously random materials to
            suite his rhetorical purposes.

            BRUCE: Tilt. "Previously random" is not warranted. The only source for
            Mt we have to look at, right there in front of us, is Mk, and I would
            not call Mk "random." I would call it highly purposive and
            intentional. Rearrangements can occur when a later user of this
            material is operating with *different* purposes and intentions. With
            Mt, as he goes along and (as he fancies) improfes on Mk, some of those
            are obvious. The one that chiefly screams out at me (see previous
            post) is reJudaization. Brother Jacob would have been *much* less
            unhappy with Mt than with Mk (of for that matter with his brother
            Jesus); of that I feel certain. And probably plenty of conservative
            Diaspora Jews, the probable Syrian audience of Mt, felt that way too.
            Hence, in fact, Mt. Mt was the expression, in revised Authority
            Narrative form, of just that sensibility.

            CHUCK: Mk does the same thing with his narrative materials.

            BRUCE: Not in evidence. That Mk is a digest of even earlier material
            is not apparent; it needs to be demonstrated. My own studies of Mk
            suggest that it is a primary original narrative, largely factual and
            consecutive (though with some points at which one might look for the
            kind of thing Chuck here asserts), and thus probably coming, on the
            whole, from someone who knew Jesus, into which various later invented
            incidents were inserted for theological and other late communitarian
            reasons. Leading to some inconcinnities which commentators have
            noticed, and by which Pierson Parker was so vastly, if as it seems
            inappropriately, amused.

            When you stick something into a previously consecutive narrative (I am
            thinking ruefully of my own Chapter 6, still being debugged in the
            computer), there are usually bad secondary side effects. These side
            effects (not signs of ignorance, but signs of update) abound in Mk.
            You mess up the original continuity, you mess up your previously
            composed Index, and you mess up your previously composed Index
            Locorum. Mk as a whole, at least to my eye, does not have the
            character of a single selection from unordered previous materials. It
            has the character of my Chapter 6.

            CHUCK: Likewise, Lk creates his trip to Jerusalem motif.

            BRUCE: No he doesn't. Absolutely not correct. He expands it from
            parallel (if shorter) trip to Jerusalem sequences in Mk and (already
            somewhat expanded) in Mt. In Lk, it becomes a major constructional
            principle, occupying about a third of the whole work. This does not
            make Lk independent of Mk, and by the same token, it does not make Lk
            independent of Mt. It gives him credit for taking a strong hand on
            what was already available in the bookstores, as well as stuff he knew
            from his own experience as a Christian (the formulaic bits which are
            the chief post-Goulder exhibits for the Q hypothesis) and probably
            some other stuff, not presently attested because no longer surviving.

            Lk looked at the results of his buying spree in the bookstores, and
            said to himself, Hm, a trip occurs here. I could do something nice
            with that.

            A little like Beethoven with Diabelli's inane little waltz. He did
            not, as he had been assigned to do (people like Like and Ludwig simply
            *hate* being told what to do), write one variation on it, as one page
            in a collaborative enterprise. He wrote a whole set of variations on
            it, every one of them his own. He assaulted the heights of the
            Goldberg Variations, and scaled them with the feather in his cap still
            flying. He ennobled the theme in the process of demolishing it. Luke's
            travel narrative is a little like that. It was for him an expansion
            zone, a free hour and a half of open sermon time. He took one look at
            the Matthean travel section, and he said to himself (as he had earlier
            done with Mt's rather sparse Birth and Infancy narrative), "Buddy, you
            just don't get it. You've got it, but you don't get it. Let me show
            you how these things should be done."

            Sassy, I admit, but it's the sassy people who write the books. No?

            Anyway, surveying the whole scene with the requisite Olympian calm: If
            we like to think of a Trip Trajectory, then the sequence of
            progressive expansion and elaboration and carrying of expositional
            weight in the respective Trip secions strongly suggests Mk > Mt >> Lk,
            where the double arrow means "aware of both the preceding." I have
            reached this result before, but here is another and essentially
            independent demonstration.

            CHUCK; Do we have any examples of the evangelists dis-assembling
            material, other than the Sermon on the Mount?

            BRUCE: Lots. I have several times pointed to Lk's rearrangement of
            material in Mt, the extreme obvious unavoidable instance being the
            Nazareth scene, which he put at the front in his second version (in
            his first version, demonstrably, he had followed Mark) in order to
            stress his "alienation from Judaism" guiding motif. That motif is
            likely to have arisen when Lk later undertook to write Acts, and felt
            the need of a different distribution of material in his Gospel in
            order to provide the proper background and thematic continuity. So he
            went back and reshaped it, and my Goodness, what a mess he made of it
            in some places.

            CHUCK: I believe I recall that Mt and Lk tend to leave Mk's order of
            events alone, but beyond that don't recall having read anything on the
            topic.

            BRUCE: Simply not true, and that fact has been out for decades now. I
            recommend reading the literature. A good start would be Fitzmyer's
            Luke, in the vicinity of p70 and following. Fitzmyer has got Luke's
            major rearrangements of Mk correctly identified, and indeed for the
            most part plausibly explained. He has then not ventured to follow
            where those facts lead, but hey, it was generous of him to leave
            something for those of us who come after. The whole section beginning
            at p63 is well worth a visit, but those in a hurry for the
            rearrangements can start at p71 and go back later.

            Other than my own paper at SBL 2007, I don't know that this basis has
            been built on. Those who have references to share will incur, by
            sharing them, the gratitude of the undersigned.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Chuck Jones
            Bruce, This has inadvertently become a case study in how much our presuppositions affect our analysis. I believe Mt and Lk used Q and Mk, separately.  In
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 22, 2010
              Bruce,
              This has inadvertently become a case study in how much our presuppositions affect our analysis.

              I believe Mt and Lk used Q and Mk, separately.  In which case Mt and Lk left Mk's narrative structure alone, except when a change suited their purposes, (a dramatic example being Lk's relocation and considerable reworking of the Nazareth rejection story).  Likewise, they arranged the material in Q to suite their purposes, Mt having much greater ambitions in this case, creating his 5 sermons.

              I also believe that Mk created the first gospel narrative, out of pieces of tradition that had previously circulated separately or as collections of incidents and teachings that claimed no chronological relationship to each other.

              Even in the absence of a source, the evidence for Mk's doing this is quite strong:
              Ch 1 contains a collection of healing stories in which Jesus quickly becomes rock-star famous.
              Ch 2 contains a collection of conflict stories in which religious leaders reject him and by 3:6 are planning to kill him (3:6 concludes Act 1).
              Act 2 begins with a unit comprised of chs 4 and 5, easily titled "A Day in the Life of Jesus," where Mk is careful to specifically link the episodes together not with a vague "kai" but with "and immediately, or "when they reached the other shore," or etc.
              Act 3 is the passion week, and Mk has saved several conflict stories and set them in the temple court to increase dramatic tension during the week between J's arrival and the arrest.  These stories stand alone and there is no internal indication in any of them that they took place in the temple.

              I'll stop here, but am struck by the extent to which our suppostions feed our analysis, which reinforces our suppositions....  And more importantly, makes it difficult to communicate!

              Chuck
              Rev. Chuck JonesInterim Executive DirectorWestar InstituteThe Jesus Seminar

              --- On Mon, 2/22/10, brooks@... <brooks@...> wrote:

              From: brooks@... <brooks@...>
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Was Matthew's Sermon broken up?
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Cc: "GPG" <gpg@yahoogroups.com>
              Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 4:07 PM
















               









              To: Synoptic

              Cc: GPG

              In Response To: Chuck Jones

              On: Order in Matthew

              From: Bruce



              [Chuck began by agreeing with me on the deleterious effects of

              approaching the Mt Sermon #1 as though it were ipsissima, which is

              always nice. I had perhaps just a few doubts from there on / EBB].



              CHUCK: Recognizing that Mt crafted sayings material into five sermons,

              including the famous Sermon on the Mount, certainly should free one

              from some emotional baggage.

              It also, though, creates a methodological probability that would favor

              Lk's not knowing Mt.



              BRUCE: What Mt did to Mk (or any conjectural source) has, as such,

              nothing whatever to do with Lk. I would think we are free to approach

              that problem separately. And probably should. Time's a-wastin'



              CHUCK: Mt is an example of arranging previously random materials to

              suite his rhetorical purposes.



              BRUCE: Tilt. "Previously random" is not warranted. The only source for

              Mt we have to look at, right there in front of us, is Mk, and I would

              not call Mk "random." I would call it highly purposive and

              intentional. Rearrangements can occur when a later user of this

              material is operating with *different* purposes and intentions. With

              Mt, as he goes along and (as he fancies) improfes on Mk, some of those

              are obvious. The one that chiefly screams out at me (see previous

              post) is reJudaization. Brother Jacob would have been *much* less

              unhappy with Mt than with Mk (of for that matter with his brother

              Jesus); of that I feel certain. And probably plenty of conservative

              Diaspora Jews, the probable Syrian audience of Mt, felt that way too.

              Hence, in fact, Mt. Mt was the expression, in revised Authority

              Narrative form, of just that sensibility.



              CHUCK: Mk does the same thing with his narrative materials.



              BRUCE: Not in evidence. That Mk is a digest of even earlier material

              is not apparent; it needs to be demonstrated. My own studies of Mk

              suggest that it is a primary original narrative, largely factual and

              consecutive (though with some points at which one might look for the

              kind of thing Chuck here asserts), and thus probably coming, on the

              whole, from someone who knew Jesus, into which various later invented

              incidents were inserted for theological and other late communitarian

              reasons. Leading to some inconcinnities which commentators have

              noticed, and by which Pierson Parker was so vastly, if as it seems

              inappropriately, amused.



              When you stick something into a previously consecutive narrative (I am

              thinking ruefully of my own Chapter 6, still being debugged in the

              computer), there are usually bad secondary side effects. These side

              effects (not signs of ignorance, but signs of update) abound in Mk.

              You mess up the original continuity, you mess up your previously

              composed Index, and you mess up your previously composed Index

              Locorum. Mk as a whole, at least to my eye, does not have the

              character of a single selection from unordered previous materials. It

              has the character of my Chapter 6.



              CHUCK: Likewise, Lk creates his trip to Jerusalem motif.



              BRUCE: No he doesn't. Absolutely not correct. He expands it from

              parallel (if shorter) trip to Jerusalem sequences in Mk and (already

              somewhat expanded) in Mt. In Lk, it becomes a major constructional

              principle, occupying about a third of the whole work. This does not

              make Lk independent of Mk, and by the same token, it does not make Lk

              independent of Mt. It gives him credit for taking a strong hand on

              what was already available in the bookstores, as well as stuff he knew

              from his own experience as a Christian (the formulaic bits which are

              the chief post-Goulder exhibits for the Q hypothesis) and probably

              some other stuff, not presently attested because no longer surviving.



              Lk looked at the results of his buying spree in the bookstores, and

              said to himself, Hm, a trip occurs here. I could do something nice

              with that.



              A little like Beethoven with Diabelli's inane little waltz. He did

              not, as he had been assigned to do (people like Like and Ludwig simply

              *hate* being told what to do), write one variation on it, as one page

              in a collaborative enterprise. He wrote a whole set of variations on

              it, every one of them his own. He assaulted the heights of the

              Goldberg Variations, and scaled them with the feather in his cap still

              flying. He ennobled the theme in the process of demolishing it. Luke's

              travel narrative is a little like that. It was for him an expansion

              zone, a free hour and a half of open sermon time. He took one look at

              the Matthean travel section, and he said to himself (as he had earlier

              done with Mt's rather sparse Birth and Infancy narrative), "Buddy, you

              just don't get it. You've got it, but you don't get it. Let me show

              you how these things should be done."



              Sassy, I admit, but it's the sassy people who write the books. No?



              Anyway, surveying the whole scene with the requisite Olympian calm: If

              we like to think of a Trip Trajectory, then the sequence of

              progressive expansion and elaboration and carrying of expositional

              weight in the respective Trip secions strongly suggests Mk > Mt >> Lk,

              where the double arrow means "aware of both the preceding." I have

              reached this result before, but here is another and essentially

              independent demonstration.



              CHUCK; Do we have any examples of the evangelists dis-assembling

              material, other than the Sermon on the Mount?



              BRUCE: Lots. I have several times pointed to Lk's rearrangement of

              material in Mt, the extreme obvious unavoidable instance being the

              Nazareth scene, which he put at the front in his second version (in

              his first version, demonstrably, he had followed Mark) in order to

              stress his "alienation from Judaism" guiding motif. That motif is

              likely to have arisen when Lk later undertook to write Acts, and felt

              the need of a different distribution of material in his Gospel in

              order to provide the proper background and thematic continuity. So he

              went back and reshaped it, and my Goodness, what a mess he made of it

              in some places.



              CHUCK: I believe I recall that Mt and Lk tend to leave Mk's order of

              events alone, but beyond that don't recall having read anything on the

              topic.



              BRUCE: Simply not true, and that fact has been out for decades now. I

              recommend reading the literature. A good start would be Fitzmyer's

              Luke, in the vicinity of p70 and following. Fitzmyer has got Luke's

              major rearrangements of Mk correctly identified, and indeed for the

              most part plausibly explained. He has then not ventured to follow

              where those facts lead, but hey, it was generous of him to leave

              something for those of us who come after. The whole section beginning

              at p63 is well worth a visit, but those in a hurry for the

              rearrangements can start at p71 and go back later.



              Other than my own paper at SBL 2007, I don't know that this basis has

              been built on. Those who have references to share will incur, by

              sharing them, the gratitude of the undersigned.



              Bruce



              E Bruce Brooks

              Warring States Project

              University of Massachusetts at Amherst






























              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Steve Runge
              Chuck, I appreciate your candidness about presuppositions on the Was Matthew s Sermon broken up? thread. I am new to the list, with a background primarily in
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 23, 2010
                Chuck,

                I appreciate your candidness about presuppositions on the "Was Matthew's Sermon broken up?" thread. I am new to the list, with a background primarily in biblical languages and discourse studies. I have been doing research tangential to the synoptic problem, but woould like to work more formally on the issue in the coming year.

                In surveying the synoptic literature, I am struck by how much presuppositions held about sources and compositional history direct the conclusions reached. This raises a practical question about claiming Q as a source regarding macro-level versus micro-level departures from Mark, based on Markan priority.

                Macro: Where there are entire pericopes found in the double tradition that are lacking in Mark, appealing to a sayings source can account for where the material came from. Where there is agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark within the triple tradition, there is again appeal to a source to explain the departure from Mark. This provides an explanation about the source of the material, but sidesteps the issue of motivation. Q is established based on how it differs from Mark. Does Q ever agree with Mark? Why should the evangelists follow Q (or special L or M for that matter) against Mark?

                At the other end of the spectrum, scholars seem quite willing to explain smaller departures (e.g. changes within a clause, delection/addition of individual words or phrases) as made by the writer/redactor based on his compositional purposes. In other words, the changes become too small to make;an appeal to a source necessary or prudent.

                Why do I raise this question? I have been comparing synoptic differences for the last few years as a means of illustrating the pragmatic effects achieved by wording a proposition one way versus another for a forthcoming introduction to discourse grammar. I plan on proposing a paper this fall about the exegetical significance of these minor differences, and how they might inform discussions about the macro-level issues relating to compositional purposes. Regardless of whether Q actually exists or not, the compositional issue remains. I expect the discussion has moved beyond picturing the gospel writers as bumbling redactors, mindlessly copying their sources without stylistic or compositional considerations, at least I hope so.

                At any rate, I would appreciate hearing your opinions regarding at what point appealing to a source becomes impractical. As Chuck noted, answers will inevitably be based on one's presuppositions. If there are relevant sources (no pun intended) that you could recommended, this too would be appreciated.

                Kind regards,

                Steven E. Runge, DLitt
                Scholar-in-Residence
                Logos Bible Software
                srunge@...
                www.ntdiscourse.org



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jones
                Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:17 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Was Matthew's Sermon broken up?

                 
                Bruce,
                This has inadvertently become a case study in how much our presuppositions affect our analysis.

                I believe Mt and Lk used Q and Mk, separately.  In which case Mt and Lk left Mk's narrative structure alone, except when a change suited their purposes, (a dramatic example being Lk's relocation and considerable reworking of the Nazareth rejection story).  Likewise, they arranged the material in Q to suite their purposes, Mt having much greater ambitions in this case, creating his 5 sermons.

                I also believe that Mk created the first gospel narrative, out of pieces of tradition that had previously circulated separately or as collections of incidents and teachings that claimed no chronological relationship to each other.

                Even in the absence of a source, the evidence for Mk's doing this is quite strong:
                Ch 1 contains a collection of healing stories in which Jesus quickly becomes rock-star famous.
                Ch 2 contains a collection of conflict stories in which religious leaders reject him and by 3:6 are planning to kill him (3:6 concludes Act 1).
                Act 2 begins with a unit comprised of chs 4 and 5, easily titled "A Day in the Life of Jesus," where Mk is careful to specifically link the episodes together not with a vague "kai" but with "and immediately, or "when they reached the other shore," or etc.

                Act 3 is the passion week, and Mk has saved several conflict stories and set them in the temple court to increase dramatic tension during the week between J's arrival and the arrest.  These stories stand alone and there is no internal indication in any of them that they took place in the temple.

                I'll stop here, but am struck by the extent to which our suppostions feed our analysis, which reinforces our suppositions....  And more importantly, makes it difficult to communicate!

                Chuck
                Rev. Chuck JonesInterim Executive DirectorWestar InstituteThe Jesus Seminar
              • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
                To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Mark s Sources From: Bruce CHUCK: This has inadvertently become a case study in how much our
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 23, 2010
                  To: Synoptic
                  Cc: GPG
                  In Response To: Chuck Jones
                  On: Mark's Sources
                  From: Bruce

                  CHUCK: This has inadvertently become a case study in how much our
                  presuppositions affect our analysis.

                  BRUCE: Trouble with statements like this is that they trivialize the
                  whole enterprise. If all we find is what we thought in the first
                  place, then those concerned might as well take up a more useful
                  pastime. Birdwatching. Computer solitaire. Whatever.

                  My own sense, quite to the contrary, is that it is sometimes possible
                  to decide between several possible conclusions, and that progress in
                  the subject is made by doing so. I take up the matter in that spirit.

                  On the specific point:

                  CHUCK: I believe Mt and Lk used Q and Mk, separately. In which case Mt
                  and Lk left Mk's narrative structure alone, except when a change
                  suited their purposes, (a dramatic example being Lk's relocation and
                  considerable reworking of the Nazareth rejection story).

                  BRUCE: No problem with Mt and Lk making changes when it suited their
                  purposes. That was my earlier point exactly. Lk in changing Mk does so
                  for reasons. I am glad we now agree that Lk did in fact change Mk.
                  Point gained. Knowledge advanced.

                  CHUCK: Likewise, they arranged the material in Q to suit their
                  purposes, Mt having much greater ambitions in this case, creating his
                  5 sermons.

                  BRUCE: It seems to me that there is a danger of circularity here,
                  since the supposed arrangement of Q is itself an inference. The
                  conventional Q wisdom, I gather, is that Q was ordered as in Lk. I
                  don't find that likely, or at any rate not persuasively argued, and am
                  accordingly not prepared to say that Matthew treated this material
                  more freely, rearranging it out of its original Lukan order. If
                  someone wanted to posit that Q order was Matthean order, then it would
                  turn out that *Luke* treated the material more freely. Goulder's
                  findings, repeatedly and politely urged in the literature, is that the
                  wording of the common Mt/Lk sayings is basically Matthean, and that
                  the Q people have removed those traits to produce their Q
                  reconstruction, producing an artifact text from which Mt and Lk can be
                  argued to have diverged. But the artifact may have been produced by
                  de-Mattheanizing the material in the first place. In which case we are
                  dealing with a chimera.

                  In general, I would rather acquire an understanding of Lukan and
                  Matthean proclivities by seeing what they did with material which (or
                  very close to which) we can also see. I would thus like to bypass this
                  point for the time being. I don't think the world is ready for it.

                  CHUCK: I also believe that Mk created the first gospel narrative, out
                  of pieces of tradition that had previously circulated separately or as
                  collections of incidents and teachings that claimed no chronological
                  relationship to each other.

                  BRUCE: Agreed that Mark created the first Gospel narrative. But the
                  rest of the sentence gets into a description of the character,
                  aetiology, and internal relationships of material that is not directly
                  visible to us: a description of an assumption. Here too, I would
                  rather pass the point for the moment and look at something we can
                  actually see. To understand the invisible, look carefully at the
                  visible. This, fortunately, Chuck proceeds to do. To save space here,
                  I will not take up his Markan Acts 2 and 3 (though agreeing in general
                  that Mk had some sort of groundplan in mind), and look only at his
                  first two points. The first was:

                  CHUCK: Even in the absence of a source, the evidence for Mk's doing
                  this is quite strong:

                  Ch 1 contains a collection of healing stories in which Jesus quickly
                  becomes rock-star famous.

                  BRUCE: Literarily speaking, it presently stands as a narrative, not
                  precisely an anthology, albeit a narrative that includes healings.
                  Close enough to discuss. Along in somewhere, though, I think we have
                  to take note of the likelihood that the Healing of the Paralytic is an
                  intrusion into the Capernaum synagogue scene, and that several of the
                  other healings in this vicinity have been either added or touched up
                  by later hands. There are too many classic signs of interpolation in
                  Mark to argue from Mark, as we have it, to the author's intentions or
                  propensities. I wish it were simpler, and I myself began (like
                  everybody else, I suppose) by approaching it as though it *were*
                  simpler, but on long acquaintance I have had to relinquish that
                  initial expectation. So it goes.

                  To continue:

                  CHUCK: Ch 2 contains a collection of conflict stories in which
                  religious leaders reject him and by 3:6 are planning to kill him (3:6
                  concludes Act 1).

                  BRUCE: Let's look. I would class 2:1-12 (including the Healing of the
                  Paralytic) chiefly as a healing story, and thus in the same type class
                  as 1:40-45 (the Cleansing of the Leper). A conflict over doctrine (the
                  power to forgive sins) was later inserted into this healing miracle
                  (notice how narratively awkward 2:6 is - "Now some of the scribes were
                  sitting there"). But if we disregard the later addition, we can say
                  that the narrative which is studded with healings (not the same as an
                  anthology of healings) extends to 2:12.

                  What follows? I find:

                  2:13-14. [Calling of Levi. Narrative material].
                  2:15-17. Conflict with Pharisees about eating with unclean persons.
                  2:18-20. Conflict with "people" over not keeping fast days.
                  2:21-22. [Sayings about new not fitting old - not a conflict story].
                  2:23-28. Conflict with Pharisees about work on the Sabbath.
                  3:-6. Conflict with Pharisees about healing on the Sabbath.

                  Here too, I think we have to prune a bit before we can see Mark's
                  tree. I mentioned 2:18-20 earlier, as a manifest case of legislation
                  for the later Church (when fasting had been reintroduced into
                  community practice), and thus as an intrusion. I suggest removing it
                  for the nonce, if we want to get at Mark's original structure.

                  Having removed it, we have . . .

                  2:13-14. [Calling of Levi. Narrative material].
                  2:15-17. Conflict with Pharisees about eating with unclean persons.
                  2:21-22. [Sayings about new not fitting old - not a conflict story].
                  2:23-28. Conflict with Pharisees about work on the Sabbath.
                  3:-6. Conflict with Pharisees about healing on the Sabbath.


                  . . . a narrative studded, not with healings, but with conflicts. This
                  is not quite an anthology, but it would be fair to call it a
                  concentration: the stories seem to have been grouped to make a point,
                  the point being that Jesus's healings and other doings (previous
                  narrative) produced tension with the Pharisees (this narrative).

                  Assuming these incidents genuine, was this their original order? I
                  would guess not; there has very probably been an authorial
                  concentration for narrative effect. The Markan narrative is not a life
                  of Jesus, it is an explanation of what led to his death, and so we
                  have an early emphasis on the success and power of Jesus, and next a
                  sense of the opposition which that aroused, specifically among the
                  Pharisees.

                  Did these incidents happen, or are they inventions? If the latter,
                  invented by who? I don't see a way of answering this directly. If Mark
                  made them up, he will have said to himself, I will now compose my
                  Conflict section. If they were real and Mark somehow had access to
                  them, he has arranged them to suit his narrative purpose.

                  Suppose first that the stories existed before he arranged them.
                  Existed where? Among the options are: (1) In Mark's memory, as a
                  follower of Jesus. (2) In the memory of some other follower, somehow
                  accessed by Mark. (3) In the collective memory of more than one
                  person, in which case we must posit a previous effort of collection,
                  most likely resulting in a text. But if we adopt this option, we are
                  going to find ourselves positing a Healing Collection for Mk 1, a
                  Conflict Collection for Mk 2, and so on to the end. Some intermediary
                  person, or more likely half a dozen, have done what Mark will need as
                  background for his Gospel, without himself (themselves) going on to
                  compose Mark's Gospel. Are these six previous monothematic collections
                  plausible? For me, it is about at this point that the supposition
                  appears to lead to a highly schematic and improbable situation. I then
                  go back and take the other fork: This material was available to Mark
                  because as a follower of Jesus he remembered it. And then bunched it
                  in his narrative according to his intentions and purposes with that
                  narrative.

                  MORE

                  These instances will do to raise the question of the anthology, and
                  thus of the possibility of a prior group or groups of material. But to
                  my eye, the clearest example of the type comes a little later, with
                  the Kingdom parables of 4:1-33 (omitting the intrusion 4:10-20, about
                  which I have recently written). And why? Because at the end, it says,
                  "With many such parables he spoke the Word to them." The preceding
                  parables, some of which cause very great trouble to later
                  interpreters, and are for that reason more likely to be genuine, are
                  here explicitly offered as "the kind of thing Jesus used to say to the
                  crowds." The impression which I at least get from this is that Mark
                  knows even more of them, but he has given us a sufficient sample for
                  his purposes, and he is going to move on to his next topic.

                  So do we now posit a previous person interested only in Kingdom
                  stories and nothing else, who traveled up and down Galilee/Syria
                  gathering such stories from people, each of whom remembered only one
                  of them, and combining them into a text which Mark later used (with
                  several other texts of similar type but different theme) a a source?
                  The assumption that one follower of Jesus collected them in memory,
                  not as an monothematic enterprise of oral history but simply as an
                  incident of being one of the party, does the same work of explanation
                  and it uses about five less people in the dramatis personae.

                  For the present, I prefer it. Not as an assumption, but after due
                  inspection of the material, the different explanatory possibilities
                  for the material, and the implications in real life to which each of
                  those explanatory possibilities leads. In short, the usual way of
                  testing hypotheses and fixing on one of them as one's working
                  conclusion.

                  I don't think gMk was written by a later ethnographer, let alone a
                  team of later ethnographers plus a subsequent staff writer. I think
                  that the core narrative (into which later Church Teachings were
                  inserted as validation authority for later practices and issues) was
                  the work of one person, and that that person used his own experience
                  in the Jesus movement as his principal, and perhaps his only, source.

                  I have earlier noted that it may be fruitful to consider that Luke was
                  a Christian. To that apparently radical proposal, I now add the
                  possibility that Mark may have been a Jesus follower. Not, like
                  ourselves, a searcher of previous documents who knows only what he
                  finds in the documents, and nothing more.

                  Respectfully suggested,

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                • Chuck Jones
                  Steve, Excellent post.  Thanks for sharing it. I have been struck by Lk s insertion of the phrase holy spirit in his gospel.  Each time he does it, it adds
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 24, 2010
                    Steve,
                    Excellent post.  Thanks for sharing it.

                    I have been struck by Lk's insertion of the phrase "holy spirit" in his gospel.  Each time he does it, it adds only three words (and is therefore an excellent example of an editorial change not based on a source), and no single one of them profoundly changes the meaning of its passage.  But the way the cumulative effect sets the stage for Acts is remarkable.

                    Likewise, why does Mt have "kingdom of heaven" rather than "kingdom of god"?

                    I think you're on to something with your thesis.  One of my professors used to say, "he who frames the terms wins the debate."

                    Chuck

                    Chuck Jones
                    Interim Executive Director
                    Westar Institute
                    The Jesus Seminar
                    --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Steve Runge <srunge@...> wrote:

                    Chuck,

                    I appreciate your candidness about presuppositions on the "Was Matthew's Sermon broken up?" thread. I am new to the list, with a background primarily in biblical languages and discourse studies. I have been doing research tangential to the synoptic problem, but woould like to work more formally on the issue in the coming year.

                    In surveying the synoptic literature, I am struck by how much presuppositions held about sources and compositional history direct the conclusions reached. This raises a practical question about claiming Q as a source regarding macro-level versus micro-level departures from Mark, based on Markan priority.

                    Macro: Where there are entire pericopes found in the double tradition that are lacking in Mark, appealing to a sayings source can account for where the material came from. Where there is agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark within the triple tradition, there is again appeal to a source to explain the departure from Mark. This provides an explanation about the source of the material, but sidesteps the issue of motivation. Q is established based on how it differs from Mark. Does Q ever agree with Mark? Why should the evangelists follow Q (or special L or M for that matter) against Mark?

                    At the other end of the spectrum, scholars seem quite willing to explain smaller departures (e.g. changes within a clause, delection/addition of individual words or phrases) as made by the writer/redactor based on his compositional purposes. In other words, the changes become too small to make;an appeal to a source necessary or prudent.

                    Why do I raise this question? I have been comparing synoptic differences for the last few years as a means of illustrating the pragmatic effects achieved by wording a proposition one way versus another for a forthcoming introduction to discourse grammar. I plan on proposing a paper this fall about the exegetical significance of these minor differences, and how they might inform discussions about the macro-level issues relating to compositional purposes. Regardless of whether Q actually exists or not, the compositional issue remains. I expect the discussion has moved beyond picturing the gospel writers as bumbling redactors, mindlessly copying their sources without stylistic or compositional considerations, at least I hope so.

                    At any rate, I would appreciate hearing your opinions regarding at what point appealing to a source becomes impractical. As Chuck noted, answers will inevitably be based on one's presuppositions. If there are relevant sources (no pun intended) that you could recommended, this too would be appreciated.

                    Kind regards,


                    Steven E. Runge, DLitt
                    Scholar-in-Residenc e
                    Logos Bible Software
                    srunge@logos. com

                    www.ntdiscourse. org






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Chuck Jones
                    Bruce, Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Rather than going line by line or paragraph by paragraph, here are a few thoughts: 1.  It is indeed progress for
                    Message 9 of 11 , Feb 24, 2010
                      Bruce,

                      Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Rather than going line by line or paragraph by paragraph, here are a few thoughts:

                      1.  It is indeed progress for us to agree that Mk arranged material thematically to suit his literary and rhetorical purposes.  The key point is that we can see this through an examination of Mk, even in the absence of a source with which to make comparisons.  (A topic for another day:  I do not believe that Mk as we have it is the result of multiple editions or major redactions.)
                      2.  Let's pretend we didn't have Lk for a moment.  Using the same literary analysis, we would conclude, I think, that it is highly likely that Mt created five sermons by grouping teachings together thematically.

                      3.  A principle is at work in the above points:  the more thematically a set of materials is arranged in a synoptic gospel, the more likely it is the work of the redactor, especially when we can see the arrangement advancing the author's cause.  Mk wants to set his plot dilemma as quickly as possible, establishing in chs. 1 and 2 that even though Jesus is wildly popular with the people, religious leaders oppose him and are trying to kill him.  Mt wants to frame Jesus as the new Moses.
                      4.  I have no idea what in what order the material in Q might have been.  One certainly sees sections of Lk in which themes are addressed.  Does it seem a safe hypothesis than when we come across double tradition material in Lk that has not been thematically arranged, it probably reflects its original order in Q?  This would be a simple appeal to Lk and Mt's use of the order of Mk, which they left alone when they were not pursuing literary or rhetorical goals.

                      I'll stop here.  I'm enjoying the dialogue.

                      Chuck

                      Chuck JonesInterim Executive DirectorWestar InstituteThe Jesus Seminar

                      --- On Tue, 2/23/10, brooks@... <brooks@...> wrote:

                      In Response To: Chuck Jones

                      On: Mark's Sources

                      From: Bruce



                      CHUCK: This has inadvertently become a case study in how much our

                      presuppositions affect our analysis.



                      BRUCE: Trouble with statements like this is that they trivialize the

                      whole enterprise. If all we find is what we thought in the first

                      place, then those concerned might as well take up a more useful

                      pastime. Birdwatching. Computer solitaire. Whatever.



                      My own sense, quite to the
                      contrary, is that it is sometimes possible

                      to decide between several possible conclusions, and that progress in

                      the subject is made by doing so. I take up the matter in that spirit.



                      On the specific point:



                      CHUCK: I believe Mt and Lk used Q and Mk, separately. In which case Mt

                      and Lk left Mk's narrative structure alone, except when a change

                      suited their purposes, (a dramatic example being Lk's relocation and

                      considerable reworking of the Nazareth rejection story).



                      BRUCE: No problem with Mt and Lk making changes when it suited their

                      purposes. That was my earlier point exactly. Lk in changing Mk does so

                      for reasons. I am glad we now agree that Lk did in fact change Mk.

                      Point gained. Knowledge advanced.



                      CHUCK: Likewise, they arranged the material in Q to suit their

                      purposes, Mt having much greater ambitions in this
                      case, creating his

                      5 sermons.



                      BRUCE: It seems to me that there is a danger of circularity here,

                      since the supposed arrangement of Q is itself an inference. The

                      conventional Q wisdom, I gather, is that Q was ordered as in Lk. I

                      don't find that likely, or at any rate not persuasively argued, and am

                      accordingly not prepared to say that Matthew treated this material

                      more freely, rearranging it out of its original Lukan order. If

                      someone wanted to posit that Q order was Matthean order, then it would

                      turn out that *Luke* treated the material more freely. Goulder's

                      findings, repeatedly and politely urged in the literature, is that the

                      wording of the common Mt/Lk sayings is basically Matthean, and that

                      the Q people have removed those traits to produce their Q

                      reconstruction, producing an artifact text from which Mt and Lk can be


                      argued to have diverged. But the artifact may have been produced by

                      de-Mattheanizing the material in the first place. In which case we are

                      dealing with a chimera.



                      In general, I would rather acquire an understanding of Lukan and

                      Matthean proclivities by seeing what they did with material which (or

                      very close to which) we can also see. I would thus like to bypass this

                      point for the time being. I don't think the world is ready for it.



                      CHUCK: I also believe that Mk created the first gospel narrative, out

                      of pieces of tradition that had previously circulated separately or as

                      collections of incidents and teachings that claimed no chronological

                      relationship to each other.



                      BRUCE: Agreed that Mark created the first Gospel narrative. But the

                      rest of the sentence gets into a description of the character,

                      aetiology, and
                      internal relationships of material that is not directly

                      visible to us: a description of an assumption. Here too, I would

                      rather pass the point for the moment and look at something we can

                      actually see. To understand the invisible, look carefully at the

                      visible. This, fortunately, Chuck proceeds to do. To save space here,

                      I will not take up his Markan Acts 2 and 3 (though agreeing in general

                      that Mk had some sort of groundplan in mind), and look only at his

                      first two points. The first was:



                      CHUCK: Even in the absence of a source, the evidence for Mk's doing

                      this is quite strong:



                      Ch 1 contains a collection of healing stories in which Jesus quickly

                      becomes rock-star famous.



                      BRUCE: Literarily speaking, it presently stands as a narrative, not

                      precisely an anthology, albeit a narrative that includes healings.

                      Close
                      enough to discuss. Along in somewhere, though, I think we have

                      to take note of the likelihood that the Healing of the Paralytic is an

                      intrusion into the Capernaum synagogue scene, and that several of the

                      other healings in this vicinity have been either added or touched up

                      by later hands. There are too many classic signs of interpolation in

                      Mark to argue from Mark, as we have it, to the author's intentions or

                      propensities. I wish it were simpler, and I myself began (like

                      everybody else, I suppose) by approaching it as though it *were*

                      simpler, but on long acquaintance I have had to relinquish that

                      initial expectation. So it goes.



                      To continue:



                      CHUCK: Ch 2 contains a collection of conflict stories in which

                      religious leaders reject him and by 3:6 are planning to kill him (3:6

                      concludes Act 1).



                      BRUCE: Let's look. I
                      would class 2:1-12 (including the Healing of the

                      Paralytic) chiefly as a healing story, and thus in the same type class

                      as 1:40-45 (the Cleansing of the Leper). A conflict over doctrine (the

                      power to forgive sins) was later inserted into this healing miracle

                      (notice how narratively awkward 2:6 is - "Now some of the scribes were

                      sitting there"). But if we disregard the later addition, we can say

                      that the narrative which is studded with healings (not the same as an

                      anthology of healings) extends to 2:12.



                      What follows? I find:



                      2:13-14. [Calling of Levi. Narrative material].

                      2:15-17. Conflict with Pharisees about eating with unclean persons.

                      2:18-20. Conflict with "people" over not keeping fast days.

                      2:21-22. [Sayings about new not fitting old - not a conflict story].

                      2:23-28. Conflict with Pharisees about work on the
                      Sabbath.

                      3:-6. Conflict with Pharisees about healing on the Sabbath.



                      Here too, I think we have to prune a bit before we can see Mark's

                      tree. I mentioned 2:18-20 earlier, as a manifest case of legislation

                      for the later Church (when fasting had been reintroduced into

                      community practice), and thus as an intrusion. I suggest removing it

                      for the nonce, if we want to get at Mark's original structure.



                      Having removed it, we have . . .



                      2:13-14. [Calling of Levi. Narrative material].

                      2:15-17. Conflict with Pharisees about eating with unclean persons.

                      2:21-22. [Sayings about new not fitting old - not a conflict story].

                      2:23-28. Conflict with Pharisees about work on the Sabbath.

                      3:-6. Conflict with Pharisees about healing on the Sabbath.



                      . . . a narrative studded, not with healings, but with conflicts. This

                      is not quite an
                      anthology, but it would be fair to call it a

                      concentration: the stories seem to have been grouped to make a point,

                      the point being that Jesus's healings and other doings (previous

                      narrative) produced tension with the Pharisees (this narrative).



                      Assuming these incidents genuine, was this their original order? I

                      would guess not; there has very probably been an authorial

                      concentration for narrative effect. The Markan narrative is not a life

                      of Jesus, it is an explanation of what led to his death, and so we

                      have an early emphasis on the success and power of Jesus, and next a

                      sense of the opposition which that aroused, specifically among the

                      Pharisees.



                      Did these incidents happen, or are they inventions? If the latter,

                      invented by who? I don't see a way of answering this directly. If Mark

                      made them up, he will have said to himself,
                      I will now compose my

                      Conflict section. If they were real and Mark somehow had access to

                      them, he has arranged them to suit his narrative purpose.



                      Suppose first that the stories existed before he arranged them.

                      Existed where? Among the options are: (1) In Mark's memory, as a

                      follower of Jesus. (2) In the memory of some other follower, somehow

                      accessed by Mark. (3) In the collective memory of more than one

                      person, in which case we must posit a previous effort of collection,

                      most likely resulting in a text. But if we adopt this option, we are

                      going to find ourselves positing a Healing Collection for Mk 1, a

                      Conflict Collection for Mk 2, and so on to the end. Some intermediary

                      person, or more likely half a dozen, have done what Mark will need as

                      background for his Gospel, without himself (themselves) going on to

                      compose Mark's Gospel.
                      Are these six previous monothematic collections

                      plausible? For me, it is about at this point that the supposition

                      appears to lead to a highly schematic and improbable situation. I then

                      go back and take the other fork: This material was available to Mark

                      because as a follower of Jesus he remembered it. And then bunched it

                      in his narrative according to his intentions and purposes with that

                      narrative.



                      MORE



                      These instances will do to raise the question of the anthology, and

                      thus of the possibility of a prior group or groups of material. But to

                      my eye, the clearest example of the type comes a little later, with

                      the Kingdom parables of 4:1-33 (omitting the intrusion 4:10-20, about

                      which I have recently written). And why? Because at the end, it says,

                      "With many such parables he spoke the Word to them." The preceding


                      parables, some of which cause very great trouble to later

                      interpreters, and are for that reason more likely to be genuine, are

                      here explicitly offered as "the kind of thing Jesus used to say to the

                      crowds." The impression which I at least get from this is that Mark

                      knows even more of them, but he has given us a sufficient sample for

                      his purposes, and he is going to move on to his next topic.



                      So do we now posit a previous person interested only in Kingdom

                      stories and nothing else, who traveled up and down Galilee/Syria

                      gathering such stories from people, each of whom remembered only one

                      of them, and combining them into a text which Mark later used (with

                      several other texts of similar type but different theme) a a source?

                      The assumption that one follower of Jesus collected them in memory,

                      not as an monothematic enterprise of oral
                      history but simply as an

                      incident of being one of the party, does the same work of explanation

                      and it uses about five less people in the dramatis personae.



                      For the present, I prefer it. Not as an assumption, but after due

                      inspection of the material, the different explanatory possibilities

                      for the material, and the implications in real life to which each of

                      those explanatory possibilities leads. In short, the usual way of

                      testing hypotheses and fixing on one of them as one's working

                      conclusion.



                      I don't think gMk was written by a later ethnographer, let alone a

                      team of later ethnographers plus a subsequent staff writer. I think

                      that the core narrative (into which later Church Teachings were

                      inserted as validation authority for later practices and issues) was

                      the work of one person, and that that person used his own experience


                      in the Jesus movement as his principal, and perhaps his only, source.



                      I have earlier noted that it may be fruitful to consider that Luke was

                      a Christian. To that apparently radical proposal, I now add the

                      possibility that Mark may have been a Jesus follower. Not, like

                      ourselves, a searcher of previous documents who knows only what he

                      finds in the documents, and nothing more.



                      Respectfully suggested,



                      Bruce



                      E Bruce Brooks

                      Warring States Project

                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst







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