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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    I agree with that, LM. But I think I am one of very few on this list that takes the position that Mk worked from sources as did Mt and Lk. Chuck Rev. Chuck
    Message 1 of 44 , Jan 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with that, LM. But I think I am one of very few on this list that takes the position that Mk worked from sources as did Mt and Lk.

      Chuck

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jan 2, 2013, at 5:10 PM, "lmbarre@..." <lmbarre@...> wrote:

      > Yes, but if Mark did expand pMark, he is very much like Mt and Lk.
      >
      > LM Barré
      >
      >
      > -------Original Message-------
      >
      > From: Chuck Jones
      > Date: 1/2/2013 12:11:31 PM
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
      >
      >
      > Richard,
      >
      > Thanks for your insight--this is why I asked for clarification. I struggle
      > with terminology here. By "free composed" I didn't mean "made up from his
      > imagination;" but rather that he did not act as a writer-editor as Mt and Lk
      > did.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Chuck
      >
      > Rev. Chuck Jones
      > Atlanta, Georgia
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:58 AM
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
      >
      >
      >
      > Not free composed, but rather based on tradition. Since probably there were
      > different traditions during this time of the following generation of
      > followers, this might be considered only one of the traditions, not
      > necessarily the "best." Your logical fallacy overlooks that lack of a claim
      > does not support an opposite claim. I don't think Ron intended a complete
      > presentation there.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Chuck Jones
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:29 AM
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
      >
      > Ron,
      >
      > Excellent comments. This snip caught my eye due to its minimalism--you wrote
      >
      >
      > "Of course the gospel story is built on a core of historical events, but as
      > I see it the evidence indicates that Mark had only one written source
      > document originating in the first century, namely a collection of aphorisms
      > attributed to Jesus. This collection has a patristic mention, a
      > distinguishable literary style, and a clear Sitz im Leben."
      >
      > Are you saying that Mark free-composed everything in his gospel except for
      > the (handful of) aphorisms? He composed the parables, for example? And all
      > of the scenes, characters and dialogue in the passion narrative?
      >
      > I'd appreciate hearing more about your thoughts on this.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Chuck
      >
      > Rev. Chuck Jones
      > Atlanta, Georgia
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic In Response To: L M Barré On: pMark From: Bruce LMB: I have to say that I think you err not to conclude that we have in euthus and marker of the
      Message 44 of 44 , Jan 7, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: L M Barré
        On: pMark
        From: Bruce

        LMB: I have to say that I think you err not to conclude that we have in
        euthus and marker of the Markan redaction.

        EBB: Euthus is characteristic of Mark, but whether of redaction (editing of
        prior material) or composition (authorial material) I think we cannot say.
        There is also the question, not separately examined, of whether euthus is
        equally typical of the later material in Mark. The answer according to my
        own investigation is: not as much so. But there are also themes and modes in
        what I take to be original mark where euthus (immediacy in narrative) would
        not apply in any case, and if late Mark is turning to those questions (eg,
        how soon will the Second Coming be), then the style change is simply an
        artifact of the topic change. The continuing authorship or proprietorship of
        the single author (call him Mark or whatever) is not precluded.

        LMB: . So also is the much repeated "amazement" motif, which I take as
        another indicator of Markan redaction.

        EBB: Again, I sort of agree, and have used that test myself, following Dwyer
        1996 (though I think it is possible to refine his data set). But again,
        there are types of material in Mark that do not invite that motif. It would
        take more precision to make "amazement" an indicator of Markan vs
        post-Markan material.

        LMB: but also with typical repetition (another Markan stylistic marker), the
        thrice predicted passion, death and resurrection.

        EBB: I agree with Yarbro Collins that the triplets (and I would add,
        including the Passion Predictions) are late in Mark. I would not call them
        non-Markan, but they are a device of style which occurred to the late Mark,
        and were not present in the relatively straightforward early Mark.

        LMB: Let me here add that I think that the ending of Mark is indeed lost and
        that the current ending in 16:8 is not deliberate. The reason why it is
        noted that the women said nothing, is to prepare for the Great Astonishment,
        that Jesus was alive. This would be all the more shocking because they were
        unaware of the empty tomb "information" due to the women's silence.

        EBB: I agree that 16:8 was not meant to be the end of Mark, and that our
        text is artificially abbreviated. Matthew's supplied ending owes details to
        other texts, and does not come from his seeing a more complete version of
        Mark (there was none in his time), but is a good normal guess at what the
        ending might have contained, at least on the circumstantial level.

        LMB: In the logic of the story of Mark's redaction, the predicted appearance
        in Galilee is not particularly freighted. Where else would they go but home?
        Where more appropriate for Jesus to meet up with them?

        EBB: I think weight must be given to the pair of interpolations I mentioned
        earlier: 14:28 and 16:7. These predict that the disciples will see Jesus in
        Galilee. What if the story had continued without those predictions?
        Evidently in the way that the insertions predict: they would see Jesus in
        Galilee. What then do the predictions add? Simply this: Jesus's
        foreknowledge of that event. Without that element, Jesus's appearance would
        have been a surprise, not only to the disciples, but to Jesus himself. The
        prediction puts him back in control, has him fully anticipating, and thus
        fully accepting, the end of his life and its sequel.

        Bruce

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