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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Expand Messages
  • lmbarre@gmail.com
    Richard, Why the interrogation? I majored in Hebrew Language and Literature at Vanderbilt and minored in New Testament Literature. I was successfully
    Message 1 of 44 , Jan 3, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Richard,

      Why the interrogation? I majored in Hebrew Language and Literature at
      Vanderbilt and minored in New Testament Literature. I was successfully
      awarded a doctorate by my dissertation committee that included the New
      Testament professor Daniel Patte. I also received an A- from Gerd Luedemann
      for the work I submitted to him on 1Timothy. Why don't you ask them about
      my competency? I shall not answer any more of your unnecessary questions.
      Please go pick on somebody else. You waste my time.

      If you think I am incompetent, then let the list rip me apart and so you
      shall be gratified that a poser has been exposed and rightfully humiliated.
      Your interrogation is patronizing and frankly annoying. I should hope that
      you do not do this to everyone who seeks to participate in this list's
      discussion.

      LM Barré
      -------Original Message-------

      From: Richard Godwin
      Date: 1/3/2013 10:03:20 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark


      Thanks for your reply. What Greek lexicon do you use? Or do you use more
      than one? Since lexicons offer numbers of translations, how can you say you
      use one "directly"? Don't you have to pick from the possibilities? What is
      primary data"? Is it a Greek version, but which one? The Aland? Doesn't the
      question of probability corrupt the idea of "primary data," since no
      original exists and there are many differences among mss.? So what text, and
      how do you decide?

      I'm sorry I gave the impression of not allowing you to post, and that you
      think I am meddling. My apology, sir. Of course this is Greek, not Hebrew. I
      see good discussion here, and no evidence at all for a "thought policeman."
      Again sorry, but I see psychological projection from you.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: lmbarre@...
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

      Sir,

      I have access to the Greek New Testament and I know something about
      linguistics as I have taught classical Hebrew to graduate students at
      Vanderbilt. My minor was New Testament Literature and I do have a doctorate

      No, I can use a Greek lexicon and translate the Greek directly.

      I have just started with my research into the Gospel of Mark. I work with
      the primary data first, the text, and later consult the secondary scholarly
      literature when I am preparing to submit to publication. I am simply at
      the beginning stages of my research.

      I have been published in journals on the Hebrew Bible in ZAW, JSOT, VT, CBQ,
      CBQMS, Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. It just seems like you are looking
      for bogus reasons to not let me post. I certainly have the qualifications
      of a graduate student in New Testament.

      For that matter, what can you tell me about the the scholarship of
      pMark=proto-Mark=gMark="Ur-Markus?" Not much I expect. If so, simply
      demonstrate that your are familiar with this topic.

      My case for pMark is solid and probable. It will not be undermined by some
      reference to the original Greek as you imply.

      You colleague, Jeffrey Gibson, seems to be the official thought policeman
      for several e-lists: I find his annoying censorship at Ane-2, Kata Markon,
      Synoptic-L, Corpus-Paulinus and I think X-talk. As far as I now, my
      publication record is better than his and yet he presumes to judge my
      scholarship. I may well be wrong, but his greatest achievement seems to be
      giving papers a SBL conventions (which I have also done).

      Sir, I am dedicated to advancing knowledge in the field of the literature of
      the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament. Why don't you step aside and get
      on with it? You just seem to be meddling and have petty concerns. My posts
      will demonstrate that I am quite competent to partake of your forum.

      Sincerely,

      LM Barré
      -------Original Message-------

      From: Richard Godwin
      Date: 1/2/2013 12:55:15 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

      1. Beginning Greek (which is all I had too) simply is not sufficient.

      2. Only the Greek counts, so if you need English to tell you what the Greek
      says, you're out of luck.

      3. So you admit you have not examined scholarship on the subject.

      Whoops!

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: lmbarre@...
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

      1. A year of Koine Greek
      2. Both English and Greek
      3. Nothing.

      LM Barré
      -------Original Message-------

      From: Jgibson
      Date: 1/2/2013 6:28:36 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

      Quick questions for LMB.

      1. What is the nature and extent of your proficiency in Greek?

      2. Are your views on the seams in GMark based upon an analysis of the
      Greek text of the Gospel or some English translation of it?

      3. Besides what is found in the link you gave us to "Passion Narrative
      research", what other scholarly studies of the Passion Narrative in Mark
      have you read?

      JG

      --
      ---
      Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd
      Chicago, IL
      jgibson000@...

      [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
      View Source
      • 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.