RE: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
- I have stayed out of this as long as I could, but now feel obliged to reply (so please everyone let me know to keep quiet in the future if I am out of line). I find this kind of ad hominem attack very distasteful, as it suggests that unless you have a specific list of qualifications and/or experience in a particular field then there is nothing you can bring to the table that has any value, and hence there is no point in even examining your work. To me this is blatantly ridiculous, since it is often the ‘out of the box’ thinking that is exactly what is needed to break a ‘log jam,’ and very often it is ONLY those people outside the mainstream (who may well have non-traditional qualifications and/or experience) who can advance the thinking in any particular field. Therefore, rather than dismiss out of hand someone who is not able to check all the boxes on any particular ‘qualification list,’ I think the only right and proper way to go is to examine the argument itself. If the argument has no merit, then I’m sure that anyone with all the ‘required qualifications’ will be easily able to point this out.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Godwin
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
Well, it appears everyone now is talking about the Greek language, not Hebrew. So a NT professor was present: that doesn't indicate what you think. I did not say, nor do I think, you are incompetent, but rather just as not much so as you think and claim to be. So you pass off critical examination as patronizing and annoying? That tells more about you than anything else.
----- Original Message -----
From: lmbarre@... <mailto:lmbarre%40gmail.com>
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- To: Synoptic
In Response To: L M Barré
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
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.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst