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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Expand Messages
  • lmbarre@gmail.com
    At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to certain Stylistic features common in Mark s gospel and said that they are secondary To
    Message 1 of 44 , Jan 5, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      "At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to certain
      Stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are secondary
      To ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
      Evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative?"

      I am taken aback that you have to ask this. The evidence of redaction was
      given in the first post in this thread.

      What hinders you from coming to a conclusion based upon this evidence?

      Do you find it somehow coincidental that I have listed eight examples where
      the narrative flow is interrupted and then resumes across the flow of an
      alleged insertion? It appears to me that you are arbitrarily pulling back
      from a most probable conclusion regarding the existence of pMark. Rather
      than being overly credulous upon inadequate evidence, you making the
      opposite error of irrational skepticism in the face of strong evidence for
      the thesis. Nor am I alone in adopting this position. As noted, pMark is a
      thesis embraced by many scholars who have dealt with PN.

      The proper amount of skepticism is determined by what evidence would warrant
      a conclusion or refrain from making one. In this case, I think that
      evidence pMark is such that your skepticism is not warranted. Perhaps you
      might go back to those examples I offered and address each specifically to
      justify your skepticism. Otherwise, it would seem that your skepticism is
      excessive and irrational as is your failure to recognize what is obvious
      evidence for the existence of pMark.

      As it is, it does not seem that you are able to properly assess objectively
      the probability of the thesis let alone recognize what is the evidence in
      favor of it. So while conveying the impression that you are being cautious
      and judicious, you are in fact in a state of academic denial.

      Such a reaction is entirely expected. First, from conservative scholars who
      because of some dogmatism, do not want to admit to redactional activity as
      it threatens to "destabilize" a sacred text. Second, form anyone with a
      vested interest in Markan scholarship that presumes a unified document and
      thus do not want to admit that such research is vulnerable to the conclusion
      that it is fatally flawed. Needless, to say, it makes a great exegetical
      different if the Gospel of Mark is unified or of composite authorship. The
      issue if fundamental to the interpretation of the Gospel on every level. As
      it turns out, from my perspective, an crucial oversight has been committed,
      even though the issue should be considered in the face of PN research. It
      is rather like trying to interpret the Pentateuch without recourse to the
      Documentary Hypothesis.

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

      From: Ronald Price
      Date: 01/05/13 09:04:10
      To: Synoptic-L
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark


      LM wrote:

      > I chose these two motifs ['immediately' and 'amazement'] because of their
      > excessive repetition and thus indicate an aspect of authorial style. It
      does
      > proceed from the evidence of a redaction of an underlying narrative, which
      I
      > find to be quite compelling.
      > Would you not agree?

      LM,

      At this stage I can neither agree nor disagree. You have pointed to certain
      stylistic features common in Mark's gospel and said that they are secondary
      to ("proceed from") the evidence of redaction. So what exactly is the
      evidence for redaction of an underlying narrative? Quoting examples is not
      the same as supplying evidence. If you have set out evidence for redaction
      which is independent of these stylistic features, I must have missed it.
      (The page you pointed to on the 'Early Christian Writings' web site provides
      evidence of what certain scholars believed about the extent of a supposed
      pre-Markan passion narrative, but not why they believed in its historicity.)

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      [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.