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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Expand Messages
  • lmbarre@gmail.com
    I don t think so. I just pointed out that one can be overly credulous based on insufficient evidence as well as overly skeptical against sufficient evidence.
    Message 1 of 44 , Jan 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't think so. I just pointed out that one can be overly credulous based
      on insufficient evidence as well as overly skeptical against sufficient
      evidence. The former is more often recognized while the latter tends to
      more often escape detection as it gives the appearance of being "cautious"
      and "careful." But of course, that depends a subjective assessment of the
      objective" strength of the evidence offered. Also, for the purposes of
      clarity and objectivity, I noted that there are "theological" and
      ideological reasons to resist the thesis. This, I should think, is common
      sense and may well come in to play when faced with such a thesis. It was
      only an attempt to clear the air, perhaps at the expense of being somewhat
      politically incorrect. I hardly wish to charge any detractor as being an
      ideologue or myself being such in advancing the thesis.

      Does the question is, what is the proper, objective assessment of the
      evidence offered? Is pMark a probable thesis? I offered evidence that
      indeed it is. Perhaps we need to take a close look at each of ten examples
      I have offered. How about the first? Is it probable that the story of the
      fate of the Baptizer an insertion or not, and why? (It has been suggested
      that "sandwiching" is an authorial technique, while I am arguing that it is
      a redactional technique.) Then on to the next examples and so on. After
      all are inspected, what is the probable conclusion? Is pMark a probable
      thesis? As the title of the thread is, "A Case for pMark." I am arguing
      that I have made the case and welcome any assessment regarding this basic
      claim, either negatively, positively, or unclear. That's why I posted it
      here. Where better?

      LM Barré
      San Diego
      -------Original Message-------

      From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
      Date: 1/6/2013 2:14:09 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

      You spend time psychoanalyzing his putative 'irrationality.' I think that's
      unnecessary.

      Jeffery Hodges

      On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, lmbarre@... <lmbarre@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > I posted the evidence for pMark on my first post in this thread and then
      he
      > asked for the evidence. This is not psychoanalysis. It is a mere
      > observation.
      >
      > I did clarify . . . In my last post. Should not the discussion of evidence
      > refer to my eight examples? Of course it should.
      >
      > LM Barré
      > -------Original Message-------
      >
      > From: Horace Jeffery Hodges
      > Date: 1/6/2013 1:38:09 AM
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
      >
      > Why psychoanalyze Ron and accuse him of irrationality? He's always struck
      > me as a solid, rational, rigorous scholar. If you think that he's missed
      > your point, then clarify your argument for him.
      >
      > Jeffery Hodges
      > Ewha Womans University
      >
      > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, lmbarre@... lmbarre@...>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > "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]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups
      > Links
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links




      [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.