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

Expand Messages
  • lloyd barre
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 (e.g.,
      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.

      "I think we cannot say" Therein lies a great difference is our
      identification of material belonging to the Markan redaction. Even if we
      should evenly split the usage in a half, both layers would still be
      excessive usage of euthus when compared to the slim use of the adverb in
      Matthew, Luke and John. So I would respond that you change your "we" to
      "I." I think that comparatively, we should only perhaps attribute a very
      few usages of euthus to pMark with an analogy to Matthew and Luke. For that
      reason, and others, the extreme use of the adverb most probably falls to
      Mark and constitutes a stylistic, redactional marker. Is this use of
      repetition also in evidence for Mark? Yes it is as I have have already
      noted. There are several themes that are repeatedly stated. I already noted
      the motif of amazement over Jesus, most securely entrenched in the Markan
      addition to PN in the Markan empty tomb episode, which you apparently agree
      with, finding the ending of PN in Mark 15:38. I have not counted the
      occurrences of this motif but I am quite sure that you would agree that
      they are legion. Isn't now interesting that we have two motif that are
      wildly repeated? Does this imply that Mark loves repetition? Yes it does. I
      have already mentioned the thrice repeated prediction of Jesus passion,
      death and resurrection. But then we already agree that the empty tomb
      material belongs to Mark. Connecting these dots continues to find Mark
      style characterized by repetition. Then there is Peter's three denials,
      with the cock immediately crowing. More connected dots. And for me at
      least, there is the semi-doublet account of the Twelve verses the Five.
      More "immediates" in the former with the latter being found to be the
      underlying narrative which Mark expanded. More connected dots. There is
      also the repeated motif of Jesus' popularity, the two rather awkward boat
      crossings, the numerous entrances into Jerusalem, the two feedings of the
      multitude, the repeated obtuseness of the disciples. Again, does it make
      sense to just split these repetitions between Mark and pMark, or are we
      indeed building a profile a Markan stylistics? Someone loves repetition
      here and I find no reason not to assign them to one mind who has what looks
      to me to have a very distinctive, repetitive style. There is also the
      suspicious "coincidence where context indicate an insertion and in which we
      also find the adverb and/or the amazement motif. We cannot tell? I am
      begging to differ.

      Then there is the criterion of dissimilarity, and this is very much
      grounded for me in my exegesis of pre-Markan PN in terms of both plot,
      content and genre. I have already argued that 15:34 is a direct response to
      14:61-62, and constitutes the very plot of PN.

      �Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?� 14:62 �I am,� said
      Jesus, �and you will see *the Son of Man sitting at the right hand** *of
      the Power and *coming with the clouds of heaven*.�

      But then:

      15:34 Around three o�clock55 Jesus cried out with a loud voice, �Eloi,
      Eloi, lema sabachthani?� which means, �My God, my God, why have you
      forsaken me?�56.
      So naturally my question to you here is how are you interpreting these
      verses and do you agree that they are directly related? If not, why not?
      For that matter, what do you find to be the essential point of pre-Markan
      PN, and what do verses do you attribute to the Markan redaction? In other
      words, what is your pre-Markan PN? You have already suggested the the Psalm
      22 fulfillments are Markan. Isn't that true? We should also agree that the
      first accusation about the rebuilding of the temple in three days coincides
      with t the Markan teaching about the resurrection, with as you agree, is a
      Markan motif by assigning the end of PN to 15:38.

      It also seem to me you are drawing back from my form-critical arguments
      toward the identification of PN as an Aristotelian tragedy. The fact is,
      Jesus perfectly satisfies Aristotle's tragic hero and the PN as a whole is
      a tragedy that Aristotle would no doubt have highly praised. And is it
      insignificant that a Roman centurion should provide the epiphany of what
      Jesus actually was? And does not the story inspire pity and fear? Also this
      is to argue that PN is exactly dissimilar to Mark on who and what Jesus was
      and that his story, even ending at 15:38 is a Aristotelian tragedy, not a
      Markan divine comedy, complete with a resurrected Jesus who finally appears
      to his disciples in Galilee just as Mark, not pMark, predicts. So it is in
      this interpreted dissimilarity that we can exclude Mark's Christianizing
      redaction of PN and I think also pMark's non-Christian Jesus. This Markan
      tendenz is for one confirmed by the "taking away of the bridegroom" that
      context shows to be a likely insertion. We also noted the strong Christian
      content of two other alleged insertions, supported by context and find
      within the insertion the term, "the followers of Christ" and the fame of
      the woman at Bethany who anointed Jesus who would be remembered "whenever
      the Gospel, yes Gospel, is preached to the entire world." The dissimilarity
      of PN lies in the fact that PN shows Jesus to be a theological
      reductionist, whose most pathetic death provided an unassailable argument
      to that effect that even Jesus had to admit, and so cried out with his last
      breath, and then and just died. In short, we may attribute all Christian
      content to Mark and exclude it probably from also pMark and almost
      certainly from PN. Thus, I am bringing several independent arguments to
      bear that coincide in a way that I think is far beyond mere coincidence. In
      fact, it just seems to all fall together quite nicely and I think is
      objectively beyond any willfulness of my own. But I suppose that's not
      really for me to decide.

      So, please, define your pre-Markan PN and tell me how you are interpreting

      LM Barr�
      San Diego
      *-------Original Message-------*

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.