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

Mark (1)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Crosstalk In Response To: Points Raised by Rikk Watts On: Mark (1) From: Bruce 1. Rikk had said, Adela s approach to authorship seemed eminently
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Crosstalk
      In Response To: Points Raised by Rikk Watts
      On: Mark (1)
      From: Bruce

      1. Rikk had said, "Adela's approach to authorship seemed eminently
      reasonable. She concludes it is either one of the Marks mentioned in
      Papias/1 Peter or Act 12f/Col 4/Philem 23f. I suggested that given the small
      size of the early Xn community and limiting factors such as literacy, lack
      of identifying patronym, etc. probably reasonable to regard them as the one
      individual."

      Experience with ancient texts here and there leads me to initially discount
      author labels, or other possible librarian markings. I would be very
      reluctant, on general principles, to base interpretation of any passage in
      gMk ["the Gospel of Mark"]on the firm assumption of a known aMk ["author of
      Mark"]. We don't, I suggest, even know if we are dealing with one author or
      several, and if the latter, which if any of them might be "Mark." If we
      somehow did know this latter, is it the Jerusalem Mark, or the Alexandrian
      Mark, or the Roman Mark, or the Mark of various points in the travels of
      Paul? Or what subset of the above?

      And how small was the early Xn community, really? We don't directly know, of
      if we do, that demonstration has eluded me (reference welcome). Hints in
      Paul suggest that the Xn movement had before his time already spread beyond
      Palestine and into Syria and Asia Minor; quite possibly also lower Greece.
      Certainly he himself was pursuing it into Damascus. For that matter, Acts
      gives us to understand that there were even colonies of Johnites in the
      vicinity of Ephesus.

      My own sense would thus be to leave the author column blank, until perhaps
      the very end. At that time, Adela's scenario for Jerusalem Mark as the naked
      young man at the Arrest, which I admit I find very ingenious, might be more
      easy to evaluate.

      Meanwhile, I find authorship unproved, and not methodologically necessary to
      prove. Does anything really turn on it at this stage (by which I mean, the
      beginning and not the end of the investigation)?

      Bruce
    • Rikk Watts
      Dear Bruce, Thanks for picking up on this; unfortunately right now I m at the end of my semester and the workload is, well, as usual verging on the ridiculous.
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Bruce,

        Thanks for picking up on this; unfortunately right now I'm at the end of my
        semester and the workload is, well, as usual verging on the ridiculous. Do
        feel free to continue engaging but right now, I'm going to have to leave the
        field to your good self and others.

        Sincerely
        Rikk


        On 03/12/08 12:15 PM, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:

        > To: Crosstalk
        > In Response To: Points Raised by Rikk Watts
        > On: Mark (1)
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > 1. Rikk had said, "Adela's approach to authorship seemed eminently
        > reasonable. She concludes it is either one of the Marks mentioned in
        > Papias/1 Peter or Act 12f/Col 4/Philem 23f. I suggested that given the small
        > size of the early Xn community and limiting factors such as literacy, lack
        > of identifying patronym, etc. probably reasonable to regard them as the one
        > individual."
        >
        > Experience with ancient texts here and there leads me to initially discount
        > author labels, or other possible librarian markings. I would be very
        > reluctant, on general principles, to base interpretation of any passage in
        > gMk ["the Gospel of Mark"]on the firm assumption of a known aMk ["author of
        > Mark"]. We don't, I suggest, even know if we are dealing with one author or
        > several, and if the latter, which if any of them might be "Mark." If we
        > somehow did know this latter, is it the Jerusalem Mark, or the Alexandrian
        > Mark, or the Roman Mark, or the Mark of various points in the travels of
        > Paul? Or what subset of the above?
        >
        > And how small was the early Xn community, really? We don't directly know, of
        > if we do, that demonstration has eluded me (reference welcome). Hints in
        > Paul suggest that the Xn movement had before his time already spread beyond
        > Palestine and into Syria and Asia Minor; quite possibly also lower Greece.
        > Certainly he himself was pursuing it into Damascus. For that matter, Acts
        > gives us to understand that there were even colonies of Johnites in the
        > vicinity of Ephesus.
        >
        > My own sense would thus be to leave the author column blank, until perhaps
        > the very end. At that time, Adela's scenario for Jerusalem Mark as the naked
        > young man at the Arrest, which I admit I find very ingenious, might be more
        > easy to evaluate.
        >
        > Meanwhile, I find authorship unproved, and not methodologically necessary to
        > prove. Does anything really turn on it at this stage (by which I mean, the
        > beginning and not the end of the investigation)?
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG In Response to: Rikk Watts On: Mark (1) From: Bruce Why callest thou me good? I m just a stranger in the land, barely off the camel
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Crosstalk
          Cc: GPG
          In Response to: Rikk Watts
          On: Mark (1)
          From: Bruce

          Why callest thou me "good?" I'm just a stranger in the land, barely off the
          camel from somewhere east of Bactria. No one is good save maybe Wellhausen
          and a couple other people. But I fully appreciate the problems of the
          semester end, and will try to do what I can to carry on in the wake of
          previous discussion. Thanks again for enriching that discussion at so many
          points of interest.

          Bruce
        • Kenneth Litwak
          ... wrote: Experience with ancient texts here and there leads me to initially discount author labels, or other possible librarian markings. Bruce,   I know
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 24, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- On Wed, 12/3/08, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
            wrote:












            Experience with ancient texts here and there leads me to initially discount

            author labels, or other possible librarian markings.

            Bruce,

              I know you posted this a while ago but I've been busy.  I would like to know what experience you have had with ancient texts that lead you to this conclusion?  So we should on principle dismiss Josephus as the author of his works?  Plato as the author of his works?

                On the one hand, we have pseudonymous works, like 1 Enoch or the Ascension of Isaiah, which make claims of authorship that are almost certainly false because of the apparent date of writing.  The authors stated for works like these are almost certainly chosen because those individuals carry authority with the intended audience (and hence, in my view, contrary to those who claim otherwise without evidence for it, are deliberate acts of deception).  Enoch and Isaiah were well-known and were to be trusted in whatever they said or there is no reason to give these works some purported author who was well-known. 

               The case of the Gospel of Mark is very different.  First, it does not state its author, and to some degree, you may be correct that determining the author (at least in this one case) is not that important, unless of course undestanding the narrative requires it.  More significant, however, is the question, Why attribute this work to such a unknown figure?   Assuming it is  Mark of Jerusalem (who could also be the Mark of Papias), why would anyone associate this work with someone who is otherwise unknown and carries zero authority among Christians?  It would be like assigning the book of Ruth to a specific author. For this reason alone, it seems to me that we should take the authorship claim seriously and assume that it has some value in understanding the text.  It also argues against rejecting the identification because saying that "this text was written by smoeone you've never heard of and had no significance ever" seems like an odd thing to
            do unless the identification is correct.  This does not prove which "Mark" wrote the text, but it seems to me that it only makes sense to accept that designation KATA MARKON because such identification does little to give authority to the work. 

            Ken Litwak
























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Ken Olson
            ... Mark of Jerusalem (who could also be the Mark of Papias), why would anyone associate this work with someone who is otherwise unknown and carries zero
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 30, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Ken Litwak wrote:

              >>Why attribute this work to such a unknown figure? Assuming it is
              Mark of Jerusalem (who could also be the Mark of Papias), why would
              anyone associate this work with someone who is otherwise unknown and
              carries zero authority among Christians? It would be like assigning the book of Ruth to a specific author. For
              this reason alone, it seems to me that we should take the authorship
              claim seriously and assume that it has some value in understanding the
              text. It also argues against rejecting the identification because
              saying that "this text was written by smoeone you've never heard of and
              had no significance ever" seems like an odd thing to
              do unless the
              identification is correct. This does not prove which "Mark" wrote the
              text, but it seems to me that it only makes sense to accept that
              designation KATA MARKON because such identification does little to give
              authority to the work.<<

              Ken,

              Isn't your argument here open to the criticism you made in the Goulder/LP thread?:

              >>In my view, this is part of the larger, fallacious view that "well, if
              it had been me, I would certainly have done so-and-so. Therefore, since
              others did not do exactly as I would surely have done, it must be the
              case that....." <<

              You are claiming you can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty based on the fact that you don't see why, if the attribution is incorrect, it would not have been made. Someone giving a mistaken attribution would have given one that lent the gospel more authority. Surely there are any number of reasons someone might have ascribed the gospel to Mark, including that the name Mark might have carried some weight with the intended audience. It shows up in Col., Phil., 1 Pet, Acts and 2 Tim, aside from the references in Papias and Clement. You contend that Mark was "someone who is otherwise unknown and carries zero authority among Christians." You seem to be suggesting that, if the name Mark had had authority somewhere in the early church, we ought to have evidence of it in other sources. But against Goulder you argued: "I consider all such "we don't find evidence of it elsewhere" to be an unhelpful assertion at best." It seems to me that you are operating from contradictory premises in the two threads.

              Best wishes,

              Ken

              Ken Olson
              PhD Student, NT
              Duke University
              _,_._,___












              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Crosstalk Cc: WSW, GPG In Response To: Ken Litwak On: Authorship From: Bruce BRUCE (earlier): Experience with ancient texts here and there leads me to
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 30, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Crosstalk
                Cc: WSW, GPG
                In Response To: Ken Litwak
                On: Authorship
                From: Bruce

                BRUCE (earlier): Experience with ancient texts here and there leads me to
                initially discount author labels, or other possible librarian markings.

                KEN: I would like to know what experience you have had with ancient texts
                that lead you to this conclusion?

                BRUCE: In the ancient world (the modern world also works much the same way,
                but in the ancient world), great names confer authority and promote
                acceptance. There are roughly three ways of piggybacking on a great name:

                1. One is to add text to a work already associated with that name, or
                otherwise established as a tradition of its own; this leads to an
                accretional text. Examples: the Iliad, the Mahabharata, the Analects of
                Confucius, the outer chapters of Sywndz, almost the entire Han Feidz, ditto
                the Shang-jywn Shu, the Dau/Dv Jing (also called Laudz), the latter nine
                chapters of Plato's Republic (though these may be merely an afterthought by
                Plato, just as many of the early layers of Mark may still be superintended
                by the original Markan author). The 33rd chapter of Jwangdz (which is not a
                chapter of Jwangdz, rather, as is apparent on the most casual reading, a not
                wholly favorable librarian's colophon added to the foregoing Jwangdz text).
                Most of the preceding chapters of Jwangdz, if it comes to that; it is not
                even clear that this work, or rather compendium, even has a Jwangdz core in
                the first place. The bulk of the Mencian school writings, appended to a set
                of interview transcripts featuring the historical Mencius, and greatly
                elaborating, politically and philosophically, on that core. Variations on a
                theme by Corelli.

                2. The second is to add further works to an existing repertoire which is
                regarded (rightly or wrongly) as authentic. This leads to a composite
                repertoire or corpus. Thus we have the bulk of the Chinese classic of poems,
                the Shr (and its parallel, the Psalms, very few of which are really by
                David; see Goulder on the Psalms). The canon of poems by the most famous
                lady poet of China, Li Ching-jau, some of which are distinctly floozyish and
                don't belong. The Appendix Vergiliana, notwithstanding Helen Waddell:

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/typology/integral/index.html

                The plays of Plautus, before Stilo and Varro took them on; see

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/gallery/varro.html

                The dialogues of Plato, of which Mediterranean Classicists used to take a
                more severe view than now (but note, as a disturbing fact in the present
                atmosphere of serenity, that many of the works of Plato mentioned by Plato's
                student Aristotle are no longer extant); so also the corpus of Aristotle
                himself (part of it due to Theophrastus and other successors), the
                Deuteropauline corpus, the Nero Wolfe novels of Rex Stout. . . .

                3. The third way is just to use the famous name for a composition de novo.
                This is the mode of impersonation, under which we have things from the
                Platonic Epistles (including the Seventh), the Petrine and Johannine
                Epistles, Jude, in all probability Barnabas, the Gospel of Mary, the
                Donation of Constantine, the clever Old Latin verses by a colleague which
                deceived even Scaliger, the Epistles of Phalaris which gave Bentley his
                chance at fame. . .

                Read Anthony Grafton, perhaps most amusingly Forgers and Critics.

                KEN: So we should on principle dismiss Josephus as the author of his works?
                Plato as the author of his works?

                BRUCE: Emotional words like "dismiss" always turn up when these questions
                are discussed, and I can only say that emotions have no place in historical
                investigations. If either option of a historical decision will cause one
                pain, then one is disqualified from making that decision and one should, as
                the judges say, recuse oneself. This is why surgeons do not operate on
                members of their own family; it is why (in Confucian circles) fathers do not
                teach their own sons. There is not sufficient emotional distance for one's
                skills to function. See again

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/outline/bias.html

                More generally, no particular historical determination is ever made "on
                principle," there are no gimmicks or maxims or shortcuts (eg lectio brevior)
                that will infallibly apply in all cases, as Housman (why don't people read
                Housman?) is still there to remind us; see

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/front/housman/01.html

                and click to get the other three segments. Cases must be examined
                individually.

                Did Josephus write Josephus? Competent authorities seem to find that he did.
                But I gather that there is much doubt about whether he wrote, or someone in
                the Eastern Empire interpolated, the startlingly favorable opinion of Jesus
                that occurs in the pages of Josephus. Saying that Josephus wrote Josephus,
                and even being right about it, does not necessarily end the matter.

                KEN: On the one hand, we have pseudonymous works, like 1 Enoch or the
                Ascension of Isaiah, which make claims of authorship that are almost
                certainly false because of the apparent date of writing.

                BRUCE: Yes, but the evidence for date must first be brought to bear. These
                works are not, on their face, false. They have to be investigated for their
                falsity to become apparent. Work is involved, if not someone else's, then
                (gulp) one's own.

                KEN: The authors stated for works like these are almost certainly chosen
                because those individuals carry authority with the intended audience (and
                hence, in my view, contrary to those who claim otherwise without evidence
                for it, are deliberate acts of deception). Enoch and Isaiah were well-known
                and were to be trusted in whatever they said or there is no reason to give
                these works some purported author who was well-known.

                BRUCE: My point exactly. Here is one of the root motives for nonauthorial
                composition.

                KENNETH: The case of the Gospel of Mark is very different. First, it does
                not state its author, and to some degree, you may be correct that
                determining the author (at least in this one case) is not that important,
                unless of course understanding the narrative requires it.

                BRUCE: I don't think that determining the author is unimportant. I just
                think it is a very risky place to begin the investigation. And why? Because
                evidence for authorship is often very difficult to find and interpret. One
                salutary study in this area is The Diary of a Public Man, by Frank Anderson.
                Anderson did it the hard way. (And even then, he may have gotten it wrong).
                For myself, I think it is better to start on the easy parts, the ones for
                which we seem to have some evidence in the text, and then see where we get.
                Time is finite, or so they tell me.

                KENNETH: More significant, however, is the question, Why attribute this work
                to such a unknown figure? Assuming it is Mark of Jerusalem (who could also
                be the Mark of Papias), why would anyone associate this work with someone
                who is otherwise unknown and carries zero authority among Christians? It
                would be like assigning the book of Ruth to a specific author. For this
                reason alone, it seems to me that we should take the authorship claim
                seriously and assume that it has some value in understanding the text.

                BRUCE: Well, I suspect myself that The Story of Ruth, as told by Boaz (newly
                discovered papyrus) would sell big. I even think I know who we could get to
                write a preface for it.

                But confining ourselves to NT: Was John Mark so unknown to the early
                Christian world? He was thought to have been a resident of Jerusalem at the
                time of the Crucifixion; Peter, after his escape from prison, is thought to
                have taken refuge precisely in that house, meaning that John Mark (never
                mind any Roman visits) could have tapped into Peter's reminiscences just by
                sitting in the front parlor and listening to them. John Mark is well
                attested as having contact with Paul and Barnabas, themselves undoubtedly
                leading figures of the Apostolic period. Who better than John Mark (some
                early Christian may have thought) to give us a guaranteed account of the
                entire tradition, based on firsthand knowledge?

                As time passed, that possibility may not have looked so good. But early on,
                why not?

                "Alexander and Rufus" may still (as I think) be identifiable today, but they
                don't carry any particular clout. I think they did in Mark's day, and that
                this is why they are mentioned in Mark: as though Mark's readers would
                recognize them, and would make something of their (or their father's) direct
                connection with that decisive event, the Crucifixion. I think they are in
                effect an authenticity claim by the author, whoever he may have been. See
                preceding paragraph.

                Whether someone claimed the Gospel for Mark for these reasons (to give it
                extra acceptance) or whether Mark himself was in some way actually
                associated with it (not necessarily as its author; there are many other
                possibilities, as readers of Shakespeare's sonnets will recall), or or, are
                interesting things to guess about. I just don't think that these guesses are
                anything but guesses if they PRECEDE an investigation of the text to see
                what IT suggests about the kind of person the author was, or better, the
                kind of personal acquaintance that its author probably had. To build the
                investigation ON such a previous and thus ill-informed guess seems to me to
                be getting best procedure exactly backward.

                KEN: It also argues against rejecting the identification because saying that
                "this text was written by someone you've never heard of and had no
                significance ever" seems like an odd thing to do unless the identification
                is correct. This does not prove which "Mark" wrote the text, but it seems to
                me that it only makes sense to accept that designation KATA MARKON because
                such identification does little to give authority to the work.

                BRUCE: KATA MARKON is precisely a librarian's label; it is there to
                distinguish Mark from the other three canonical Gospels, and makes no sense
                (as a mere contrastive marker) until the Gospels are printed together. As
                began to happen quite early; most of the papyri seem to be, not single
                Gospels, but collections of Gospels. (So also, as I understand, with Paul's
                Epistles). But to argue from this convenient bookmark is not sound; as well
                argue about Mark from a miniature painting in the margin of some Burgundian
                manuscript of Mark. The real beginning of Mk is in Mk 1:1, where the text is
                self-labeled. That label does not mention Mark, so the text (unlike that of,
                say, 1 Peter) does not itself claim the authority of a known or unknown
                figure. We can say with confidence that by the time Mark came to be
                distinguished from the other Gospels, it was associated with "Mark," whence
                KATA MARKON, but that is a long way down the road. No?

                To me it is significant that Mark, in contrast to most NT writings, is not
                self-labeled. It tells the story of the Gospel of Jesus "from its
                beginning," and Jesus is its central figure. Whoever listened to that story
                presumably was interested in Jesus, and took for granted that the reader of
                the story (or the author of the thing read; children don't really make these
                distinctions) had his information right. Does any kid ever say to its
                mother, reading the Three Little Pigs, "How do you know that this is true?"
                Not on your Ovaltine.

                That is, Mark first functioned in a context where authorial identity was not
                called on to confer textual authority. This strikes me as an interesting
                sort of situation. It is Luke, for instance, who is at great pains to let
                you know what he is basing his story on, and what eminent personage he is
                composing it for. He plugs himself into the world of his readers in a way
                that aMk is not at all concerned to do. Here, I suggest, is a fact. It is
                very far from suggesting a PERSON for the authorship of the text. It is, I
                think, rather near to suggesting a TYPE OF PERSON for that role. The implied
                context of "Mark" is one in which the reader of "Mark" already had, with his
                hearers, all the authority he needed.

                That's something. It may not satisfy our biographical interest, but our
                interests have no business on the table anyway, and it's still something. I
                like something, almost any something, because it is better than nothing, and
                because it is better than figments of my own expectations in the matter (or
                of some 3c librarian's presumptions in the matter). I want to let the text
                talk to me, and I care less than nothing what it says, or in what category.
                I will take what I get, and glad of it.

                The standard commentary, to Mark or anything else, typically starts with the
                author, goes on to identify date and place, and only then takes up the
                structure and content of the work. But the structure and content of the work
                are the only evidence which have half a quarter of a chance of indicating to
                us when, and where, and why, and perhaps in extremely felicitous
                circumstances even by whom, the thing was written. Not the other way round.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Kenneth Litwak
                ... From: Ken Olson Subject: RE: [XTalk] Markan Authorship To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 5:14 PM ...
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 1 10:28 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Ken Olson <kenolson101@...> wrote:
                  From: Ken Olson <kenolson101@...>
                  Subject: RE: [XTalk] Markan Authorship
                  To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 5:14 PM















                  Ken Litwak wrote:



                  >>Why attribute this work to such a unknown figure? Assuming it is

                  Mark of Jerusalem (who could also be the Mark of Papias), why would

                  anyone associate this work with someone who is otherwise unknown and

                  carries zero authority among Christians? It would be like assigning the book of Ruth to a specific author. For

                  this reason alone, it seems to me that we should take the authorship

                  claim seriously and assume that it has some value in understanding the

                  text. It also argues against rejecting the identification because

                  saying that "this text was written by smoeone you've never heard of and

                  had no significance ever" seems like an odd thing to

                  do unless the

                  identification is correct. This does not prove which "Mark" wrote the

                  text, but it seems to me that it only makes sense to accept that

                  designation KATA MARKON because such identification does little to give

                  authority to the work.<<



                  Ken,



                  Isn't your argument here open to the criticism you made in the Goulder/LP thread?:



                  >>In my view, this is part of the larger, fallacious view that "well, if

                  it had been me, I would certainly have done so-and-so. Therefore, since

                  others did not do exactly as I would surely have done, it must be the

                  case that....." <<



                  You are claiming you can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty based on the fact that you don't see why, if the attribution is incorrect, it would not have been made. Someone giving a mistaken attribution would have given one that lent the gospel more authority. Surely there are any number of reasons someone might have ascribed the gospel to Mark, including that the name Mark might have carried some weight with the intended audience. It shows up in Col., Phil., 1 Pet, Acts and 2 Tim, aside from the references in Papias and Clement. You contend that Mark was "someone who is otherwise unknown and carries zero authority among Christians." You seem to be suggesting that, if the name Mark had had authority somewhere in the early church, we ought to have evidence of it in other sources. But against Goulder you argued: "I consider all such "we don't find evidence of it elsewhere" to be an unhelpful assertion at best. It seems to me that you
                  are operating from contradictory premises in the two threads.


                  Ken L:  Actually, this would be contradictory only if I had made my statement with reference to both conditions, there is data and there is not data.  I did not. In the Goulder post, I responded specifically to the tendency of many modern scholars to assume that "Absence of evdence is evidence of absence."  You can see this in Pauline studies.  Since Paul did not mention Jesus as the head of the body in 1 Corinthians, therefore, its absence proves that Paul could not have written Colossians, which does speak of Jesus as the head of the body.  Its absence from 1 Corinthians is viewed as evidence that Paul never ever could possibly have had such a notion.  This does not prove that Paul did or did not write Ephesians.   Rather, it is focusing solely on the view that since some author does not inlcude something that the author does not know about it.  My statement challenges the procedure that says in this case "if the Lord's Prayer had come from
                  Jesus, Mark would have known about it.   If Mark had known about it he surely would have used it."  That is fallacious.  We do not know what Mark knew, we do not know what Mark woudl have done, and in spite of the confidence of many, we do not _know_ the relationship of the Synoptic Gospels.

                     In the case of Markan authorship, I am not dealing with absence of evidence but the presence of evidence.  That, in my view, is a totally different matter.  In this case I am asking why someone would in fact do what has been done, i.e., attribute Mark's Gospel to someone named Mark.  Since Mark is relatively unknown, and his portrait in Acts is far from positive, I think it a reasonable question to ask, Why would someone attribute this work to John Mark, if that is in fact who is intended?  I am seeking to deal with real evidence, not explain lack of evidence.  Those are very different cases, so I do not think that what I said about the Lord's Prayer has anything to do with Markan authorship. Yes, I am asking why someone would attribute it falsely to Mark and I am, I suppose, suggesting my own reasons for this, which may or may not be valid.  The key difference, however, is that I am seeking to grapple with hard data, not specualte about
                  non-existent data.

                  Ken Litwak




















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