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

John Mark

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To:Crosstalk On: John Mark From: Bruce There was a question about whether Adela Yarbro Collins, in her 2007 commentary on Mark, had entertained, or said
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      To:Crosstalk
      On: John Mark
      From: Bruce

      There was a question about whether Adela Yarbro Collins, in her 2007 commentary on Mark, had entertained, or said something which suggested, that John Mark might have been the youth who ran away naked from the Arrest in Gethsemane (Mk 14:51-52). I have in the meantime been able to consult with Adela. She replies that she does not hold that view herself, but had mentioned it in the commentary. A further search discloses that a note to her Excursus on this passage (p689 n157) gives the following adherents of the John Mark theory: Gould (1896), Swete (1898), Allen (1915). Not there mentioned but also in support are Bernhard Weiss (3ed 1898), Adela's predecessor as Buckingham Professor at Yale, Bacon (1909), and Rawlinson (1925). Not to mention Theophylact back in the 11c. Some of those writing near the turn of the 20c report this reading of the passage as common at that time. So that is where it comes from, and Adela is absolved of any responsibility for approving it. Apparently I was reading something else at the same time, or else was reminded of it by her discussion.

      One factor in how we take that passage is how Matthew and Luke treat it, which is to omit it. Presumably, like many in the present age, they find it embarrassing; a comic note in an otherwise solemn scene. Some suggest that it was not originally in Mark, and was added later, but as Rawlinson asks, what would have been the point? I agree. I think it better to go with Hawkins, who lists it as among the Markan passages omitted by the later Synoptists for reasons sufficient to them.

      We can also ask how Mark (or anyway, gMk) regarded the passage, and for that, it makes a difference whether we recognize an OT echo in the "ran away naked" part. WH does not mark this passage as having an OT reference, nor do the most recent NA texts (followed by Watts in Beale and Carson, who also omits it). The possibilities mentioned by the earlier commentators are Gen 39:12 and Amos 2:16. The former involves the young Joseph escaping from the lewd advances of his master Potiphar's wife, and though it is verbally close, it seems wildly inappropriate. Rather more promising, to my eye, is Amos 2:16. On the surface it is problematic: the person said to be running away is part of an army being punished by God; he is on the wrong side of things. But that punishment is part of a Messianic Fulfilment story, and it is quite possible to think of the author of gMk as feeling that the Arrest was a sign of the catastrophe which might betoken the end of the current order. Further, if we read that part of Amos entire, his complaint of Israel is very much the complaint that Jesus, in the rest of Mark, makes of Israel. Adela, ad loc (see p689, 693n, 694), rather favors it. I think she is right.

      If so, then the passage becomes not embarrassing, but emblematic, part of the scene, but also contributing to the background music which Mark has written into his account.

      The question of whether Mark was an eyewitness, whether he was himself the naked young man or was informed by that man about the event, is separate. But however it came to him, this, I think, is what he made of it.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Masssachusetts at Amherst


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rikk Watts
      Dear Bruce, The issue is not whether people have believed that the naked man is Mark ‹ we all know they have ‹ nor whether Adela needed any kind of
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 30, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Bruce,

        The issue is not whether people have believed that the naked man is "Mark"‹
        we all know they have ‹ nor whether Adela needed any kind of absolution (I
        never thought she believed it anyway).

        The real issue is your apparently casual citation of scholars whom you've
        not actually read properly. This list only works if people can be relied
        upon for accuracy; and, if they are not sure their memory serves them right,
        at least to say so. This goes to the very heart of reliable scholarship.

        I'm sorry to have put it this bluntly, but as a moderator on this list, my
        personal concern emerges from the fact that you regularly cite sources with
        great confidence, but on two occasions in relatively close succession where
        I've been involved, you've either got your wires badly crossed (attributing
        your own ideas to someone who does not hold that view) or you'd
        misunderstood the relevance of the source and seemed unaware of recent
        developments in the field over the last several decades. To be perfectly
        honest and I could be wrong, but it sounds to me very much like your
        engagement on the issue in Adela's commentary came after you were
        challenged, not before. I think you would agree it really should be the
        other way around.

        Best
        Rikk




        > From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
        > Reply-To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:35:04 -0500
        > To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: [XTalk] John Mark
        >
        > To:Crosstalk
        > On: John Mark
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > There was a question about whether Adela Yarbro Collins, in her 2007
        > commentary on Mark, had entertained, or said something which suggested, that
        > John Mark might have been the youth who ran away naked from the Arrest in
        > Gethsemane (Mk 14:51-52). I have in the meantime been able to consult with
        > Adela. She replies that she does not hold that view herself, but had mentioned
        > it in the commentary. A further search discloses that a note to her Excursus
        > on this passage (p689 n157) gives the following adherents of the John Mark
        > theory: Gould (1896), Swete (1898), Allen (1915). Not there mentioned but also
        > in support are Bernhard Weiss (3ed 1898), Adela's predecessor as Buckingham
        > Professor at Yale, Bacon (1909), and Rawlinson (1925). Not to mention
        > Theophylact back in the 11c. Some of those writing near the turn of the 20c
        > report this reading of the passage as common at that time. So that is where it
        > comes from, and Adela is absolved of any responsibility for approving it.
        > Apparently
        > I was reading something else at the same time, or else was reminded of it by
        > her discussion.
        >
        > One factor in how we take that passage is how Matthew and Luke treat it, which
        > is to omit it. Presumably, like many in the present age, they find it
        > embarrassing; a comic note in an otherwise solemn scene. Some suggest that it
        > was not originally in Mark, and was added later, but as Rawlinson asks, what
        > would have been the point? I agree. I think it better to go with Hawkins, who
        > lists it as among the Markan passages omitted by the later Synoptists for
        > reasons sufficient to them.
        >
        > We can also ask how Mark (or anyway, gMk) regarded the passage, and for that,
        > it makes a difference whether we recognize an OT echo in the "ran away naked"
        > part. WH does not mark this passage as having an OT reference, nor do the
        > most recent NA texts (followed by Watts in Beale and Carson, who also omits
        > it). The possibilities mentioned by the earlier commentators are Gen 39:12 and
        > Amos 2:16. The former involves the young Joseph escaping from the lewd
        > advances of his master Potiphar's wife, and though it is verbally close, it
        > seems wildly inappropriate. Rather more promising, to my eye, is Amos 2:16. On
        > the surface it is problematic: the person said to be running away is part of
        > an army being punished by God; he is on the wrong side of things. But that
        > punishment is part of a Messianic Fulfilment story, and it is quite possible
        > to think of the author of gMk as feeling that the Arrest was a sign of the
        > catastrophe which might betoken the end of the current order. Further, if
        > we read that part of Amos entire, his complaint of Israel is very much the
        > complaint that Jesus, in the rest of Mark, makes of Israel. Adela, ad loc (see
        > p689, 693n, 694), rather favors it. I think she is right.
        >
        > If so, then the passage becomes not embarrassing, but emblematic, part of the
        > scene, but also contributing to the background music which Mark has written
        > into his account.
        >
        > The question of whether Mark was an eyewitness, whether he was himself the
        > naked young man or was informed by that man about the event, is separate. But
        > however it came to him, this, I think, is what he made of it.
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        > E Bruce Brooks
        > Warring States Project
        > University of Masssachusetts at Amherst
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > 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 In Response To: Rikk Watts On: John Mark From: Bruce Sorry to have misremembered Adela s position on Mk 14:51-52. To that extent, my reply to
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 31, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Crosstalk
          In Response To: Rikk Watts
          On: John Mark
          From: Bruce

          Sorry to have misremembered Adela's position on Mk 14:51-52. To that extent,
          my reply to Rikk's original question (22 Jan 2011) was off target. Perhaps I
          should return for another try.

          The discussion at that point was about the audience of Mark. I had asked
          another contributor what was the evidence for a Gentile audience. Then:

          RIKK: How about the argument that Adela-Yarbro Collins makes for Mark being
          none other than John Mark, known associate of Paul (Col 4.10; Philemon 24,
          and
          the word to Timothy to bring Mark with him, 2 Tm 4.11) and Peter (1 Peter
          5.12-13, also with Silvanus, also a colleague of Paul¹s, 1 Thess 1.1; 2
          Thess 1.1; and 2 Cor 1.19; Luke, apparently independently, locates Mark in
          Jerusalem with Peter, Acts 12.12, and with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 12:25;
          15.36-41) both of whom are closely associated with Gentiles?

          BRUCE: I had earlier mentioned that many of these associations of Mark with
          Paul are from inauthentic texts, and that 1 Peter seems especially concerned
          to link Mark (previously, for better or worse, associated with Paul) with
          himself, and to put them both at Rome. This claim Papias probably knew
          about. Is it sound? I Peter is pseudepigraphic. The linkage of Mark with
          Paul in Philemon and Colossians also links Mark with Luke (a sort of uncanny
          mixture), and in texts both of which can be associated with Onesimus,
          Goodspeed and Knox's choice for the collector of Paul's writings. Was it in
          Onesimus's interest to assert that connection? I won't here try to answer
          that question, but the fact that it even arises suggests that the Paul end
          of Mark's career may be less firm than we would like. Paul otherwise never
          mentions Mark, and we are left with Acts. Acts is a highly emblematic work,
          as is easily seen in its treatment of Peter and Paul (whom it homogenizes to
          the point of indistinguishability). Did the author of Acts have something in
          mind with Mark? I don't see any obvious agenda, but perhaps someone else
          can.

          Such are the uncertainties of Mark at the Paul end. Mark at the Jerusalem
          end has a different set of uncertainties.

          Adela (to take this part of her Introduction in reverse) feels that Irenaeus
          offers nothing new, and knows only Papias's Elder and 1 Peter. For her,
          these represent independent and thus confirmatory witnesses. Both are at
          best from the end of the 1c; how much they may be worth depends somewhat on
          how one dates Mark - the later Mark, the more convincing late 1c testimony
          to Mark would be. Adela, as is common, relies on Mk 13 for a post-70 date. I
          continue to think that interpretation wrong (a desecration is not a
          destruction), and that the linguistically most natural reading of Mk 13 and
          of the Daniel passage which it invokes favors instead a reference to
          Caligula's intended desecration in the summer of 40. I have argued that
          point at a SBL/NE panel at which Adela was present, without apparently
          convincing her.

          She spends time on KATA MARKON, which seems to me not early evidence; the
          text's internal label is at Mk 1:1 (perhaps slightly enhanced by a later
          pen). So Adela ad loc ("Mark 1:1 is an independent sentence, without a
          predicate, which both summarizes and introduces the rest of the work"). The
          text itself does not mention its author, which is not unexceptional, but it
          is also not helpful one way or the other. KATA MARKON is probably a
          contrastive label; it would be unlikely unless there were another Gospel
          around (KATA somebody else). At the time when Mark was the only Gospel,
          there would have been no such competing Gospel, hence KATA MARKON has no
          value as an author statement, and is a later addition. It can at least count
          as an outside witness, and would be the more cogent as such if we know when
          it was applied. Matthew followed Mark, but how soon was Mark written
          together with that or any other Gospel? I don't think we have manuscript
          evidence of this practice before the 2c, which is also when the Four Gospels
          come to be clearly mentioned, and indeed philosophized, as a group.

          The bottom line seems to be that the ascription to Mark was universal in the
          2c, and that there are really no competing candidates. That is more or less
          where we all came in.

          UNEXPLORED POSSIBILITIES

          This is all very fine, but I don't myself think that any statement about a
          text is in order until we have ascertained the content of that text (the
          lower criticism) and then determined whether it is one entity or more than
          one (the higher criticism). Adela assumes a single text, written at one
          time, for which her only task is to determine, as near as possible, a date
          and/or a person. But her own provision of a reconstructed Passion Narrative
          (back of the book) shows that this assumption is perilous. The evidences on
          which she relies to detect and remove later matter from the Passion
          Narrative (such as the standard signs of interpolation) exist also in the
          rest of Mark. If we apply to the whole text the procedures Adela has used
          for the Passion Narrative, what we come out with is a whole Pre-Markan Mark.
          That is, not a source, but an earlier state of the text whose final state is
          our canonical Mark.

          This is bad news, because it means more work, but it is also good news,
          because it offers a way out of such irresolvable discussions as the
          Christology of Mark (noted by Branscomb 1937 as undecidable, and by more
          recent surveys as still undecidable). The reason for the complexity is,
          precisely, the complexity: there is more than one Christology jostling for
          room in Mark, and the text gets simple only when we separate out its
          different layers. Each layer by itself is intelligible enough; it is the
          stack of them taken together that defies compact epitomization.

          It is thus probably relevant to the John Mark and all other Markan questions
          to first establish the nature of the text, and then use its evidence
          appropriately. I presented a tentative reconstruction of the whole to SBL in
          2008, and have been pursuing tests and refinements since that time. The
          reconstruction is not likely to arouse wide enthusiasm, for reasons that are
          easy to see in Adela's reconstructed Passion Narrative. That Narrative ends
          with Jesus's death, and does not include his burial, the Empty Tomb, or the
          implied Resurrection. It closes with Jesus's final despairing cry and the
          rending of the Temple Veil (see Adela's pre-commentary articles for why this
          precise verse). It did not attract much praise at an SBL review panel (at
          which I seem to recall that Rikk was also present).

          Nor was any other reaction very likely, but that is of no consequence one
          way or another. The only thing that counts is the evidence, and if that
          reconstruction is where the philological evidence points, and with a few
          small points which I made online at that time, I think that Adela's sample
          of the procedure IS where it points, then the task of the historian is
          simply to follow.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Rikk Watts
          Dear Bruce, Well, I suppose an apology for misremembering is about as good as we re going to get. Though, and I m sorry to sound so churlish, I m still
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 31, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Bruce,

            Well, I suppose an apology for "misremembering" is about as good as we're
            going to get. Though, and I'm sorry to sound so churlish, I'm still
            wondering about the remarkable willingness first to blame Fortress for their
            poor indices and then in admitting the possibility that Adela didn't hold
            this view your astonishing act of claiming credit for an idea that you
            yourself a few days later provide ample evidence of having been around for
            centuries‹and nary an "oops" in view. Then there's a similar
            misapplying/misremembering of Ong, followed by some comments on citational
            variations, which you apparently attribute to "quoting from memory" (how
            this was relevant to your use of Ong I don't know), but here too without any
            awareness of the work of e.g. Stanley (1992) and Wilk (1998). My point,
            Bruce, is that in each case where I know something about the state of the
            debate your easy generalizations are regularly misleading. And that's my
            primary concern throughout.

            So, when it comes to the first part of your response to Adela's argument
            about Mark, I trust you can understand why I feel considerable skepticism as
            to, once again, your equally confident generalizations, sans argument, that
            many of these texts are inauthentic and therefore are not pertinent. E.g.
            whether 1 Peter is by Peter (both Johnson and Brown offer sensible responses
            to the pseudonymous camp; sufficient in my view to make a bold assertion on
            this matter dubious) does not materially impact whether or not the tradition
            of associating Mark with Peter is valid. Might not one argue that your
            putative pseudonymous author made this connection precisely because, known
            to be true, it strengthened his hand? And what's with "uncanny mixture"?
            This is an argument? Your easy acceptance of Goodspeed and Knox's theory
            concerning Onesimus sits very oddly with your repeated affirmations of
            uncertainty invoked to support skepticism. How in the world could they, or
            you, possible know this? But here it is blithely cited. How so? I can see no
            other logic except that it happens to suit your argument, and hence the
            characteristic skepticism and uncertainly flies out the window. One could go
            on.

            I note you then disagree with Adela at other points; but will comment on
            just one (I've got a ton of marking and other work to do). You dismiss the
            Kata Markon argument because there being no competing gospel it has no value
            as an author statement. But Hengel, upon whom Adela draws, has made a strong
            argument that the moment Christian documents were read in the community, and
            presumably Paul's letters are already at large, there would need to be some
            comment on what kind of document this was, a gospel, and the name of the one
            whose retelling it was, i.e. Mark. To repeat then, the issue, as already
            noted in a recent earlier posting, is not the existence of other gospels but
            of other Christian books. On this view alone, it is a little difficult to
            imagine the church reading a "we are not quite sure what by we are not quite
            sure whom." Further, again as noted earlier, someone who could afford a copy
            of Mark probably also owned other books (not necessarily gospels) and they
            would need to be distinguished. Finally, Adela (again apparently drawing on
            Hengel) notes Galen's omission of titles when writing for his friends, who
            presumably clearly knew it was from him. Here too the small size of the
            Christian community and sociology (see Stark on cult behavior; also his
            arguments on why a cult not a sect) makes it highly unlikely that Mark ever
            circulated as an anonymous document.

            Re layers in Mark: seeing that Mark does not present himself as an
            eyewitness and assuming that he did not receive his tradition in one whole
            piece, it seems pretty obvious that he's drawing on traditions. The problem
            is seeking to delineate it. The lack of consensus on Mark's sources, or the
            content of a Pre-Mark, strongly suggests that our tools are simply not up to
            the task. An interpolation really only says something about Mark's attempt
            to create some literary coherence, not the origins of the theology thereby
            implied.

            Similarly, whence this reductive idea that Mark has competing Christologies?
            Presumably, Mark sees his Jesus as the one coherent figure, so I doubt if it
            is fair to Mark to claim that he has jostling Christologies. It might be
            more accurate to say that his Jesus has only one Christology
            (self-understanding) and that it draws on a range of Jewish figures,
            sometimes in unexpected ways (hence Mark's account of the disciples' and the
            crowds' confusion), in order fully to express his mission and identity. This
            strikes me as quite historically probable. If the earliest writers on Jesus
            felt that four Bioi were necessary to capture the complexity of his person,
            why would one ever be tempted to think in terms of Jesus himself having only
            "one Christology" such as we narrowly define them? This strikes me as
            anachronistic. Paul seems to have no problem with such combinations. Why
            Mark?

            Frankly I find so much of the enterprise based on far too much supposition
            (whatever happened to that skepticism and uncertainty?) and a reductively
            unhistorical account of how things operated.

            Well.. enough already.

            I'm to work.

            Best
            Rikk





            > From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
            > Reply-To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:37:18 -0500
            > To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: Re: [XTalk] John Mark
            >
            > To: Crosstalk
            > In Response To: Rikk Watts
            > On: John Mark
            > From: Bruce
            >
            > Sorry to have misremembered Adela's position on Mk 14:51-52. To that extent,
            > my reply to Rikk's original question (22 Jan 2011) was off target. Perhaps I
            > should return for another try.
            >
            > The discussion at that point was about the audience of Mark. I had asked
            > another contributor what was the evidence for a Gentile audience. Then:
            >
            > RIKK: How about the argument that Adela-Yarbro Collins makes for Mark being
            > none other than John Mark, known associate of Paul (Col 4.10; Philemon 24,
            > and
            > the word to Timothy to bring Mark with him, 2 Tm 4.11) and Peter (1 Peter
            > 5.12-13, also with Silvanus, also a colleague of Paul¹s, 1 Thess 1.1; 2
            > Thess 1.1; and 2 Cor 1.19; Luke, apparently independently, locates Mark in
            > Jerusalem with Peter, Acts 12.12, and with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 12:25;
            > 15.36-41) both of whom are closely associated with Gentiles?
            >
            > BRUCE: I had earlier mentioned that many of these associations of Mark with
            > Paul are from inauthentic texts, and that 1 Peter seems especially concerned
            > to link Mark (previously, for better or worse, associated with Paul) with
            > himself, and to put them both at Rome. This claim Papias probably knew
            > about. Is it sound? I Peter is pseudepigraphic. The linkage of Mark with
            > Paul in Philemon and Colossians also links Mark with Luke (a sort of uncanny
            > mixture), and in texts both of which can be associated with Onesimus,
            > Goodspeed and Knox's choice for the collector of Paul's writings. Was it in
            > Onesimus's interest to assert that connection? I won't here try to answer
            > that question, but the fact that it even arises suggests that the Paul end
            > of Mark's career may be less firm than we would like. Paul otherwise never
            > mentions Mark, and we are left with Acts. Acts is a highly emblematic work,
            > as is easily seen in its treatment of Peter and Paul (whom it homogenizes to
            > the point of indistinguishability). Did the author of Acts have something in
            > mind with Mark? I don't see any obvious agenda, but perhaps someone else
            > can.
            >
            > Such are the uncertainties of Mark at the Paul end. Mark at the Jerusalem
            > end has a different set of uncertainties.
            >
            > Adela (to take this part of her Introduction in reverse) feels that Irenaeus
            > offers nothing new, and knows only Papias's Elder and 1 Peter. For her,
            > these represent independent and thus confirmatory witnesses. Both are at
            > best from the end of the 1c; how much they may be worth depends somewhat on
            > how one dates Mark - the later Mark, the more convincing late 1c testimony
            > to Mark would be. Adela, as is common, relies on Mk 13 for a post-70 date. I
            > continue to think that interpretation wrong (a desecration is not a
            > destruction), and that the linguistically most natural reading of Mk 13 and
            > of the Daniel passage which it invokes favors instead a reference to
            > Caligula's intended desecration in the summer of 40. I have argued that
            > point at a SBL/NE panel at which Adela was present, without apparently
            > convincing her.
            >
            > She spends time on KATA MARKON, which seems to me not early evidence; the
            > text's internal label is at Mk 1:1 (perhaps slightly enhanced by a later
            > pen). So Adela ad loc ("Mark 1:1 is an independent sentence, without a
            > predicate, which both summarizes and introduces the rest of the work"). The
            > text itself does not mention its author, which is not unexceptional, but it
            > is also not helpful one way or the other. KATA MARKON is probably a
            > contrastive label; it would be unlikely unless there were another Gospel
            > around (KATA somebody else). At the time when Mark was the only Gospel,
            > there would have been no such competing Gospel, hence KATA MARKON has no
            > value as an author statement, and is a later addition. It can at least count
            > as an outside witness, and would be the more cogent as such if we know when
            > it was applied. Matthew followed Mark, but how soon was Mark written
            > together with that or any other Gospel? I don't think we have manuscript
            > evidence of this practice before the 2c, which is also when the Four Gospels
            > come to be clearly mentioned, and indeed philosophized, as a group.
            >
            > The bottom line seems to be that the ascription to Mark was universal in the
            > 2c, and that there are really no competing candidates. That is more or less
            > where we all came in.
            >
            > UNEXPLORED POSSIBILITIES
            >
            > This is all very fine, but I don't myself think that any statement about a
            > text is in order until we have ascertained the content of that text (the
            > lower criticism) and then determined whether it is one entity or more than
            > one (the higher criticism). Adela assumes a single text, written at one
            > time, for which her only task is to determine, as near as possible, a date
            > and/or a person. But her own provision of a reconstructed Passion Narrative
            > (back of the book) shows that this assumption is perilous. The evidences on
            > which she relies to detect and remove later matter from the Passion
            > Narrative (such as the standard signs of interpolation) exist also in the
            > rest of Mark. If we apply to the whole text the procedures Adela has used
            > for the Passion Narrative, what we come out with is a whole Pre-Markan Mark.
            > That is, not a source, but an earlier state of the text whose final state is
            > our canonical Mark.
            >
            > This is bad news, because it means more work, but it is also good news,
            > because it offers a way out of such irresolvable discussions as the
            > Christology of Mark (noted by Branscomb 1937 as undecidable, and by more
            > recent surveys as still undecidable). The reason for the complexity is,
            > precisely, the complexity: there is more than one Christology jostling for
            > room in Mark, and the text gets simple only when we separate out its
            > different layers. Each layer by itself is intelligible enough; it is the
            > stack of them taken together that defies compact epitomization.
            >
            > It is thus probably relevant to the John Mark and all other Markan questions
            > to first establish the nature of the text, and then use its evidence
            > appropriately. I presented a tentative reconstruction of the whole to SBL in
            > 2008, and have been pursuing tests and refinements since that time. The
            > reconstruction is not likely to arouse wide enthusiasm, for reasons that are
            > easy to see in Adela's reconstructed Passion Narrative. That Narrative ends
            > with Jesus's death, and does not include his burial, the Empty Tomb, or the
            > implied Resurrection. It closes with Jesus's final despairing cry and the
            > rending of the Temple Veil (see Adela's pre-commentary articles for why this
            > precise verse). It did not attract much praise at an SBL review panel (at
            > which I seem to recall that Rikk was also present).
            >
            > Nor was any other reaction very likely, but that is of no consequence one
            > way or another. The only thing that counts is the evidence, and if that
            > reconstruction is where the philological evidence points, and with a few
            > small points which I made online at that time, I think that Adela's sample
            > of the procedure IS where it points, then the task of the historian is
            > simply to follow.
            >
            > Bruce
            >
            > E Bruce Brooks
            > Warring States Project
            > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > 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 In Response To: Rikk Watts On: John Mark From: Bruce RIKK: Presumably, Mark sees his Jesus as the one coherent figure, . . ., BRUCE: Presumably
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 31, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Crosstalk
              In Response To: Rikk Watts
              On: John Mark
              From: Bruce

              RIKK: Presumably, Mark sees his Jesus as the one coherent figure, . . .,

              BRUCE: "Presumably" is precisely a presumption. If the presumption is
              correct, the way to show it is to state what Mark's Christology is. Could
              Rikk oblige?

              RIKK: . . so I doubt if it is fair to Mark to claim that he has jostling
              Christologies.

              BRUCE: "fair" is a moral judgement. I am trying to deal with the relatively
              objective facts about the case. For a recent report on the state of the
              question, see Jacob Chacko Naluparayil, Jesus of the Gospel of Mark, Present
              State of Research, CurBS v8 (2000) 191-226.

              RIKK: It might be more accurate to say that his Jesus has only one
              Christology
              (self-understanding) and that it draws on a range of Jewish figures,
              sometimes in unexpected ways . . .

              BRUCE: Or it could be that Jesus had no Christology in the sense in which
              that term is currently used, and that the Christologies we encounter in the
              texts (there seem to be several, and Paul for one is very concerned to argue
              for some and against others) are all later attributions. A lot of things
              could be. The job of history is to see what the early texts think the
              alternatives are, and then do what we can to discover if any of them is
              earlier than the rest.

              RIKK: . . . (hence Mark's account of the disciples' and the crowds'
              confusion), in order fully to express his mission and identity. This strikes
              me as quite historically probable.

              BRUCE: Well, not me. I think probably Jesus had at most one idea about
              himself (at any given time, and we may have to allow for changes of opinion
              during his life; Mark seems to chart just such a progression). And if he was
              any kind of communicator at all, the crowds will have known what that idea
              was, what was the message about him, or at any rate the message of
              importance to them. More importantly, Mk 4:10f does not say that the crowds
              are confused. It says they have been deliberately misled. With a quotation
              from Isaiah to make that pill go down easier, though it still creates a
              problem for many readers. But never mind them, the question is: Did it
              create a problem for the later Synoptists? I gather that it did: Luke et al
              are inclined to take some of the sting out of it. To me, those are
              diagnostically suggestive moments.

              RIKK: If the earliest writers on Jesus felt that four Bioi were necessary to
              capture the complexity of his person, . . .

              BRUCE: If they got together, perhaps in some Evangelists Club, to talk the
              matter over before any of them wrote anything, and decide who would take
              what aspect, we might have such a picture. I don't find this or any
              functional equivalent credible. All the literary evidence shows that Mark
              wrote before Matthew and Luke, and that for both of them, Mark's Gospel was
              a given. There can have been no preconference at which Mark was given an
              assignment to which Matthew and Luke were also privy. The texts of Matthew
              and Luke show them constantly reworking Mark, suggesting that if there had
              been such an understanding, Mark had loused up his part of it. Further, the
              Trajectory Arguments (eg, Jesus is progressively divinized in the Gospels if
              read in their apparent sequence of composition, Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn) show
              linear succession, and not horizontal agreement. What I get from the texts
              themselves is disagreement. The harmonization, it seems to me, is all done
              by later interpretation, up to and including the present.

              Can any of this be checked? In the case of Luke, we are perhaps not reduced
              to speculation. Does Luke say to Theophilus, in effect, (a) You already know
              some aspects of Jesus, here is another one to add to your perception, and
              make it more adequate; or (b) You may have seen the various accounts of
              Jesus, but here is the REAL story, verified with sources and checked from
              beginning to end? I read Luke as saying something along the lines of (b); he
              does not want to supplement Mark, he wants to transform and replace Mark.
              This I think goes against any theory of intentional collaboration in an
              enterprise each of whose parts is intentionally incomplete, the true picture
              being gained only when they are assembled.

              If so, then the "four bioi" model does not seem to fit. Except from a 2c
              point of view, according to which Four Gospels were not only tolerable, they
              were cosmically necessary. We know that line was taken, and we know some of
              the people who took it. But I think that is merely an early harmonizing
              interpretation. Marcion saw more clearly that the Gospels differed, and that
              for his purposes (and those of his many followers), some were better than
              others. That is, he took a view of Luke that seems to agree rather well with
              the view which Luke himself took of Luke.

              RIKK: . . .why would one ever be tempted to think in terms of Jesus himself
              having only "one Christology" such as we narrowly define them?

              BRUCE: Again the imputations of wrongdoing ("temptation") and of imported
              modern ideas ("as we define them"). I don't think that the complications and
              contradictions in the Gospels are a modern creation (to mention only the
              Gospels; for real internal vituperation, and literal reading out of the
              church and into Hell of Christians who disagree with the speaker
              theologically, see the Pauline and General Epistles). On the contrary, I
              think they are in grain, that the writer of 1 John and the writer of 2 Cor
              were very concerned about them, and tried to make one side of the argument
              win out, over against the other.

              RIKK: This strikes me as anachronistic. Paul seems to have no problem with
              such combinations. Why Mark?

              BRUCE: That Paul has no problem with doctrinal deviations, with the means of
              salvation, with the right way of celebrating the sacraments of his time,
              will I think be news to Paul. As for Jesus in Mark, again, why did he go to
              the trouble of speaking to his crowd in parables in the first place, if the
              intended result was that they would NOT understand him, and NOT repent
              (""turn") and NOT be forgiven, and that only the Secret Disciples would know
              the truth of the matter? Was the whole Galilee preaching of Jesus not only a
              sham, but an intentional sham? I have heard some hard things said about
              Jesus, but this really takes the cake.

              It it was not true, and it certainly diminishes the moral stature of Jesus
              if it IS true, why did Mark (or somebody) write it? It at this point, it
              seems to me, that we begin to get at the real problem from a perhaps useful
              angle, an angle from which it could conceivably be solved.

              The possibility of a solution interests me.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst

              PS: As before, some Crosstalk members seem to be interested in some of my
              suggestions (the most recent communication concerned the stratified Mark
              model), but it seems they don't care to say so online. I appreciate their
              interest, but all the same, I can't afford the time for multiple single
              communications; talking to a list is already time-consuming. The best I can
              offer is to refer them to the Biblica section of the Project web site, where
              some data lists and some working solutions (I should emphasize that they are
              no more than that) are available for view. Anyone who wants to offer a
              correction, or request more information, can write to me (at the Project)
              from any page of that site. With the understanding that the answer may be a
              book which is not scheduled until 2014.

              Biblica is undergoing radical editing currently; radical but slow. It too is
              time-consuming, and time is scarce. The idea is to have online only those
              pages which meet current standards, including current prudential thoughts
              about copyright and intellectual priority, but given the size of the site,
              this is not a fully achievable objective. We do what we can, and hope for
              tolerance, and indeed collaboration, beyond that point. Thanks in advance.

              http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html
            • Joseph Codsi
              Bruce, You gave the following link to Biblica: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html Unfortunately the link works for the index, not for most of the
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 31, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Bruce,

                You gave the following link to Biblica:

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html

                Unfortunately the link works for the index, not for most of the topics.
                What pertains to Mark

                * Stratification in Mark
                * The Original Markan Narrative
                * Commentary
                * The Historical Jesus

                is not accessible.

                Can you please make sure the index is properly linked to the various
                topics?

                Thank you.

                Joseph Codsi
                Seattle


                ________________________________


                Biblica is undergoing radical editing currently; radical but slow. It
                too is
                time-consuming, and time is scarce. The idea is to have online only
                those
                pages which meet current standards, including current prudential
                thoughts
                about copyright and intellectual priority, but given the size of the
                site,
                this is not a fully achievable objective. We do what we can, and hope
                for
                tolerance, and indeed collaboration, beyond that point. Thanks in
                advance.

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html
              • E Bruce Brooks
                Joseph, Things not now accessible in the Biblica section are for the most part intentionally not accessible; those pages are either being recast/updated, or
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 31, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Joseph,

                  Things not now accessible in the Biblica section are for the most part
                  intentionally not accessible; those pages are either being recast/updated,
                  or temporarily withheld for other reasons. But I have your list, and will do
                  what I can to put it at the top of *my* list.

                  The paradox for me, needless to say, is that the web site amounts to writing
                  a book in advance of the actual planned book (or two). There is something
                  inefficient about that, somehow. But that's my problem and I will do what I
                  can with it.

                  Thanks for your interest,

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Joseph Codsi" <jcodsi@...>
                  To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:43 PM
                  Subject: RE: [XTalk] John Mark


                  > Bruce,
                  >
                  > You gave the following link to Biblica:
                  >
                  > http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html
                  >
                  > Unfortunately the link works for the index, not for most of the topics.
                  > What pertains to Mark
                  >
                  > * Stratification in Mark
                  > * The Original Markan Narrative
                  > * Commentary
                  > * The Historical Jesus
                  >
                  > is not accessible.
                  >
                  > Can you please make sure the index is properly linked to the various
                  > topics?
                  >
                  > Thank you.
                  >
                  > Joseph Codsi
                  > Seattle
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  >
                  >
                  > Biblica is undergoing radical editing currently; radical but slow. It
                  > too is
                  > time-consuming, and time is scarce. The idea is to have online only
                  > those
                  > pages which meet current standards, including current prudential
                  > thoughts
                  > about copyright and intellectual priority, but given the size of the
                  > site,
                  > this is not a fully achievable objective. We do what we can, and hope
                  > for
                  > tolerance, and indeed collaboration, beyond that point. Thanks in
                  > advance.
                  >
                  > http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > 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
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Jack Kilmon
                  Speaking of stratification, we are all aware of the Aramaic interference in Markan Greek and the consensus is that the author was an Aramaic speaker writing in
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Speaking of stratification, we are all aware of the Aramaic interference in
                    Markan Greek and the consensus is that the author was an Aramaic speaker
                    writing in Greek, see Maurice Casey "Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel." I
                    have always dealt with the Markan sayings of Jesus as good examples of
                    translational Greek from an Aramaic source document (Mark's notebook) but
                    now I am wondering if blocks of the narrative may not also be translational
                    Greek suggesting an Aramaic draft/Ur-Markus.

                    Jack

                    Jack Kilmon
                    San Antonio, TX

                    --------------------------------------------------
                    From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...>
                    Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:23 PM
                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] John Mark

                    > Joseph,
                    >
                    > Things not now accessible in the Biblica section are for the most part
                    > intentionally not accessible; those pages are either being recast/updated,
                    > or temporarily withheld for other reasons. But I have your list, and will
                    > do
                    > what I can to put it at the top of *my* list.
                    >
                    > The paradox for me, needless to say, is that the web site amounts to
                    > writing
                    > a book in advance of the actual planned book (or two). There is something
                    > inefficient about that, somehow. But that's my problem and I will do what
                    > I
                    > can with it.
                    >
                    > Thanks for your interest,
                    >
                    > Bruce
                    >
                    > E Bruce Brooks
                    > Warring States Project
                    > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "Joseph Codsi" <jcodsi@...>
                    > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:43 PM
                    > Subject: RE: [XTalk] John Mark
                    >
                    >
                    >> Bruce,
                    >>
                    >> You gave the following link to Biblica:
                    >>
                    >> http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html
                    >>
                    >> Unfortunately the link works for the index, not for most of the topics.
                    >> What pertains to Mark
                    >>
                    >> * Stratification in Mark
                    >> * The Original Markan Narrative
                    >> * Commentary
                    >> * The Historical Jesus
                    >>
                    >> is not accessible.
                    >>
                    >> Can you please make sure the index is properly linked to the various
                    >> topics?
                    >>
                    >> Thank you.
                    >>
                    >> Joseph Codsi
                    >> Seattle
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> ________________________________
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Biblica is undergoing radical editing currently; radical but slow. It
                    >> too is
                    >> time-consuming, and time is scarce. The idea is to have online only
                    >> those
                    >> pages which meet current standards, including current prudential
                    >> thoughts
                    >> about copyright and intellectual priority, but given the size of the
                    >> site,
                    >> this is not a fully achievable objective. We do what we can, and hope
                    >> for
                    >> tolerance, and indeed collaboration, beyond that point. Thanks in
                    >> advance.
                    >>
                    >> http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/index.html
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> ------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >> 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
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > 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
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.