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

Re: [XTalk] John Mark

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.