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

Re: [XTalk] John Mark

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      centuriesĀ‹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 PaulĀ¹s, 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.