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

Re: [XTalk] Markan "Fabrications"-Essay:Methodology for separating history from fiction, etc.

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... [...] ... Thanks for your comments, Bob. I didn t want to respond to Ted s post immediately because (a) I had to order MacDonald s book and read it first,
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      At 07:55 PM 6/25/00 -0700, Robert M. Schacht wrote in response to Ted Weeden:
      > I hope so, and I hope you will deal more directly with the evidence for
      >Johannine independence assembled by Stephen. I will look forward to your
      >post. Next, you turn to a new approach that seems compelling:
      [...]
      >Thank you for the extensive and fascinating material from MacDonald (which I
      >have snipped). His "criteria" are interesting, and I look forward to seeing
      >how useful they are.

      Thanks for your comments, Bob. I didn't want to respond to Ted's
      post immediately because (a) I had to order MacDonald's book and
      read it first, (b) it looked like there was going to be a part II,
      and (c) Ted was going to be away for two weeks, so I wanted to be
      more contemporaneous.

      I would to clarify a few points in Ted's part I, because I fear
      that the discussion may be getting off-track. First, I am not
      so interested now in whether Peter's denial was a historical
      fact or whether it was a Christian invention. No, the issue I
      am attending is the subject of Ted's essay: whether "Mark", the
      author of the second fabricated the Petrine denial. It is not
      enough to say we can't prove the denial was historical, therefore
      it is a fabrication. No, I want to address the argument that
      "Mark" was the culprit.

      Because the Petrine denial exists in John, if not in a pre-Johannine
      source, the case for "Mark" being the originator of that tradition
      depends on one's solution to the Johannine question. As far as I am
      aware, this is an issue that enjoys no real consensus and the pendulum
      has rocked back and forth a couple times even in this twentieth century.
      Therefore, the case for "Mark" being the source of denial tradition
      is necessarily contingent on a particular resolution to the Johannine
      question.

      As for MacDonald's book, which I have recently been reading, I'm
      afraid that it is of little help in aiding the debate. Basically,
      MacDonald finds Homeric allusions under every rock and concludes
      that Mark is an emulation of the Odyssey. The thesis relies on
      rather attentuated parallels and does not ultimately stand up to
      scrutiny -- especially the kind of scrutiny and standards of proof
      that the Thomasine independence party demands.

      When we consider the issue of literary connections with the synoptics
      separately for Thomas and John, we run the real danger of inconsistent
      standards. High standards are applied to show that Thomas is independent;
      low standards are applied to show that John is dependent (e.g. Crossan's
      argument for John's dependence on Mark for the denial that Weeden relies
      on), forgetting that Patterson's case for Thomas's independence is to
      compare it to John's assumed INdependence.

      Finally, I believe that any charge of fabrication must be able to
      account for the reception of the fabricated tradition in other
      communities, who must not have previously heard of it. Maybe this
      will be addressed in part II.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Ron Price
      ... Stephen, Not necessarily. For if it can be shown that Mark invented the denial story (and I believe the case for this is strong), then the Johannine
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson wrote:

        >Because the Petrine denial exists in John .......
        >the case for "Mark" being the source of denial tradition
        >is necessarily contingent on a particular resolution to the Johannine
        >question.

        Stephen,

        Not necessarily.

        For if it can be shown that "Mark" invented the denial story (and
        I believe the case for this is strong), then the Johannine
        question will have been answered. For John must then be dependent
        on Mark.

        Ron Price

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

        e-mail: ron.price@...

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Why must ? Please clarify. What seems evident to you is not at all evident to me. Bob
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:33 AM 7/2/00 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
          ... if it can be shown that "Mark" invented the denial story (and
          I believe the case for this is strong), then the Johannine
          question will have been answered. For John must then be dependent
          on Mark.


          Why "must"? Please clarify. What seems evident to you is not at all evident to me.
          Bob
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.