Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> One may also note that Alfred Loisy also argued for a proto-Mark that
> seemed very similar to the one Koester argues for currently but, for
> obvious reasons, Loisy could not have known about the Secret Mark.
I'm confused by the first half of this statement and the intended import of
the expression "a proto-Mark that **seemed** very similar to".
Are you trying to say that Loisy's reconstruction of proto Mark was something
that **is** very similar in form and content to Koester's reconstruction of
it? Or is your claim that, after examination and comparison of the two, what
initially **appear** to be similarities between the two reconstructions
disappear and that Koester's is nothing like Loisy's?.
If you intended the former, then how about producing a chart or something
which allows us to see exactly how and in what ways the reconstructions are
similar, if indeed they are?
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626