• ## Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Mark's U-Turn (was The Great Omission)

(10)
• NextPrevious
• ... Your reasoning is convoluted. The starting point for the boat ride is not dependent solely upon Mark s ERHMOS TOPOS. Eric, the geographical setting is
Message 1 of 10 , Mar 25 3:39 PM
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Eric Eve wrote:

> No.  Mark 6:53 is the culmination of a journey that begins in 6:45.  Severing it makes Mark's >narrative even more confused (topographically) than it already (inherently) is.  I think you are >grasping.

I'm afraid I don't see how this answers my point. As you quite correctly
observe, Mark 6.53 is the culmination of a journey that begins at 6.45,
which is the point I was also making, plus the fact that if the Markan
interpolation begins at 6.53, then the entire journey lies within the
interpolated section and the U-Turn has *not* been created by the process of
interpolation. To argue that Mark's U-Turn is the product of a clumsy
interpolation you would need a journey that starts outside the interpolation
and ends within it, as would occur if the interpolation started at 6.53. I'm
not trying to make a case for the interpolation beginning at 6.53, I am just
pointing out that this is what the logic of your argument would require. The
fact that Mark uses ERHMOS TOPOS in the feeding story and at 1.35 really
doesn't help, since the expression is too vague for us to have any reason to
assume that he intends the same geographical location (any more than we
should suppose that whenever Mark refers to an OIKOS he always means the
same one).

Your reasoning is convoluted.  The starting point for the boat ride is not dependent solely upon Mark's ERHMOS TOPOS.

Eric, the geographical setting is simple.  Jesus instructs the disciples to go to "the other side, to Bethsaida."  Since the activities of Jesus in connection with the lake are on the northern end, travel must have been from the n/w side of the lake towards to the n/e. In other words, from the area of Capernaum/Genessaret to Bethsaida.    I don't know what else to tell you.   I know this territory intimatelyit really is not complicated.  Nor is Mark's mistake in need of convoluted justification.

I find it constantly amazing that if one points out evidence of Matthean and Lukan redaction (and I do find them also editing their material) everyone responds "of course."  Yet, the minute one suggests that Mark is also working with sources and editing his material (and in this instance slipped in the process) every effort is made to exonerate him.  I can only assume that at this point we have touched on the taboo assumption which forms the foundation of 150 years of scholarshipthat Luke (together with Matthew) is reliant upon Mark in common tradition.  Thus, the need to maintain Mark's qualitative superiority (at all costs) to Luke (and Matthew).

I am sorry but the king has no clothes.  The datano matter how much it is contorteddoes not support the assumption.

I repeat:  Mark's topographical slip could not be more clear. It is not theological, not intended, just mistaken.  The reason it is missing in Luke is that Luke never saw itnor did he know Mark's Montage.

Shalom,
Steven Notley

Best wishes,

Eric
---------------------------
Eric Eve
Harris Manchester College, Oxford
email: mailto:eric.eve@...