Kata Markon

["George Young" <gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca>]

J.B.  Gibson wrote:

******************
> > A very interesting response, I think. But even assuming a Roman
provenance
> > for
> > GMark, aren't you here confusing the traditions about, and
interpretative
> > models
> > of, PEIRASMOS that AMark would have been steeped in with those with
which
> > his
> > readers were familiar?
 ******************

Not at all.  The original impetus for my observation was Garrett's book,
which, in my view, is no doubt a valuable resource, but one that lacks a
consistent methodology.  Especially insofar as Garrett makes continual
reference to "Mark's readers," which, I hasten to add, appear to have the
same encyclopedic expertise as Garrett with respect to Jewish literature.
This is not a chastisement of Garrett, but rather an academic observation.
This is, moreover,  why I raised the issue of provenance.  Garrett only
makes one passing remark to issue of provenance (p. 151), and dismisses it
with
a footnote (n.27).  But if Mark's gospel has a Roman provenance, which
certainly seems to be the case (space prohibits me from elucidating all the
evidence, but to give one example: If Mark has to translate some of his
Greek terms with explanations [i.e., KOINOS at 7:3-4 with respect to the
Jewish distinctions between 'common' and 'holy' articles], what is the
chance of them understanding a plethora of Aramiac/Greek Jewish traditions
from the east Med?  Probably none at all), then Garrett has overlooked a
potential bomb shell.


******************
> > Also, I'm curious about your assertion that there is a tradition
regarding
> > "testing" and/or a use of the "testing motif" in the Greek Novel. Can
you
> > tell
> > me when and where this appears? And can you tell me whether or not, when
it
> > appears, what the technical language of "testing" is? That is to say, is
it
> > the
> > noun PEIRASMOS and its verbal cognates PEIRAZW, EKPEIRAZW, etc.,  or
some
> > other
> > terminology?
******************

I couldn't help noticing that there are only four (4) references to
PEIRASMOS in Mk., 1:13; 8:11; 10:2; 12:15.  In the first instance, we have
no idea of the nature of the test. In the second, there is indeed a test,
but what the Pharisees' seek  is not all that different that what the
"spirit" seeks in 1;13!.  In the third instance, it seems to me that it
would be a mistake to read "test" in a legal way (i.e., Does Jesus have any
knowledge of laws regarding marriage and remarriage?).  Given the context
(leaving one woman for another), and given the response of the disciples
(they don't understand why Jesus forbids divorce), one must ask, What was
the REAL motive of the Pharisees?   "Test" in this instance seems to go
beyond legal technicalities to include, perhaps, albeit subtlely, erotic
enticement.  A legal explanation is unconvincing, under a careful reading.
And lastly, 12:15. This last instance does seem to support your
understanding
of PEIRASMOS.

**********************
> A second reason is that I have written an article on the idea of "testing"
in
> the "secular world" for the forthcoming _Dictionary of New Testament
> Backgrounds_ (a companion to _Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels_ and
> _Dictionary of Paul and His Letters_) which focuses on the how non
Biblical
> Hellenistic authors use the PEIRASMOS terminology and what can be inferred
about
> their conception(s) of the experience that the terminology is used to
denote. So
> I was curious to see if I missed any thing. So far as I know (after
searching
> all forms of PEIRASMOS and cognates in the TLG -- which in terms of the
number
> of instances of the terminology is far more extensive than those noted in
LSJ),

 - I agree -

> the terminology does not appear in any of the Hellenistic Greek Novels
such as
> Chariton, etc.
**********************
What about the language in Mk. 4:17-19, to name but one instance. Does this
need to be addressed?  The context seems to me to be one of "testing."


**********************
> And then there is the larger question of whether what you identify in the
novel
> as a model of what the terms PEIRASMOS and cognates signified in either
Greek
> Biblical or non biblical Hellenistic literature really is a such a model,
> especially if it is more concerned with the idea  of  "enticement" or
> "seduction", which I have argued is something quite different from what
stories
> designated as  PEIRASMOI entail.
*********************

This, in my view, takes one back to issues if provenance.

Sincerely,

George W. Young, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
Queen's College Faculty of Theology
210 Prince Philip Drive
St. John's  NF
CANADA   A1B 3R6
Tel. (709) 753-0116
Fax. (709) 753-1214
email: gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca