Kata Markon

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>]

List Members might like to be made aware of an extensive, engaging, and
extremely enlightening  debate on the provenance of GMark that is being
carried out between Mahlon Smith (J.S. Fellow; Rutgers) and Stephen
Carlson (author of the Synoptic Problem Home Page), Mark Goodacre (U. of
Birmingham), Ted Weeden,  and others that is being carried on over on
XTalk). Should you wish to view the contours of this debate, go to the
XTalk archives at

              http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/

and search for the thread "Provenance of  GMark".

In the meantime, I am forwarding the "progress reports" (i.e., summaries
by three of the debate's major players on what Mahlon, Steven, and Mark
perceive has gone on within the debate so far) that, in an attempt to
insure that everyone knows what is at stake and who stands where on the
matters at hand, these three have recently submitted to XTalk.

Please feel free to take up the debate.

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net

*************
Subject:  [XTalk] Re: Provenance of GMark
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:29:31 -0500
From:  "Mahlon H. Smith" <mahlonh.smith AT worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To:  crosstalk2 AT egroups.com

n the mean time I would like to clarify where (I think) we stand in
the current debate & to explain in more detail why I think Stephen's
mode
of argumentation from the general to the particular is invalid. Brian
McCarthy has asked that each of us prepare a concluding summary of
arguments that each thought important for establishing the provenance
of Mark. This would help auditors & any future researcher who chooses to

use the transcripts of this debate. For in any rapid volley it is
often hard for by-standers to remember exactly where each participant
stands or assess whether there has been any real progress. I submit the
rest of this post as an interim report to clarify (a) *where* I now
stand (& where I *think* Stephen is) and (b) *why* I don't admit
generalizations as proof of the status of particulars. The first
clarification is concrete & particular, the 2nd methodological &
therefore general. Please note that this is an assessment from
one particular participant in a debate that is far from over. So it
is not a neutral description of the current status of the argument
(i.e., which "side" is "ahead"). Since neither my logic nor my memory is

infallible, I welcome corrections or similar clarifications from Stephen

& Ted or critique by anyone else.

The debate over whether or not Mark was composed in Rome began when
Stephen Carlson submitted a list of items characterized as external &
internal evidence. Stephen's main argument was that the "convergence" of

that data produced an overwhelming case for claiming that Mark (a) was
*generally regarded* in Xn antiquity to be composed in Rome & (b)
contained features that *supported* this point of origin. His secondary
argument in support of this thesis was that there was *no external
evidence of an ancient tradition* of an alternate place of origin. The
one exception he noted was the claim of John Chrysostom that the gospel
of Mark was composed in Alexandria. This opinion Stephen dismissed with
the suggestion that Chrysostom was *probably misled* by a
(questionable?) legend that the author of Mark became the first bishop
of that Egyptian city.

*In general* such a case sounds convincing. But the question is: is it
really *supported by the particulars* that Stephen entered into
evidence? Since Stephen submitted this evidence as a formidable
challenge to theses proposed by Ted Weeden & myself that Mark was
probably composed somewhere in Palestine, we began -- quite
independently -- to challenge (a) the reliability of *particular items*
he claimed supported his conclusion & (b) his logic regarding *general
consensus.*

In outlining his methodology Stephen stated (a) that he always tried to
distinguish prior tradition from an author's personal opinion & (b) that

he was prepared to give "the benefit of the doubt" to that tradition.
That second point rests on the (unarticulated) principle that anything
that is *general* tradition is probably based on reliable historical
fact. In other words, Stephen argued from what he claimed was generally
believed to be true to the fact that it was true, simply because there
was no alternate tradition that *contradicted* that tradition
(discounting Chrysostom's rather late testimony, of course, because it
did not "converge" with the majority consensus).

In reply, Ted & I argued that (a) the whole "tradition" that linked the
gospel of Mark to Rome could be traced to one single author, Papias of
Hieropolis, an early 2nd c. Greek bishop who claimed that Mark got all
his information from Peter (since Mark was not himself an eye-witness) &

(b) Papias was an unreliable witness (since Peter could not have been
the
source of much of the information in Mark as Papias claimed). Papias
himself claimed to be dependent on the oral report of a single tradant,
John the presbyter (who is not to be confused with the apostle). So the
argument shifted to the question of whether Papias in fact claimed to
have gotten the information that Mark was dependent on Peter's testimony

from this John or this idea was Papias' own later interpretation of what

he *thought he remembered* John to have said.

To support his contention that the idea that the gospel of Mark was
composed by an associate of Peter in Rome was reliable tradition,
Stephen isolated a statement in Eusebius' citation of the testimony of
Papias identifying Mark as Peter's associate & argued that this was
substantively what John had in fact said & thus could be accepted as
*early tradition* whatever one thought about the reliability of Papias'
own interpretation of it. When I pointed out that in the very next
sentence Papias expressly stated that it was he himself who had
identified Mark as Peter's associate, Stephen countered that "he
believed" that Papias was here referring to Papias' own discussion of 1
Peter 5:13 which Eusebius claimed Papias had cited in a passage that
(unfortunately) Eusebius did not quote. In response to my point that
(a) Eusebius' quotation of Papias does not expressly claim that the
gospel of Mark was *written in Rome* & (b) that Eusebius' quotation of
Clement of Alexandria is the earliest documented evidence of such an
idea, Stephen (a) pointed out that elsewhere Eusebius made a statement
that Papias' testimony supported Clement's account locating the
composition of Mark in Rome & (b) argued that Eusebius' claim should be
"given the benefit of the doubt" since *in general* he seems to be a
reliable interpreter of texts. (Why Eusebius claimed the earlier writer
--Papias-- supported the later --Clement-- rather than vice versa, *if*
he actually had a passage from Papias that explicitly claimed where Mark

was written, is unclear).

As best I can recall, that is where we are in our evaluation of the
"external evidence."  Ted & I argue that that whole tradition is based
on the unreliable testimony of a third (or 4th?) generation pious Xn
author (Papias) who was admittedly dependent on his own memory of oral
testimony from one person who was not himself a direct eye-witness & his

own personal interpretation of a verse in a pseudonymous text (1 Peter)
that *suggests* Mark was an associate of Peter in Rome. The whole
tradition can be explained as the legendary development of a single text

in which it is not clear (a) *what* information was transmitted to
Papias & what was his own opinion; and (b) *if* the information Papias
ascribed to a 2nd generation presbyter was *reliable* information (since

Papias never mentions where John got his information) or even *general
tradition* at that point in time.

*If* Papias really knew that it was *generally known* that Mark was
composed by a close associate of Peter in Rome, why would he have to
credit that "tradition" only to a single figure of the previous
generation who was not himself directly linked to either Peter
or Mark? And *if* Papias himself *really* stated that Mark was
composed in Rome, why does Irenaeus -- a later tradant who valued
Papias' testimony & who had direct ties to Rome (but was *not*
reliant on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria) -- report this? And
*if* it was really *general tradition* in the 4th c. CE that Mark was
composed in *Rome*, why did Eusebius have to credit Clement of
*Alexandria* with providing this information? or *claim*  (without
providing explicit quotation to that effect) that Papias of Hieropolis
(in *Asia Minor*) supported it? Why in these texts is there *no* appeal
to *common general knowledge* or to *Roman* tradition itself but to the
testimony a few individuals who were not personally in a position to
speak for Roman, much less apostolic "tradition"? Why is the alleged
*general tradition* that Mark was composed in Rome itself not
demonstrable apart from a single literary thread that runs directly
from Clement of Alexandria to Eusebius of Caesarea to Jerome (whose
testimony about Mark I will discuss in a later post)?

As an intellectual historian I conclude that the most plausible
explanation of the external evidence is that the idea that Mark was
composed at Rome was *not* a "general tradition" in Xn antiquity but was

based on a very traceable paper trail of pious speculation & rumor
transmitted by a few identifiable scholars whose works were widely read
in the Xn middle ages & whose "testimony" was never questioned until
modern times. These writers believed without question what they were
told (Papias by John, Eusebius by Clement). Since Clement states *as a
matter of fact* that Mark wrote at Rome, Eusebius reported this as a
matter of fact & concluded that Papias' testimony *in general* (but
without specific quotation) supported Clement. Because Eusebius was
regarded as *generally* reliable, *most* later authors took whatever he
wrote as a matter of fact. There are significant exceptions to this
*general* view, however: (a) 4th c. writers like Chrysostom & Augustine
who apparently were unaware of Eusebius' testimony when they gave
divergent explanations of the origin of the gospel of Mark and (b)
modern scholars who have questioned the reliability of the sources that
Eusebius himself accepted as valid.

The only arguments that I recall Stephen having articulated against this

explanation are (a) that we should give the "benefit of the doubt" to
those writers who report that Mark was composed in Rome simply because
they are *in general* "reliable reporters" of earlier tradition, (b)
that those writers who failed to report that Mark was composed in Rome
itself had "no interest" in reporting *where* any gospel was written &
cannot be demonstrated *not* to have known such a general tradition,
& (c) those ancient writers who fail to trace composition of Mark to
Rome "do not contradict" claims of a Roman origin for this gospel.

The latter of course is true only *if* one ignores Chrysostom -- who
explicitly traces Mark to Alexandria -- and Augustine -- who explicitly
claims Mark was dependent on the written text of Matthew rather than
the oral testimony Peter. But of course, who were they? Such divergent
testimony is only a minor inconvenience to maintaining the Roman origin
of Mark *if* one is already convinced that this was *general tradition*
based upon the testimony of *reliable witnesses* to whom one should give

"the benefit of the doubt."

With regard to the "internal testimony" in the text of Mark, the debate
has focused primarily on the glosses in Mark that Stephen offered as
evidence of a "Western, not Eastern, Audience." Note that he did *not*
explicitly claim this as direct evidence of an "Italian" provenance for
Mark as he did the external testimony, much less a Roman origin of that
gospel. This gradual *widening* of geographical parameters is essential
for finding *any* reliable support for Stephen's argument that Mark was
*in fact* composed in Rome, for he recognizes that he cannot produce
either direct early external testimony or unquestionable internal
markers that Mark was written in Rome itself. Rather, his reasoning
seems to go: *if* Mark is shown to have been composed in the "West"
-- i.e., western Mediterranean basin -- & *if* one produces several
"reliable witnesses" who testify that Mark was written at least in
Italy to support the few writers who explicitly locate its composition
*in Rome*, then one can conclude that Mark was *in fact* written in
Rome. For as *we* all know, Rome is *in fact* located in Italy & Italy
in the West.

This is why Stephen insists on the overwhelming "burden" created by a
"convergence" of both external evidence rather than producing
overwhelming *direct* evidence either internal or external to Mark, that

this gospel was composed in Rome. He cannot do the latter. So his case
in support of the "reliability" of the testimony of the *few*
"witnesses" who claim this, *totally* rests on analysis of
circumstantial evidence that proceeds *from the general to the
particular*.  *If* the *original* text of Mark is demonstrably "western"

then any testimony that places the author of that gospel with Peter
somewhere in Italy is deemed "credible" and this data "converges" to
support the testimony of the few witnesses (whose testimony is
demonstrably *not* independent of each other) that explicitly claimed
Mark was written in Rome.

This reasoning is based on the legal tactic of finding *any* witness who

can place an alleged perpetrator at or anywhere near the scene of a
crime. But in this case, it can be demonstrated that *none* of the
witnesses were themselves at the scene of "the crime." So there is the
added argument of giving a *generally* credible witness the "benefit
of the doubt" regarding a *particular* piece of testimony. If a
"credible" witness claims someone said something, then we are asked to
believe that that it is in fact what that person actually said. That
datum then is labeled as "tradition." And since "tradition" is usually
interpreted as general, it can be assumed to have been *general*
knowledge.

But, in fact, this so-called "tradition" is nothing of the sort, since
in each case the datum has been explicitly identified by the tradant as
the *personal* testimony of a single individual (John the presbyter or
Clement of Alexandria). Since it cannot be demonstrated where that
individual got his information from, we are just asked to assume that
this is prior "general tradition" even though that "credible witness"
never claimed it was.

In the case of Stephen's interpretation of the external testimony
regarding the origins of Mark, the particular (i.e., Clement's
testimony) is interpreted as *general* knowledge. But when it comes to
his analysis of the glosses, he argues from the general to the
particular & back again. *If* the style of the *author* of the gospel of

Mark is granted to be "parenthetical" *in general*, he claims, then a
case can be made for any *particular* gloss being original. And if one
gloss is original to Mark then that author's *general* style can be
characterized as parenthetical. *If* one parenthesis suggests a
non-Palestinian Sitz for a reader, then, Stephen argues, the audience to

whom the *whole* gospel was originally addressed must have been
non-Palestinian. (And if non-Palestinian then western & if western then
Roman).

Since the whole argument for the credibility of the external testimony
depends on making a case that the *autograph* of the gospel of Mark
itself was composed for a non-Palestinian (& therefore "western")
audience, Stephen is currently concentrating on insisting that all the
extant 3rd c. mss. of Mark reproduce the contents of the 1st c. original

& that there is no *textual* basis for arguing that a particular passage

in the text of Mark (reconstructed from the best 3rd c. ms. evidence)
that suggests an audience outside of Palestine was *not* written by the
author himself.

Against this I have argued that the glosses on which Stephen puts so
much weight cannot be assumed to be original to Mark unless each
individually can be demonstrated to have been integral to the Markan
narrative itself. Any passage whose omission makes for a smoother
reading of a narrative is probably an afterthought. Whether that
particular afterthought was interpolated by the author or some later
editor can be determined primarily on the basis of (a) its compatibility

with the author's vocabulary, grammar & line of reasoning in the
*narrative* as a whole, and secondarily on the basis of (b) citation of
that passage by other authors who used that text. Citation proves some
degree of knowledge. Non-citation does not prove ignorance; it simply
proves non-use.

My invocation of Matthew as a witness in this case is due to fact that
he is probably our earliest extant author who used the text of Mark &
only one of two 1st c. authors who can be shown to have actually quoted
passages from Mark. I simply pointed out that since Matthew fails to
quote the 3 key glosses on which Stephen built his case for a
"non-western" location of Mark's audience (as well as most other glosses

in Mark) they cannot be demonstrated to be pre-Matthean. On the basis of

Stephen's claim that Matthew preserved 10 Markan "parentheses" I
rechecked the texts & found that Matthew does have 2 glosses translating

non-Greek words in his account of the crucifixion. Therefore, I now
concede that these 2 glosses in Mark 13 are probably pre-Matthean. But I

am not prepared to concede that these glosses were original to the
author of Mark or indicative of his general "style". I am also prepared
to concede that 2 terms that Stephen called attention to
("Syro-Phoenician" & "kodrans") *may* have been intended for a
non-Palestinian audience. But I do not concede either that (a) that
audience was "western" or (b) that the clauses in which these terms
stand were integral to the original Markan narrative. They strike me as
peripheral & intrusive. If the original author wrote them, why did he
not use them in the first place rather than introduce them to explain
the terms he that he had first used in his narrative. In neither case
did he claim to be quoting the words of someone else. Did he *forget*
that his audience would *not* understand these terms until *after* he
had written them? and then *suddenly* realize this in time to insert an
intelligible
equivalent *immediately* after the obscure word or phrase? Moreover, did

he *persistently* forget that his intended audience probably didn't
understand Aramaic & then *regularly* remember this *just as soon as*
he had written an Aramaic word or phrase so that rather than continue
with his original line of thought he would consistently introduce a "hO
ESTIN (that is...) clause" so that his intended audience wouldn't be
confused by what he had just written? If so he had better concentration
than I, for when I get into a parenthesis I usually lose my original
line of thought & have to go back to retrieve it.

It is the fact that the Markan narrative reads more smoothely *if*
one omits *all* of the explanatory glosses in the critical text based
on 3rd & 4th c. mss. that convinces me that *none* of these particular
parentheses was in the Markan autograph no matter how early they were
inserted. Matthew usually does not use Aramaic terms since he was
probably writing for an audience that did not think in Aramaic. The
author of Mark, on the other hand, clearly thinks in Aramaic (as Jack
Kilmon is fond of pointing out) because of his persistent use of Semitic

phrasing even when he is writing in Greek.

It is quite plausible for someone who thinks in one language to
introduce an occasional word in that language even when s/he is speaking

or writing in another. My wife, whose native language is Hungarian & 2nd

language German, does this practically every day even though she has
been speaking English for the past 45 years. But when my wife is writing

a letter in English to someone she *knows* does *not* speak either
Hungarian or German, she never writes a single Hungarian or German word,

much less immediately translate it. Educated writers regularly use
phrases & technical terms from foreign languages because they assume
they will be intelligible to their intended audience. They do not
usually provide glosses translating those terms unless they know in
advance that there may be a *few* people in that audience who *may* not
share the same
linguistic horizons as the majority for whom the composition was
intended.

Thus, we can be reasonably sure not only that Mark thought in Aramaic,
but that he assumed the Greek-speaking audience to which he addressed
his gospel would be able to understand at least an occasional Aramaic
word or phrase. This linguistic analysis, it seems to me, indicates a
generally *eastern* Mediterranean Sitz for Mark's audience. For we have
no evidence that the bulk of the congregation of Xns at Rome was ever
competent in Aramaic or any Semitic tongue. *If* Mark was in fact
Peter's translator/interpreter in Rome (a "tradition" that I do not
concede to be factual), he could reasonably be supposed to be bi-lingual

(as the author of this gospel reveals himself to be). But *if* he was
really *translating* from Aramaic into Greek, would he regularly have
inserted Aramaic words at key points in his Greek narrative that he knew

he would immediately have to translate? In *speaking* a translator may
be expected to have an occasional lapse of not being able to find the
right word or phrase to render an idiom in one language into another.
But that is not an adequate description of the glosses in Mark. For here

the author deliberately interjects an Aramaic word or phrase while the
glosser knows & *immediately* tells exactly what those words actually
mean. It is this regular pattern of Aramaic words (or unfamiliar phrase)

in the reconstructed text of Mark followed *immediately* by an exact
Greek translation that convinces me (a) that none of the glosses stems
from the author's own pen and (b) that these textual interpolations
were inserted somewhere beyond the cultural sphere of Mark's intended
audience.

*If* Mark was written in a primarily Greek-speaking but Aramaic
competent area in Jewish Palestine (as I think probable on the basis of
these & other assumptions on the part of the author), then explanatory
glosses for Aramaic terms & other Palestinian idioms would have been
needed as soon as this text was taken *anywhere* outside that mixed
Semitic cultural region, not just in the West or at Rome. The only
glosses that can be demonstrated to be pre-Matthean are those Matthew
retains. The others could be pre-Matthean. But they could also have been

added at any point in the transmission of this text between Matthew &
our earliest extant mss. in which those glosses appear. I think this
must have happened pretty early in that textual history. But we have no
reason to suppose a widespread use of the gospel of Mark in its original

form since (a) there are few mss. of Mark itself before the 4th c. CE &
(b) Mark itself is neither referred to nor cited until Papias. Even then

Matthew & Luke's revisions of Mark were preferred in the formation of
early Xn tradition. Some scholars have suggested that Justin included
Mark in his gospel harmony for use at Rome. But that is not at all
certain. Tatian obviously used Mark in his *Diatesseron* ("According to
the Four") & Irenaeus, Clement & other late 2nd c. writers testify to
Mark's acceptance in their communities. But no 2nd c. author is of any
use for determining what exactly was in or not in Mark. Our earliest ms.

evidence or citation of Mark as a distinct text are all later than the
period in which catholic Xns demonstrably harmonized the accounts of
extant gospels. So one cannot simply assume that our earliest extant
mss. of Mark have faithfully preserved the autograph of Mark without
*any* interpolation or emendation.

Therefore *any* proposal that a particular reading is original to Mark
*must* be based on its integrity in the narrative itself, not by its
*general* acceptance in the textual tradition. Until the discovery of
Sinaiticus & Vaticanus the textual tradition almost without exception
reproduced the longer ending of Mark. This was accepted in early
critical editions of the Greek text & is still argued to be original by
some conservative scholars who regard Sinaiticus & Vaticanus as a
defective recension. Most critical scholars, however, conclude that
*general* acceptance of the majority ms. tradition for the ending of
Mark was in error & though this section is in most mss. it is neither
pre-Matthean nor original to the autograph.

Although I cannot produce an extant ms. to support my reconstruction of
the pre-Matthean text of Mark, I am reasonably confident that my denial
that any of the explanatory glosses in this gospel can be traced to the
author himself is based on well-established principles of textual
analysis. I grant that I am in the minority if not totally alone. My
opinion is *not yet* "generally accepted. That is why I lept at the
opportunity to engage Ted Weeden in dialog, since he is the first Markan

scholar I have personally met who has, quite independently, come to the
same conclusion as I about a probable Palestinian provenance for Mark.
We are two mavericks who have ventured away from the herd that follows
*general* tradition because he have each found reason to think that the
direction the herd has stampeded is totally wrong-headed. But if one
considers the history of discoveries in any field, it is often the
maverick who eventually turns out to be right.

To illustrate this, I beg permission to recount an example from my own
scholarly experience. Let me state in advance that I do not tell this to

be self-serving or to pull rank by claiming to be "the generally
recognized expert" in this matter. For I am not. But this anecdote, I
hope, will clarify both my critical methodology as an intellectual
historian & my reasons for being generally suspicious of accepting
"general tradition" as evidence of historical fact.

When I was a student at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies
(already a proven maverick because I was an ordained Protestant cleric),

it was generally accepted as fact, because of repetition by *all*
western church & secular historians, that the definitive schism between
Roman Catholic & Greek Orthodox communions in 1054 could be traced to
the initiative of a single patriarch of Constantinople, Michael
Cerularius. Scholars differed regarding Cerularius' motives (personal
political ambition or zeal for Orthodox liturgical praxis) but they were

universally agreed that Cerularius alone was responsible for the whole
ensuing ecclesiastical mess that has still to be totally transcended.
They based this conviction on their judgment that there was no
historical evidence of friction between Greek & Roman clerics on the
issue that Cerularius insisted was a point of no compromise: that it was

improper to use unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Western scholars had
come to this *general* conviction not through analysis of the range of
documents related to that controversy but because (a) Cerularius'
opponent in that controversy (cardinal Humbert of Moyenmoutier) claimed
Cerularius was responsible, and (b) Humbert was regarded as a "generally

reliable" or even unimpeachable witness. Humbert was himself the only
direct source of information about the events in Constantinople that
precipitated the schism. Moreover, Humbert's scholarship & personal
integrity seemed beyond question. He was indeed the motivating force
behind Pope Leo IX's far-reaching ecclesiastical reform that rooted out
corruption in Latin churches & restored early Roman tradition, making it

the norm for all Latin Xnity.

Humbert was the only high-ranking Latin churchman of his day who was
competent in Greek. So he was chosen by Leo IX to head an embassy to
Constantinople to smoothe over past frictions in order to enlist
Constantinople's support against Norman raids in Italy. Instead of
peace, Humbert's mission ended with him excommunicating Cerularius &
being in turn excommunicated by the patriarch. Since Cerularius
excommunicated anyone who supported Humbert, the fact that Humbert's
mission was supported by the papacy led to a lasting rift between
Constantinople & Rome that lasted until these mutual excommunications
were lifted in 1965 while I was still a student.

Humbert blamed Cerularius for intransigence & unwarranted provocations.
Since (a) Humbert was generally regarded as a reliable witness & (b)
his account of the incident was the sole source of information in the
West, his testimony in this particular incident was generally taken as
fact even by sophisticated scholars who recognized that as participant
to a dispute his testimony was hardly neutral.

Because (a) the issue of ecumenical ecclesiastical relations was a hot
topic in the 60s & (b) I had enough training to interpret not only Latin

but Greek texts & (c) as a Protestant I could be regarded as a neutral
party in this dispute between Catholics & Orthodox, my sainted advisor
at Toronto recommended that I make an objective analysis of a little
studied collection of all the documents in this dispute that had been
published 35 years earlier. This was the first & only collection
that made both Greek & Latin documents available to western scholars.
The editor presented convincing arguments that the longest of the Greek
documents had been composed (probably dictated) by Cerularius himself.
But there were a number of shorter documents containing portions of
Cerularius' arguments that the editor ascribed to later scholars. In
other words, he accepted the *general* western tradition that Cerularius

was personally responsible for creating an issue over Latin use of
unleavened bread in the Eucharist & interpreted the literature
accordingly.

What I discovered in studying these documents, however, was something
that no western scholar had even suspected. First, Humbert admitted that

*he* had first criticized Cerularius for departing from normative Roman
liturgical practice. He based his arguments on the pseudonymous
"Donation of Constantine", which he took to be authentic, in which the
first Xn emperor allegedly acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope.
Second, Cerularius defended himself by citing Orthodox sources that
opposed the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. In fact his work
had very little original material in it but was largely a pastiche of
arguments drawn from other authors. In comparing the documents I found
that the works of other authors that the editor of the collection
thought were dependent on Cerularius' arguments were in fact the sources

that Cerularius' explicitly quoted. These were ascribed to Orthodox
fathers from Athanasius to John Damascene & were written against
Judaizers in eastern Mediterranean churches. They had been published in
the West in Migne's *Patrologia* but had been ignored by *western*
scholars because they had been identifies as "spurious." Yet Cerularius
regarded them as authentic & acted accordingly to defend Orthodox
tradition against attack by a Latin cleric whom he did not recognize as
a legitimate legate of the Pope, since he was convinced that no Pope
would ever contradict what was *generally* accepted in the East as
Orthodox "tradition."

Everybody in the history of this dispute & its interpretation assumed
general knowledge of what he believed to be "reliable tradition." And
everybody was demonstrably wrong. Humbert was wrong in relying on the
forged "Donation of Constantine." Cerularius was wrong in thinking the
Pope knew & accepted what he regarded as reliable patristic tradition.
Western historians have all been wrong in taking Humbert's report of
what happened at face value.

That is why I am skeptical about the historical reliability of any
"general tradition" & refuse to give "the benefit of the doubt" to any
"credible" witness unless I can trace the source of his information. My
motto still is: always follow the paper trail & don't assume more than
you can prove (in matter of historical fact).

Shalom!

Mahlon
               *********************

Mahlon H. Smith,       http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html
Associate Professor
Department of Religion         Virtual Religion Index
Rutgers University                 http://religion.rutgers.edu/vri/
New Brunswick NJ

Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/

A Synoptic Gospels Primer
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

Jesus Seminar Forum
http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/

Subject:
           [XTalk] Re: Provenance of GMark
      Date:
           Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:59:48 -0500
      From:
           "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson AT mindspring.com>
   Reply-To:
           crosstalk2 AT egroups.com
        To:
           crosstalk2 AT egroups.com
 References:
           1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12




At 10:29 PM 3/20/00 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
>In the mean time I would like to clarify where (I think) we stand in
>the current debate & to explain in more detail why I think Stephen's
>mode
>of argumentation from the general to the particular is invalid. Brian
>McCarthy has asked that each of us prepare a concluding summary of
>arguments that each thought important for establishing the provenance
>of Mark. This would help auditors & any future researcher who chooses
to
>use the transcripts of this debate.

It was Philip Lewis who really started this discussion when he
wrote, "I suggest that the traditional assignment of Rome as the
church from which GMark sprang is sound."  Mahlon quickly responded
with his critique, and I replied with a summation of the evidence
for Philip's suggestion, garnered from many of the standard
commentaries (e.g. Gundry, etc.)  Mahlon graciously responded
with yet another critique, and he and I have been going at it
ever since.

Before I explain why I think the gospel of Mark was composed
in the West, I want to explain why I have been formulating my
position as a composition in the "West" rather than in "Rome."
I do so, because I do not wish to formulate a conclusion that
is more precise than the data will allow.  Specifically, the
strongest evidence for Mark's provenance is the explanations
embedded in the text of Mark for explaining certain terms and
concepts to his audience.  Although these explanations place
Mark's immediate audience somewhere in the West, they are not
sufficiently precise to place Mark at any particular location
or city in the West.  (They do exclude Mahlon's Palestine,
though).  As a result, my use of a "Western provenance" for
Mark is not an invalid "argumentation from the general to
the particular."

The case for Mark's composition in the West is quite good.  It
rests on the convergence of two independent lines of evidence:
the internal and the external.  The internal evidence is nicely
summarized in Gundry's commentary, MARK, p.1044 and Hengel's
STUIDES IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK, p.29, and includes Mark 12:42,
which explaine the eastern coin lepton with reference to the
western coin quadrans.  The external evidence is the earliest
testimony of the patristics.

A good example is Mahlon's case for Mark's composition in
Palestine.  This case relies, not on any explicit statement,
but upon tenuous inferences drawn from the text.  All of
these inferences, however, have plausible alternative
explanations, rendering the entire case for a Palestinian
Mark a rather weak guess.

Apparently following the maxim that the best defense is a
good offense, precious little of Mahlon's posts has been to
defend his position for Palestine, but much of the posts have
focussed on my case for a Western case.  Basically, Mahlon
has adopted two main arguments: my external evidence is
unreliable and my internal evidence is interpolated.

As for the external evidence, I believe that the external
evidence has some reliability if: we (a) carefully separate
tradition from opinion, (b) there is no reason to believe
that the tradent is unreliable in passing on the tradition,
and (c) the identified tradition is not contradicted by the
internal evidence. (That is what I meant by "benefit of the
doubt".)

Mahlon's methodology for assessing the external evidence is
ruled by much skepticism, such that he has never indicated
that any tradition on the origin of the gospels is reliable.
The basis of this is apparently his experience with Humbert.
Humbert, however, does not pass on a tradition; he was a
biased, self-interested witness.  When I look at the external
evidence for Mark's composition, in many cases the earliest
tradition is against the grain of the Church's identifiable
biases.  Why attribute the Second Gospel to Mark instead of
Peter?  Why date Mark after Peter's death rather than before?
As seen in the later tradition, the Church struggled with
this early tradition and slowly transformed the tradition
into a view that Mark composed his gospel at Peter's dictation.

As for the internal evidence, Mahlon's primary attack
has been to excise my evidence from the text of Mark.
I have already quoted sections from Metzger and Aland
condemning exactly this procedure, and no more needs
to be said.

Finally, the external and internal evidence are independent
of one another.  The external evidence was not a guess based
on looking at Mark's explanations for his audience.  The
internal evidence was not a conspiracy of scribes to
interpolate details to support the external evidence.  The
convergence of this independent evidence bolsters our
confidence in the reliability of either one.

In conclusion, the best case for the provenance of Mark is
somewhere in the West.  No other location more precise than
the whole of the Roman Empire has as strong internal or
external evidence.  If the case for Mark's composition in
the West in the end is felt to be too weak to be convincing,
then the only proper conclusion is Morna Hooker's: somewhere
in the Roman Empire.  Mahlon's Palestine has little going
for it, except that the story happens to take place there.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson AT mindspring.com

Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Subject:
            [XTalk] Re: Provenance of GMark
       Date:
            Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:35:33 GMT
       From:
            "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.GOODACRE AT bham.ac.uk>
    Reply-To:
            crosstalk2 AT egroups.com
 Organization:
            The University of Birmingham
         To:
            crosstalk2 AT egroups.com
  References:
            1




Enormous thanks to both Stephen and Mahlon for their summaries of
their respective positions.  It would be fun to call a vote now,
wouldn't
it?  I have to say that as someone that had no opinion at all on this at

the beginning of the debate that I am now (a) more educated (b) more
inclined at least to take seriously patristic evidence on the origins of

the Gospels and (c) more concerned about the use of conjectural
emendation to sustain a case.  This is all with apologies to Mahlon,
because I have found his posts rigorous, stimulating, clear and
rewarding.  My overwhelming concern remains (c) -- I really would
have to have much stronger grounds than what we seem to have here
for conjecturally emending the text in the way suggested.

One final thought on this question:  Stephen's case tended to draw
attention to Mark 12.42, hO ESTIN KODRANTHS.  Mahlon
counters that this may be a later scribal gloss.  But even if we were to

accept that explanation for this Latinism, what do we make of the
others that are not in the nature of parentheses?  The one that comes
to my mind most readily is KENTURIWN (Mark 15.39, 15.44 &
15.45), which Mark gives for "Centurion" in marked contrast to
Matthew's and Luke's tendencies to use the term
hEKATONTARXHS/OS.  Given that the Latinisms are not limited to
explanatory parentheses, I think that Mahlon's primary argument for
conjectural emendation over the Latinisms may not stand.  But it may
be that Mahlon has other reasons for the conjectural emendation of
the non-parenthetical occurrences of Latinisms.

Mark

--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                mailto:M.S.Goodacre AT bham.ac.uk
  Dept of Theology                tel: +44 121 414 7512
  University of Birmingham     fax: +44 121 414 6866
  Birmingham  B15 2TT  United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
   The New Testament Gateway
   All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
   Mark Without Q
   Aseneth Home Page