Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000 AT mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net>
To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: Mahlon H. Smith <mahlonh.smith AT worldnet.att.net>; Stephen Carlson
<scarlson AT mindspring.com>; Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre AT bham.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 9:26 AM
Subject: [gmark] XTalk discussion on the Provenance of GMark


> 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
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: weedent AT atw.earthreach.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>