Kata Markon

["Rikki E. Watts" <rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca>]

Joe, I think you are still missing the point.  I think I know what your
theory is (even without the "free-wheeling" adjective, though' I think if
pressed your objection would amount to hair-splitting) and I know you are
basing it on some of the data (Mark's narrative).  But my contention is that
you are being rather selective in the data you consider and am therefore
asking that your theory be put in its proper context: the observed behavior
of first century NE village communities on the best cultural evidence we
have.  I am asking you to do history by attending more closely to the
actions of intentional first century agents and making sense of the data
within their cultural setting.  I'm at a loss to see how this amounts to
question-begging.  But let me cite you back to yourself: you suggested
earlier that if there is no extrabiblical evidence to back up a story about
Jesus, then the story was probably a fiction.  (I think this is mistaken wrt
particular events, but it is a generally accepted principle in terms of
understanding literary artifacts, e.g. on questions of genre).  Okay: so,
using your own canons of historicity, where is the extrabiblical evidence to
support your contention that people operated this way, that is, created
incrementally or otherwise these kinds of stories about the recent past to
show that scripture has been fulfilled?  Not only is there no evidence that
I know of but what evidence there is points, as far as I know, pretty near
universally in the opposite direction (e.g. Qumran where they use scripture
to explain history, not "create" it incrementally or otherwise).  If I'm
right, then by your own definition, unless you wish to change tack, you'll
have to regard your own theory as to what gave rise to these stories as
fiction.  Or have I missed something?

As I said, we can talk about the shape of the NT stories if you want (as
I've said before I am utterly convinced that there are allusions to the OT
in many places), but right now I am only interested in the social mechanics
of your theory. 

Regards

Rikk

PS re my use of "free-wheeling". Call the process what you will but even so
I have trouble understanding what exactly an incremental growth of the
loaves and fishes story would look like?  I do hope your not reading your
Darwin into NE oral transmission).


on 3/15/01 2:16 PM, JFAlward AT aol.com at JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/15/01 1:46:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca writes:
> 
> << All this suggests that the idea of free-wheeling invention is to put it
> mildly quite out of kilter with the reality.  However, if you can show me
> some workable analogy then fine.  In the meantime, I'm afraid all this stuff
> about invention etc. seems to me to be fairly groundless speculation, and
> contrary not just to the bulk of the evidence we have but to all the
> evidence we have on how people behaved wrt these kinds of traditions.
> 
> Appealing to the NT stories themselves, while a fascinating topic in its own
> right, is of course to beg the question posed above since that is the point
> under discussion.
>>> 
> =========
> Three times now you've mention "free-wheeling" as if the gospel creation I
> was referring to was uncontrolled.  I tried to make the point in my last 
> post
> that creation of the stories was evolutionary, incremental, and at each 
> stage
> partially guided by the teller's wish to amplify the connection between 
> Jesus
> and the holy men of scripture.
> Furthermore, these weren't "inventions" in the sense they were fake.  I've
> repeatedly suggested that those who passed on the traditions merely added to
> the stories whatever it was that they thought was missing and *must* have
> occurred in the life of Jesus in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.
> 
> Now, about your suggestion that I'm question-begging.  I guess it depends on
> your point of view.  You wish to begin with the question of whether there
> existed a precedent for tradition modification in the first century which
> could serve as possible evidence for such to have happened with the gospel
> stories.  In that event, it would, indeed, be question-begging on my part to
> cite the gospel's arguable development as evidence.  However, *my* starting
> point is not yours.  My starting point is my theory that gospel stories were
> based on the Old Testament.  To test that theory, I just look for believable
> antecedents; to the extent the search is successful, then to that extent so
> is the theory.  If you wish to show the theory is wrong, you need to show me
> why my alleged parallels are not believable.  If you counter by saying that
> there's no precedent for the type of tradition development I'm talking 
> about,
> then you are begging the question by assuming to be false the very thing 
> I've
> put up for debate.
> 
> May I suggest that you show why you don't think the story of the fishes and
> loaves arose almost entirely from the Old Testament?  A summary of the
> parallels is at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Loaves_and_Fishes.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joe Alward
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')