Kata Markon

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

Fair enough, Joe, you obviously want to drop this, that's your prerogative
and I'll honor that wish. However, if I can beg your pardon, I find your
putative reason very odd to say the least.

> We each have different interests right now, Rikk, it seems.  I'm more
> interested in seeing how much of Mark can be found in the Old Testament.

Actually this is not particularly the case, as I should have thought ought
to have been obvious.  I'm also interested in how much OT there is in Mark
and in the NT (having published a monograph on this and read papers on it,
one I even sent to you). I would also agree with a number of the parallels
you cite. I have no complaint with seeing the influence of the OT on how
traditions are related. It is when you began to explain their origin that I
protested--please note you were the one who offered your "invention"
explanation.
 
It seems clear to me then, and in stark contradiction to what you claim
above, that you are concerned with much more than merely delineating OT
echoes in Mark.  You are in fact explicitly proposing a method by which the
OT came into Mark's stories--incremental creation of material (as you stated
to Hudson):

>These authors used literary license and the Old Testament to embellish--or
>even create--stories they were sure represented events that occurred.

...which implies something about the prevailing cultural and literary norms.
It was this very point I challenged, even using your own canons of
historicity.  How this translates into having a different interest is beyond
me. I'm afraid I can't see how you can argue what you do and yet somehow
feel that evidence contrary to your theory lies somehow outside your
interest.  

Puzzled, but with regards

Rikk