Kata Markon

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

Pete,

Yes, I've been thinking about Sanders' claim for a while.  It sounded
profound but I've had a nagging doubt.  I am willing to say he is partly
right.   It seems to me that the presumption in all communication is the
integrity of the writer.  I take what listers write as an attempt at a fair
and true representation of what they are thinking and they me, in keeping
with the genre.  I understand the hermeneutic of suspicion but it can never
be the fundamental hermeneutical stance otherwise all communication would
cease.  So, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with those who wish
to counter what seems to be the "literal reading" (in the medieval sense,
not the modern popular usage, of in keeping with the genre; e.g. for me to
early Genesis literally means that I take much of it as a metaphorical and
symbolic recounting of humanity's past.).

Mark G's remark on Goulder is apropos.  Why did Goulder use the term Midrash
in the first place, if not because he implicitly/subconciously realized the
need for culture coherence? I.e. plucking genres out of the air doesn't
carry a great deal of conviction, and being able to use a culturally located
term leant his theories some legitimacy.  Retract the term and one begins to
realize that his view of "extensive, creative embroidery drawing on their
sources, the Scriptures, inference" etc. does not have a lot of, if any,
cultural precedent, and on what I know so far makes little or no sense.

Rikk

on 3/16/01 10:52 AM, Peter M. Head at pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk wrote:

> Like most other burdens, the burden of proof is something that most
> "scholars" wish that someone else would bear for them. Surely E. P. Sanders
> is right that the burden of proof falls upon the person who wants to prove
> something.
> 
> Peter
> 
>> May I suggest that the burden of proof is on those who would assert the
>> historicity of any narrative and that the Gospel of Mark is no exception.
>> To assume that a literary work is historical simply because it exhibits a
>> narrative format might well be termed "naive historicism."  Nothing that I
>> know of justifies the assumption that the author of a narrative means to
>> assert that the "events" narrated actually occurred.  All stories take the
>> form of saying that a certain character went here and did this and then
>> went there and said that.  That does not even imply that the author means
>> to say that any such thing ever happened, let alone that the assertion is
>> historically accurate.
>> 
>> Certainly, stories about Jesus are no different.  The so-called
>> "apocryphal" gospels are no less narrative in format than the canonical
>> gospels, yet no one takes the sayings and doings of the Jesus character
>> therein described seriously as fact.  Religious fiction in general, and
>> Christian fiction in particular, was quite typical of the age.  To carve
>> out an exception for the literary works which received official sanction
>> is an act of faith, nothing more.  If anyone would assert an
>> historiographic intention on Mark's part, let them prove it.  Failing
>> that, we are not entitled to take the Markan narrative as even an attempt
>> to write history.  Rather, the narrative must be studied as narrative,
>> that is, from the standpoint of literary and not historical criticism.
>> That being the case, the search for narrative sources need not be limited
>> to historical rather than literary sources, nor must the historical
>> sources be limited to those congruent with the narrative, i.e., of the
>> same time and place, but may quite appropriately include both biblical and
>> nonbiblical parallels.  Of course, nothing prevents Mark from using his
>> own imagination in fashioning his narrative.  There need not be any
>> extraneous source at all for a given episode.  We cannot assume that Mark
>> was less creative than any other narrator, nor may we allow theological
>> presuppositions to enter into our analysis of Mark's Gospel as a literary
>> work.
>> 
>> Sid Martin
>> Tulsa, OK
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>> 
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>> <HTML><HEAD>
>> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
>> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=GENERATOR>
>> <STYLE></STYLE>
>> </HEAD>
>> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>May I suggest that the burden of proof is on
>> those
>> who would assert the historicity of any narrative and that the Gospel of
>> Mark is
>> no exception.&nbsp; To assume that a literary work is historical simply
>> because
>> it exhibits a narrative format might well be termed "naive
>> historicism."&nbsp;
>> Nothing that I know of justifies the assumption that the author of a
>> narrative
>> means to assert that the "events" narrated actually occurred.&nbsp; All
>> stories
>> take the form of saying that&nbsp;a certain character&nbsp;went here and 
>> did
>> this and then went there and said that.&nbsp; That does not even imply
>> that the
>> author means to say that any such thing ever happened, let alone that the
>> assertion is historically accurate.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Certainly,&nbsp;stories about Jesus are no
>> different.&nbsp; The so-called "apocryphal" gospels are no less narrative 
>> in
>> format than the canonical gospels, yet no one takes the sayings and doings
>> of&nbsp;the Jesus character&nbsp;therein described&nbsp;seriously as
>> fact.&nbsp;
>> Religious fiction in general, and Christian fiction in particular, was 
>> quite
>> typical of the age.&nbsp; To&nbsp;carve out an exception for the literary
>> works
>> which received official sanction is an act of faith, nothing more.&nbsp; If
>> anyone would assert an historiographic intention on Mark's part, let them
>> prove
>> it.&nbsp; Failing that, we are not entitled to take the Markan narrative
>> as&nbsp;even an attempt to write history.&nbsp; Rather, the narrative must 
>> be
>> studied as narrative, that is, from the standpoint of literary and not
>> historical criticism.&nbsp; That being the case, the search for narrative
>> sources need not be limited to historical rather than literary sources,
>> nor must
>> the historical sources be limited to those congruent with the narrative,
>> i.e.,
>> of the same time and place, but may quite appropriately include both 
>> biblical
>> and nonbiblical parallels.&nbsp; Of course, nothing prevents Mark from
>> using his
>> own imagination in fashioning his narrative.&nbsp; There need not be
>> any&nbsp;extraneous source at all for a given episode.&nbsp; We cannot 
>> assume
>> that Mark was less creative than any other narrator, nor may we allow
>> theological presuppositions to enter into our analysis of Mark's Gospel as 
>> a
>> literary work.</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sid Martin</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tulsa, OK</FONT></DIV>
>> ---<BR>
>> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk<BR>
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>> 
> ---<BR>
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca<BR>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> </BODY></HTML>
> 
> Dr. Peter M. Head
> Tyndale House
> 36 Selwyn Gardens
> Cambridge CB3 9BA
> Tel: 01223 566607
> Fax: 01223 566608
> email: pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk
> 
> 
>