Kata Markon

["L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:
> 
> 
> LARRY SWAIN
> No one has claimed so, so the value of this is nil.
> 
> JOE ALWARD
> 
> Nil?
> 
> Unless one denies that Mark's story of Jesus and the sleeping disciples is
> NOT based on the parallel antecedent parable of the sleeping servants, one
> cannot escape the implications of the absence of the testing of God theme in
> the antecedent story.  The fact that "no one has claimed so," except me, is
> exactly the point.  Gibson and others will deny that the one story is the
> antecedent of the other at their peril, and the absence of the testing of 
> God
> theme in the antecedent is damning evidence against Gibson's claim.

a) Yes, Joe, nil.  The PRESENCE of the theme of testing in 14:38
introduces the theme of testing.  It doesn't change a thing that that
theme is apparently absent in 13:32ff.  It is present in 14:38, and that
is the focus of Jeffrey's paper.
b) No one has denied that Mark 13:32-37 is antecedent to Mark 14:38,
this is a straw man assertion in the extreme.  What I have attempted to
press you on is to be clear what you mean by antecedent--naturally 13:32
PRECEEDS Mk 14:38, but it is clear that this is not what you mean by
antecedent.  You mean something more along the lines that Mark 14:38
refers back specifically to 13:32-37 in the way that a pronoun refers
back to its noun, if I understand you correctly.  While it is clear that
the two passages share themes of sleep, watch, and wakefulness, there
are very clear differences in context and situation.  Thus, the
relationship you assume between these two sections must be made, not
merely assumed.
c) Your stance is interesting in that rather than consider rethinking
the relationship between the two passages, you instead refuse to deal
with the hard evidence that Jeffrey has presented, and continually
repeat that in spite of the words HINA MH ELQEN TON PEIRASMON in 14:38,
their absence from 13:32ff must therefore mean that 14:38 doesn't have
the theme of testing either.  Round and round the circle we go......


 
> Thanks for you comments, Larry, but I don't think I have the time address
> possibly two different defenses simultaneously, so I will leave your other
> thoughtful comments unanswered.  Unless Jeffrey agrees to stand by all of
> your arguments, and adopt them as his own, I would prefer to wait to see how
> HE defends his thesis.  It is no more appropriate for you to be arguing on
> Jeff's behalf, while he remains silent, then it would be for a doctoral
> candidate to stand silent while his thesis advisor answered the
> interrogators' questions on his behalf at his PhD oral exam.  Jeff can speak
> for himself, I am certain, and probably will defend his thesis himself when
> and if he thinks he needs to do so.


a) Let me set a few things straight for you Joe.  First, I'm not
defending Jeffrey's thesis, he can do that himself if he sees your
"attack" to be in any way substantive.  I am however assessing YOUR
thesis raised against Jeffrey's paper, and frankly find it wanting, and
have pointed out its holes repeatedly, including the ignoring of hard
evidence which you continue to ignore.  
b) I find it hypocritical and a sign of your lack of understanding of
professionalism that you loudly and even rudely decry Jeffrey for not
responding to your "attack" on his position, and you attempt to goad
Mark Goodacre into responding to your queries, yet you yourself refuse
to respond to comments reflecting the weaknesses of your own position. 
That, sir, is not cricket.
c) Since my relationship with Jeffrey is not one of thesis advisor, and
since I have not been directly defending his thesis, but rather
attacking yours, I will repeat that you have to deal with the hard
evidence Jeffrey presents in the first section of his paper: either
prove his reading of the LXX is in error, or at least hasn't taken into
account enough of the evidence, or accept that in 14:38 the warning is
that the disciples must watch and pray so that they not test X.  Only
then can you seriously question Jeffrey's argument that the X is God,
but you haven't gotten that far yet.
d) I will point out that this paragraph of yours is another logical
fallacy, of false analogy.  Since the analogy is not apt, it is entirely
appropriate for me to speak to your arguments, just as it was
appropriate to speak to your errors and assumptions regarding journal
style sheets, and American and British punctuation systems.  However,
until you begin to respond to the arguments presented against your
position, this will be my last post on the subject.

Larry Swain