Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: [GMark] Re: The opening lines of Mark

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Christopher Skinner" <threeskinners AT msn.com>
  • To: gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] Re: The opening lines of Mark
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:41:39 +0000

Michael Turton wrote:

"Second, I wish to echo your [Rick's] assertion that Mark never errs. I am working on a historical commentary on Mark and have found myself adopting as a working principle the idea that many of the classic "errors" of Mark's are intentional literary devices. In my personal and liable-to-be-wrong view Homer may nod, but Mark never sleeps."


Michael,

Again I ask (as I did with Rick's previous post), upon what factors are you basing this conclusion? A high bibliology is not a bad thing. But "echoing an assertion" left unvalidated in a previous post doesn't make it any more true than me repeating a lie my 4-year old son tells me. If we are to do responsible exegesis we must have an intellectually-honest hermeneutical system rooted in what the texts gives us and not rooted in a presupposition that biases every conclusion at the outset. To do other than that is to be guilty of the fallacy of assuming our conclusion and then restating it as if the issue is solved.

In the process of writing your historical commentary, what cotrolled factors have you established or found in the text that allow you to conclude that "Mark never errs," or that "Homer may nod, but Mark never sleeps"?

Warmest regards,

Christopher W. Skinner






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page