Kata Markon

["Christopher Skinner" <threeskinners AT msn.com>]

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