Kata Markon

[George Young <webber_young AT yahoo.com>]

Dear David:

Methodology is important, isn’t it? It seems
appropriate, therefore, to ask: What is the aim of
one’s methodology?  My methodology is geared towards
the pursuit of truth.  In other words, this is the aim
of my historical critical approach.  Moreover, I try
to keep it as simple as possible.  As for PROGRAFW
meaning "graphically portrayed,"  this is hard for me
to understand. 

However, there are many reasons *besides* simply the
appearance of PROGRAFW in Galatians, that support the
notion that Paul is referring  to a *written
document.*  For example, at several points in the NT
the WORD is referred to as "being carried," as "being
sent," Paul himself states that the WORD was "placed
in his hands."  This WORD is, of course, "the Word of
the Cross."  And this is very probably the *original
title* to the Gospel of Mark.  Even Luke states that,
besides using eye-witnesses as sources, he also drew
upon "stewards of the WORD", i.e., those who delivered
or handled written documents. 

You are correct to say that questioning a document
does not necessarily imply "conspiracy."  However,
questioning the authenticity of an historical document
without any reasonable basis, this might be the
beginning of a conspiracy.  David, if one maintains
that Mark is the Gospel Paul is referring to in Gal.
3:1-2, are you familiar with the implications to this
assertion?  What Paul is saying is that he believes
the Gospel of Mark more than what his physical eyes
and ears have told him about the Jerusalem church. 
This is why he can speak of the Galatians as being
"bewitched."  And by this he means that there is an
*extreme discord* between what he reads in the Gospel
and what he sees and hears in Jerusalem. It is also
why he twice warns that "even if an angel from heaven
preaches another gospel, let him be cursed." However,
looking back to Mark, it also gives us an insight into
the mind-bending experience of Jesus Christ.  Hence,
we begin to understand  what Mark means when he says
that Jesus’ words "strike" the people, his words makes
them "stand outside themselves," and so forth.  There
are also implications with respect to the other
Epistles, often labeled  "pseudonymous" in the NT. 
But scholars need to be willing to move closer to the
event in order to get these insights.  That’s why, I
find 70 AD…well.. rather boring after awhile.

Sincerely,

Webber Young.


--- David Hindley <dhindley AT compuserve.com> wrote:

> 
> Webber,
> 
> And how would you distinguish between a graphically
> portrayed reading of Mark (or other gospel book) and
> a graphically portrayed
> reading of OT proof-texts? I would say that
> *presuming* that it must be Mark or another
> canonical gospel text assumes what must be
> proved. 
> 
> On the analogy of the only other place in the NT
> where the author himself appears to use that verb in
> the same form (Romans), where
> he is in fact alluding to a messianic proof text
> from Psalms, it seems more likely he was referring
> to an exposition that had once
> made to them explaining how the Jewish scriptures
> had predicted the crucifixion of Jesus. It almost
> sounds like one of those passion
> plays we see and hear about in modern times,
> although it was probably closer to arm waving and
> scroll thumping by the lector that
> was seen by the eyes of those Galatians.
> 
> And those other points are not complaints, they are
> critiques. 
> 
> It is also not circular to consider *other*
> possibilities when considering the date of any
> source that the author of Galatians might
> have used. "If" the author was really citing a
> canonical gospel, we cannot use an undated letter to
> date an undated gospel. These
> documents do not give any distinct indications about
> date of composition (e.g., "Written in the X year of
> Y emperor or consuls Y &
> Z/year X of the Greeks/year X from the foundation of
> Rome/X year of a Y Olympiad") other than allusions
> to events, possibly the
> revolt of 66-70 CE, which is after Paul's era, and
> evaluations of the possible relationships between
> the gospel sources. 
> 
> You had gone in stating it was pretty obvious what
> must surely have happened (Paul cited an already
> existing gospel of Mark). Now
> *that* can be circular.
> 
> Considering the possibility that this or that clause
> is interpolated requires no conspiracy. Those who
> employ the historical
> critical method to secular documents don't simply
> accept documents at face value, and I do not think
> we should either just because
> we are dealing with documents that happen to be the
> sacred scripture of the Christian religion. Do we
> westerners do that with the
> Koran, the Tao-te ching, or the Rig Veda? Of course
> not. We'd never advance our understanding of them if
> we did not question them.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Dave Hindley
> Cleveland, Ohio USA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GMark mailing list
> GMark AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gmark
> 


  
**************************************



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com