David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
It would be very unfortunate, that you could ask him about this precise point above and have failed the occasion.
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
Doesn’t this assume Markan priority?
Ben Smith neatly showed that Mark is dependent on Luke.
Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus c. AD 41 also makes an earlier Mark unlikely.
So your argument would only work for professed Markan prioritists, who hold the position with strong conviction.
It would be unfortunate to never hear from David Trobisch the reasons for his supports for Sinaiticus being produced around AD 600-700.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8681
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
Link?Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 3:14 am Ben Smith neatly showed that Mark is dependent on Luke.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
Yeah me being able to levitate proves that I am ruler of the world too. Me winning the lottery will solve all my problems. Me coming up with an amazing app will make me a millionaire. etc.Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus c. AD 41 also makes an earlier Mark unlikely.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8681
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
If we're allowing such speculation, how is an earlier Mark ruled out? It seems entirely arbitrary.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 3:14 am Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus c. AD 41 also makes an earlier Mark unlikely.
Acts 1:1 addresses "Theophilus" too, which would put these dual references to "Theophilus" no earlier than whenever Paul was taken to Rome (if we're allowing these kinds of speculations about an early date for Luke). Or, even if these references were not created at the same time, it would, at the very least, disprove the idea that "Theophilus" = c. AD 41 because that date is not possible for Acts.
Luke 1:1 refers to "many" drawing up an account before, so if not Mark, then at least some other many texts. And if many, why not Mark?
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
This would need further clarification, anyway. Ben thought that canonical gMark had a predecessor text, mostly because of the duplications, like the whole Bethsaida section. A shorter version of gMark, not gLuke. That gMark predecessor would then, among others, lead to gMarcion and gMark, etc. His synoptic "working" model had a few more steps.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8681
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
Link? I'm curious to see Ben Smith's presentation of it.Ulan wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 12:44 pm This would need further clarification, anyway. Ben thought that canonical gMark had a predecessor text, mostly because of the duplications, like the whole Bethsaida section. A shorter version of gMark, not gLuke. That gMark predecessor would then, among others, lead to gMarcion and gMark, etc. His synoptic "working" model had a few more steps.
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
I don't have a link to his whole model at the moment, but his discussion of the Bethsaida section and its implications for gMark is here:
viewtopic.php?t=2554
viewtopic.php?t=2554
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
It's more fun to include highlighted text with it:Ulan wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 1:08 pm I don't have a link to his whole model at the moment, but his discussion of the Bethsaida section and its implications for gMark is here:
viewtopic.php?t=2554
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2554&p=57819&hilit= ... ida#p57819
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: David Trobisch "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"
I believe Ben's diagrams were uploaded on his own site and posted here as images only. So it should be lost. But pinning him to that imho would do him an injustice. Ben could study a tiny detail (see Levi, Matthew, & Matthias) and make hypotheses about its development in the texts that ultimately cannot be traced back to a common notion of priority of this or that. He didn't think that once thousands of gospels were floating around. But he did believe in lost texts and extensive textual trajectories that ultimately more or less determined the final form of the canonical gospels.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 12:57 pmLink? I'm curious to see Ben Smith's presentation of it.Ulan wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 12:44 pm This would need further clarification, anyway. Ben thought that canonical gMark had a predecessor text, mostly because of the duplications, like the whole Bethsaida section. A shorter version of gMark, not gLuke. That gMark predecessor would then, among others, lead to gMarcion and gMark, etc. His synoptic "working" model had a few more steps.