Dr. Loren Stuckenbruck begins our session today, following the opening remarks by Alicia Myers, United Theological Seminary. He is speaking about… The Semitic influence on Greek. While he is not exactly contra Casey/Crossley, his work severely undermines the work of an Aramaic original to Mark. Speaks about complexity. This seems to be an underlying theme to this conference and recent studies in tradition and literary theory.
Complexity, btw, destroys the mythicist arguments.
I’ve actually read his chapter. It really is going in the right direction, and by right direction, I mean my direction. Speaks about the anachronistic use of the word Palestine. Um…
He is speaking of the use of languageS in the area of the time. This is my research/conclusion as well. He is now hitting on the Septuagint vorlage. Says it can shed light on the process. Here, I think he needs to refer to Tessa Rajak. Her work on the translation of the Septuagint is important I think. Maybe I will ask him about this. Doubtful. His enthusiasm, however, is entertaining.
Oh my goodness… He is hitting all around my theory of Mark’s Greek! Is it okay to feel somewhat justified?
He warns against taking transliterations at face value. Wants us to refuse to plead agnostic.
Dr. Mark Goodacre is responding first. Talks about reception of the article… Um… I get what he is saying about the heuristic value of a theory because I use that in chapter 9. So, how do I get around this issue. Speaks about the retroversion work… Imagination is … Well. You know. The problem of experimental bias. I think I’ve avoided this…
Goodacre puts in a plug for the case against Q. Not his book, just the reality.
Calls semiticism a romantic throwback. Says historical Jesus scholars act like they have Jesus… The real Jesus because they know exactly what he looks like. Calls attention to the missing data of the life of Jesus… Including his wife… To the crowd’s delight.
And now John Poirier, a friend of the blog. Calls his paper a response to Maurice Casey. Agrees with Stuckenbruck. I knew this coming in. Tests Stuckenbruck by examining Casey. This is the issue I have with Casey… Bam bam bam. I’ve asked for an endorsement from Piorier as well. He mentions Goulder.
Stuckenbruck is dealing with two Farrerians. He responds. Likes Poirier’s take on Casey’s “cognitive gymnastics.”
I want to ask a question, but I’m not sure it belongs here.