Adam

My interest in Caesar's Messiah was that it seemed more substantive against my thesis than the late datings endemic here. I still have not seen my (seven eyewitness records to Jesus) thesis engaged meaningfully here. However, I keep mentioning Joe only as he relates to your (continuing) devious tactics.
The silliness is yours in attacking Casey's credentials as an Aramaic scholar when you have presented ZERO evidence that you have any standing to do so nor even a hint of a citation of anyone else.
"signs of chiasms" or "chiasms"? In my thesis about gMark, the last Aramaic edition combined the first two layers. No edition added in merely Layer 3, because the Aramaic in it had already been translated into Greek (separately from the Q in gLuke) and Layer 4 added. As I acknowledged, there is a lot of similarity by this stage between gMark and gLuke. It would seem the person I call the Qumraner imposed some chiastic structure at this point, unless he had already started doing so when (if) he had he had translated Layer 3 and added Layer 4 (this before he had seen Layers 1 and 2). This person continued his involvement with gMark right up to our present text through Mark 16:8. You and Michael Turton apparently regard him as the Shakespeare of the ancient world (or his comparable de Vere, Christopher Marlowe, or Ben Jonson). Sounds fine to me.
Here again we don't get beyond your "I". Which raises a new problem: since you refuse to cite sources, are we to infer that these are your original ideas? That's fine. If they are not, are you plagiarizing?
Regarding the substance here, perhaps Casey and Crossley are correct about the early dating of Mark 13, but they fail to discern the roots of Mark 13 in what Jesus said and in what Qumran-type apocalypticists had developed parallel to Jesus. I'm just saying, as for me it's easier to work with a Mark 13 that coalesced after the 4-layer gMark that was available to Luke when he wrote in 62 CE.
[snipping further unanswered questions]

aa5874

Again, your claim is erroneous.

gMark destroys your assertions. There are Major differences in Sinaiticus gMark and Alexandrinus gMark. I2 verses were added and not as a result of typos.

Roger Pearse

The addition of extra material at the end is not a copying error, however, and does not bear on the point at issue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

It seems, Adam, that nothing will jimmy you out of your complaisance and deal with real problems to your layers. You have ardently refused to deal with the implications of the wide range of Latinisms in Mark or the boundary crossing chiasms. Your last response was, as far as I can see, contentless. It seems that you've given up responding to most things. Two significant points that you simply ignored by "snipping" them:

1.
2.
But, of course, the Latinisms issue are also still unanswered, so you have made no progress to sustaining your layers. I think Vork was wise when he cut you adrift. You don't respond to things very well.

Adam

Again, no response from you. If you don't like my answers, critique them, but in terms of my hypothesis, not in terms of your (unstated) preconceptions. You can't undo my thesis just by repetition of points which I have already adequately answered. You have undermined yourself by wild charges (as against Maurice Casey) and refusing to give us any backing other than your say-so.
Looks like I should take Roger Pearse very seriously.

aa5874

Of course, it does.

You claimed, "....The oldest copies that we have all disagree in small details, as hand-copying texts is inherently a process that breeds typos...".

Your claim is blatantly erroneous. The differences in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus gMark destroys you.

spin

Yes, Adam is apparently going to duck the problems of the Latinisms and the chiasms eternally, pretending that ad hoc rubbish has answered the issues adequately and rushing to the defense of a book he hasn't read nor knows the linguistics for, merely championing favorable authorities and attempting to shift the burden. As he doesn't think his thesis is worth defending, there is nothing more that needs to be said about Adam's layers and his crock of crap about eye witnesses. A thesis he can't defend is no thesis at all.

[hr=1]100[/hr]

To reiterate for the latecomer, Adam has decided he can carve the gospel of Mark up into layers that reflect the work of different authors and redactors. I pointed out that Mark contains 1) Latin words, 2) words constructed for a Latin or Roman audience, 3) Latin idioms translated literally into Greek, and 4) Latin word order. Adsm's response was to pretend that the Latinisms were the work of different redactors including a late editor. This is pure Sergeant Schultz.

The other problem I looked at involved the existence of a literary structure known as a chiasm found throughout Mark, some of which being inside Adam's layers, but some crossing his layers, suggesting that the layers as he has delineated them are inadequate to explain these chiasms. His approach was to say that these chiasms were constructed later, thus breaking the chiasms and not explaining the resultant structural mess.

If you are keen to find out about the functionality of the layers, look for Adam's responses. As I can't get a satisfactory answer from him, I'd recommend not to bother.

fatpie42

I was a bit confused by the facetious attitude you seemed to have when I checked out this thread before. Now I see that you were annoyed at your user name being made into a joke. (I get similarly annoyed when that happens, as you might imagine.)

I've not heard much about the issue with Latinisms. Weren't the gospels written in Ancient Greek? Why would Latin make a difference?

If you've discussed this in an older thread you could point me to, that'd be great. Otherwise, could you give me the basic gist of the issue?

Thanks.

fatpie42

Wow. You read my mind!

Vorkosigan

Mark's greek is peppered with formations taken from Latin, or heavily flavored by it. These occur throughout the gospel.

Adam's position is that there are multiple sources that go back to eyewitnesses. He cuts up the gospel into little sections, and then assigns them to sources. He has no methodology for doing this, and as spin has noted, the Latinisms and other idiosyncratic behaviors of the author of Mark, as well as the gospel's numerous literary structures, cut across the "sources". Adam treats these as a "final redactor" of six different layers and ignores the literary aspects of the gospel altogether. This means that Adam and his source, Howard Teeple, have made a rather elementary error -- like reading A Song of Ice and Fire and then concluding that books 4 and 5 can't be by George R R Martin because they don't mention Ned Stark (who was killed in book 1) and then assigning each of the little chapters, with their different points of view, to different sources in the world of Westeros.

Vorkosigan