THE UNITY OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

• Hendrikus Boers Chandler School of Theology, Emory University of Atlanta, Georgia, USA

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7833/4-0-2038

Résumé

About two decades ago Eric Dinkler and Ferdinand Hahn came up with almost identical conclusions concerning the tradition and redaction of Mark 8:27-33.  What made this similarity of their conclusions particularly remarkable was the fact that they had worked completely independent of each other. The agreement between them reinforced their conclusions.  Along with many other New Testament scholars I accepted that the correctness of their conclusions had been established in this way, until recently when I had to discuss the passage in a book intended for intelligent lay persons not versed in New Testament scholarship.  It was clear to me that I could not present the Dinkler/Hahn argument persuasively to such readers.  Furthermore, I was convinced that this was not because they did not have the expertise to follow the argument.  In the context of such readers, the Dinkler/Hahn argument appeared contrived, but not only that argument;  I came to the conclusion that much of what we as New Testament scholars do is contrived’  that much of what we do is  more concerned with erudition that with understanding.  The reason why we come up with similar conclusions in our research is simply because we use the same methods, not because we succeed in uncovering the truth.  If we were to use different methods, we would come up with different results.  In the present case, if we continue to sue the same method the results would remain the same, whoever does the research.  It is the method itself which needs to be questioned.  In the following I propose a different method, and even if the results were not to be more convincing, it should at least show that a change of the method reveals that the Dinkler/Hahn results are not as self-evident as it may seem.