Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Dates in Mark

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: E Bruce Brooks To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com Cc: WSW ; GPG Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Dates in Mark To:
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 19, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: WSW ; GPG
      Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Dates in Mark


      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Karel
      Cc: GPG, WSW
      On: Dates in Mark
      From: Bruce

      Below I'll respond with Karel II

      KAREL: May I point out with reference to the date of writing that
      (a) I date the known edition of Mark approximately 72 CE.

      BRUCE: I know. It's in the subtitle of your book. I didn't miss it. I have
      been commenting on it these many days, and I must confess that I find it
      dubious.

      KAREL: (b) our Nestle edition is, however, a radical revision of an earlier
      document

      BRUCE: Why just Nestle?

      Karel II. I am simply referring to the earliest version we have edited by Nestle. My complaint is that Nestle in his list of references to the Tanakh omits the ones in the opened monumental grave narrative, that Mark composed for his post-70 edition.

      If this present best hypothesis as to the archetype of Mark is in fact a
      "radical revision" of an earlier document, then any statements made about
      that "radical revision" are likely to be misleading for the earlier
      document, and we should accordingly not be talking about the year 72 (which
      I suppose is what you mean in your book by "Mark II"), but about the earlier
      document, presumably "Mark I." But this seems to be impossible, because so
      far as I have found, you nowhere describe Mark I. You are thus operating in
      this conversation with an offstage quantity. Could you post to the list (or
      give page references to a published version of) an outline or summary of how
      you see Mark I?

      Karel II - I wish I were able to offer a neat document of pre-70 gospel by Mark or by someone else which he edited. Indeed an "off stage quantity." It is not my failing - all adherents to the conclusion that the present gospel shows sign of editing fail to com up with the pre-70 document. In fact that is. I think, what your are after in your project. In my book I did - with fear and trembling - list some items that I think belonged to pre-70 Mark.

      --------------------

      KAREL: (c) the earlier document reflected the ecclesia expected the parousia
      was impending. The catastrophic ending of the war made this rethinking and
      reformulating of the meaning of the resurrection necessary in view of the
      delay of the parousia.

      BRUCE: ...To ask the question yet again: Why
      should the destruction of the Temple have produced a crisis of expectation?


      Karel II . Here we part ways I believe. Having lived through WW II and followed world news up till now, I donot doubt a) that most pre-70 Judeans, including the followers of Jesus (Acts 1,6!!) fervently awaited the establishment of the kingdom of David; b) the end of the war with all its violence produced a deep shock in the Land itself and in the diaspora. It seems to me there is somewhat a divide between exegetes who lived under a dictatorial regime and those who havenot shared that experience.

      Bruce: Does Paul, for example, who is continually concerned with future expectations, and with people's increasing anxiety about their nonfulfilment (years before the destruction of the Temple) ever connect the Temple with those expectations? I don't
      recall an instance, but I am quite willing to be informed otherwise. Reference appreciated.

      Karel II For instance. 1 Thessaloninans and especialy 2 Thessalonians 2. I agree with Russels that apocalyptic language is partly subversive language. One doesnot write openly of the Roman oppressor and or of those involved with them.





      KAREL: (d) since one is not able to detect a difference in style or
      vocabulary in sections of our known Gospel, the pre/70 document was probably
      written by John Mark as well. He revised his own document.

      BRUCE: To this "one is not able," and to all statements of similar tendency,
      my reply is, "How hard have you tried?"

      Karel II - I tried years on end; I could not detect hard evidence.

      BRUCE 1. If you mean, for example, that EUQUS "straightway" occurs in all the
      chapters of our Mark, I would be tempted to agree.

      Karel II - I am writing an article both on euthus and on palin, formidable words in the structure of Mark. I cannot go into it here. It is important to know Hebrew and be familiar with Judean thought. Unfortunately I donot know the Arthashastra to which you refer.

      Cordially yours,

      Karel Hanhart


      Recent Activity
      a.. 1New Members
      Visit Your Group
      Ads on Yahoo!
      Learn more now.

      Reach customers

      searching for you.

      Y! Groups blog
      the best source

      for the latest

      scoop on Groups.

      Special K Group
      on Yahoo! Groups

      Join the challenge

      and lose weight.
      .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.