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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Date of Mark

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Robert Brenchley On: Date of Mk 13 From: Bruce ROBERT: I agree that post-70 looks more likely as regards 13:1-2, and probably
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 4, 2005
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Robert Brenchley
      On: Date of Mk 13
      From: Bruce

      ROBERT: I agree that post-70 looks more likely as regards 13:1-2, and
      probably 9-13,
      but surely v14 fits the Caligula crisis of 41 better; it's hard to see
      anyone worrying about what the Romans might set up in the Temple at a time
      when it no longer existed! Much of the rest would fit either situation, as
      someone writing in 41 could well have expected war to follow the
      anticipated erection of the statue. How does Kloppenborg handle v14? I don't
      see his paper on the website.

      BRUCE: On Mk, I am much inclined to agree. As for Kloppenborg, SBL claims to
      have posted it, but I for one can barely make out the text, and as for the
      footnotes, forget it. Others who wish to try may click here:

      http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/Current/2kloppenborg.pdf.

      Good luck.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.