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

Mk 13

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Supplement To: Previous Thread On: Mk 13 From: Bruce I am supposed to be superintending an international conference at this moment, and so
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Supplement To: Previous Thread
      On: Mk 13
      From: Bruce

      I am supposed to be superintending an international conference at this
      moment, and so can't give the question the research it deserves, but as a
      supplement to previous discussion, I did come across one case of a previous
      commentator feeling that Mk 13 was intrusive in context. Here is part of the
      entry from Sean Kealy: Mark's Gospel, A History of Its Interpretation
      (Paulist 1982), p195f, under date of 1968(b):

      "Rudolph Pesch wrote Naherwartungen Tradition und Redaktion in Mark 13
      (Dusselforf). Like Marxsen Pesch finds chapter 13 of Mark of key importance
      and he gives it a similar date [Rome, soon after 70], although he interprets
      it quite differently. He finds an elaborate structural pattern in Mark of
      six sections, each in three parts with 6 + 2 + 6 pericopae. However, since
      chapter 13 does not fit into this carefully ordered plan, Pesch concludes
      that it was a later addition which Mark inserted when he was concluding his
      gospel. It was so important to Mark that he allowed it to disturb his order.
      Originally it was a kind of apocalyptic broadsheet [ie, a separate document,
      circulating separately] which derived from the time when Caligula endeavored
      to set up his image in the Jerusalem temple. It was revived in Christian
      circles during the Jewish war when excited expectations of the coming of
      Christ were aroused, expectations which naturally led to a disappointment.
      Mark made some changes in this prophecy and inserted it at the most striking
      point in his narrative just before the passion story. His aim was to meet a
      twofold danger of too enthusiastic a hope and on the other hand the
      disappointment of unfulfilled hopes. His aim was to teach watchfulness and a
      more cautious hope of the coming parousia (13-37)."

      Pesch retained his six-part Markan division scheme in his 1977 two-volume
      commentary. The end of the entry identifies the divisions between Pesch's
      six Markan sections as 3:6, 6:19, 8:26, 10:52, and 12:44, with Mk 13 still
      being regarded as an interpolation, which violates that form.

      There are several separable questions which Pesch has bundled here, among
      which are (a) the six-part form of Mark, (b) the identification of Mk 13 as
      an interpolation (which need not rest on that formal analysis, though the
      analysis if valid would assist the identification), and (c) the assumption
      that "Mark" is the same person throughout the text formation process.

      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.