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

Re: [XTalk] Mark

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    ... Hackles are the erectile hairs on a dog s back. So my OED, anyway. And yes, my hackles are raised by your proposal, but leaving that aside, even if one
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack Kilmon wrote:

      >I believe that Mark was written as a response to a rival community >writing
      >with which Mark vehemently disagreed. I believe that rival gospel was >an
      >Aramaic "proto-John."
      >
      >Well, that oughtta raise some hackles.
      >What is a hackle anyway?

      Hackles are the erectile hairs on a dog's back. So my OED, anyway. And yes,
      my hackles are raised by your proposal, but leaving that aside, even if one
      were to agree with you, it only defers the problem a bit. Why a "gospel" (in
      the sense of a chronological account of Jesus' "ministry" and death) in the
      first place?

      Bill
      ___________________________
      William Arnal
      Department of Religious Studies
      University of Regina
      Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2


      _________________________________________________________________
      MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
      http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
    • Robert M. Schacht
      ... Good clarification! Thanks. ... Much more so. Thanks! ... Me, too. I don t think Mark meant gospel as a genre, but rather as a simple description of what
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:39 PM 10/03/02, you wrote:

        >...I do think that no one so far has even come close to answering the
        >question
        >I had in mind, but that's at least partly due to the vagueness of my
        >wording.

        ...which is why I was seeking a clarification.

        >What I meant was, why THAT, why THAT WAY, why THEN? In other words,

        Good clarification! Thanks.

        >I was not asking at all "why write about Jesus?" to which the various
        >responses serve as adequate amswers (i.e., because he was impressive,
        >because someone asked him to, because memory was fading or deemed unreliable
        >in the long term, etc.). Folks wrote about Jesus before Mark: Paul does, Q
        >does, Thomas does, and so do the various sources that MUST be postulated
        >behind Mark (miracle catenae, etc.). But I am assuming that Mark was the
        >first to write a connected, more or less sequential, "story of Jesus" that
        >tried to embrace and mingle the various ways of viewing him; and I am
        >assuming that in doing so, he created the pattern which subsequent "stories
        >of Jesus" followed.
        >
        >So my question was: why did he do *when* he did it (as opposed to it having
        >been done earlier, or later, or not at all)? Why this form as opposed to
        >some other form (e.g., a compilation of lists of sayings, lists of miracles,
        >etc.)? Why include a passion narrative and why give it such prominence? And
        >so on. I want to stress that the way GMark talks about Jesus (and I mean in
        >broad outline, not just in terms of redactional niceties) is not the only
        >way possible. So again, simply citing motives to "preserve" the Jesus
        >traditions does not at all explain Mark -- it only explains why some
        >Christians may have written *something*. I hope this is clear.

        Much more so. Thanks!


        > >Mark did not set out to write a biography, if we take him at his word:
        > > * 1:1 identifies Mark as "the beginning of the gospel" of Jesus Christ.
        > >It does not say "the biography" of JC.
        >
        >But I doubt very much that "gospel" is here intended as a literary generic
        >designation.

        Me, too. I don't think Mark meant "gospel" as a genre, but rather as a
        simple description of what he intended to write about.

        > The "gospel" is presumably ANY announcement about Jesus and
        >salavtion through/from him. Why would "the gospel" take the form of a
        >sequential narrative?....

        Good question. Maybe part of the message was the messenger?

        > >being forgotten, or distorted. I note with interest that Mark >identified
        > >his subject as the "beginning" of the gospel. Do you suppose he meant >the
        > >*original* gospel?
        >
        >This is an interesting point -- "arche" in v.1 makes it sound like
        >"euangelion" is indeed intended as a genre, but I think it can't be. So to
        >what does "arche" refer? In a way, it places the sequential or chronological
        >element front and centre from the very first word of the text.

        Thanks. Nice point.
        Bob
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... For what it is worth, I tend to agree with the following assessment ... Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 04:16 PM 10/3/02 -0000, sdavies0 wrote:
          >I'd like to know Stephen Carlson's view of this project.
          >
          >Black, Matthew
          >An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts
          >Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Pp. xxv + 359. $24.95 (paper).
          >Reviewer: Daniel J. Harrington
          >Weston Jesuit School of Theology, Cambridge, MA 02138

          For what it is worth, I tend to agree with the following assessment
          in the review:

          > The general conclusions drawn by Black, though judicious, are
          >vague. The one "established" conclusion, according to Black, that "an
          >Aramaic sayings-source or tradition lies behind the Synoptic
          >Gospels," is sufficiently general so as to leave one asking either
          >for more precision or for an admission that the Aramaic substratum,
          >though admittedly palpable in some cases, remains too elusive for
          >exact definition.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Anthony Buglass To: Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Mark ...
          Message 4 of 28 , Oct 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Anthony Buglass" <TonyBuglass@...>
            To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:18 AM
            Subject: Re: [XTalk] Mark


            > Jack wrote:
            > I believe that Mark was written as a response to a rival community writing
            > with which Mark vehemently disagreed. I believe that rival gospel was an
            > Aramaic "proto-John."
            > Well, that oughtta raise some hackles.
            > What is a hackle anyway?
            >
            > I believe it's a word for the hairs on the back of a dog's neck which
            stand up when it gets annoyed. Sort of appropriate for a list of people who
            like to sniff things out, and get their teeth into them?
            >
            > Re Aramaic proto-John - a bit difficult to tell, given John's Greek
            style, but what clues do you have that there is Aramaic background to his
            material?


            Steve has given an excellent overview of Black's viewpoint concerning the
            Aramaic substructure of the gospels and I find Black an excellent resource,
            however, Black stands as a watershed between an earlier generation of
            Aramaicists whose conclusions of an "original Aramaic New Testament" goes,
            IMO, too far. See:

            C. E. Burney: Aramaic Origins of the Fourth Gospel
            C. C. Torrey: The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, HTR 16, 1923
            J. de Zwaan "John Wrote in Aramaic" JBL 57, 1938 pp155-157

            There are also some current groups, mostly amateur, and centered in some
            form of quasi-Jewish Christianity or "Messianic Judaism" who, through
            imaginative to creative "textual criticism," assert that the entiire NT
            corpus was all composed in Aramaic or Hebrew.

            At the other end of the extreme are NT scholars, so highly invested in Greek
            that they get red in the face at the mere mention of Aramaic.

            Yet the syntactic and lexical Aramaic interference in NT Greek is highly
            visible and occurs in a number of ways as outlined by what I consider more
            balanced treatments by Fitsmyer and Jeremias. To use a Pauline expression,
            I learned my Aramaic "at the feet" of Bill Albright and I love the language
            but hope I am successful at a balanced position. See:

            B. Olsson: Structure and meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A text-linguistic
            Analysis of John 2:1-11 and 4:1-42,
            F. Zimmerman: The Aramaic Origin of the Gospels 1979

            Aramaisms in 4G include:
            1. Transliteration Aramaic 1:38; 1:41; 1:42 (the only gospel that uses the
            Aramaic KEFA instead of the Greek PETROS) ; 4:25; 9:7; 11:16; 19:13 (where
            the Aramaic word is called "Hebrew..more on that later); 19:17 (also where
            Aramaic Golgotha is called "Hebrew"); 20:16.

            note: In the 1st century, Aramaic was called "The Hebrew Tongue" while
            Hebrew was called the "Holy Tongue" (lashon qaddisha).

            2. Parataxis, where KAI corresponds to the waw-consecutiva in Aramaic,
            example John 9:6-7

            3. The increased usage of hOTI and hINA corresponding to the Aramaic
            relative particle D'

            4. Beginning sentences with a verb.

            5. Asyndeton, as in John 4:6,7.

            So the viewpointa are generally either John was originally written in
            Aramaic or that it was written in Greek by an Aramaic apeaker who thought in
            Aramaic.

            My viewpoint is that the Gospel was composed in Greek but used a smaller
            Aramaic source document or a Greek translation of an Aramaic "proto-John"
            that includes the well treated "Signs" source. I believe that proto-John is
            still imbedded in 4G and can be retrieved once one removes the multiple
            editings, interpolations, glosses and reshuffling of chapters that have been
            inflicted on the Gospel and then isolates the first stratum material.
            Actually, I have been working on that casually for quite some time but, I
            must admit, it is methodologically complex. Proto-John began at what is now
            1:19 and was composed, IMO, by someone close to the JB circle.

            I do not believe that any NT work was originally written in Aramaic but that
            each hagiographer used Aramaic sayings and source documents. It is my view
            that NT scholarship suffers from a lack of willingness by many scholars to
            "follow the Aramaic." I can assure you that there are XTalk members, right
            at this moment, saying to themselves, "There goes Jack beating on his damn
            Aramaic drum again." <g>

            Jack
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: William Arnal To: Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Mark ... yes, ...
            Message 5 of 28 , Oct 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "William Arnal" <warnal@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:31 PM
              Subject: Re: [XTalk] Mark


              >
              > Jack Kilmon wrote:
              >
              > >I believe that Mark was written as a response to a rival community
              >writing
              > >with which Mark vehemently disagreed. I believe that rival gospel was
              >an
              > >Aramaic "proto-John."
              > >
              > >Well, that oughtta raise some hackles.
              > >What is a hackle anyway?
              >
              > Hackles are the erectile hairs on a dog's back. So my OED, anyway. And
              yes,
              > my hackles are raised by your proposal, but leaving that aside, even if
              one
              > were to agree with you, it only defers the problem a bit. Why a "gospel"
              (in
              > the sense of a chronological account of Jesus' "ministry" and death) in
              the
              > first place?

              I don't believe that any of the Gospels really intended to give an accurate
              chronological account of Jesus' ministry. The "big event" of the malkutha
              d'alaha did not happen so each is instead an "interpretation" of what it all
              meant.

              Jack
            • William Arnal
              ... Brilliant. This is not cryptic at all, and I think the analogue is a fantastic one. I m swiping this idea as of now, but I ll acknowledge where it came
              Message 6 of 28 , Oct 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                >Not to be cryptic, but I wonder if it would help at all to provide >answers
                >to
                >similar questions regarding the book of Daniel which I take to be >written
                >in
                >situation somewhat parallel to, if not analogous with, that which gave
                > >rise to
                >GMark, during a war of independence when it seemed that the God of >Israel
                >had
                >thrown in his lot with those who advocated and employed particularly
                > >violent means
                >to destroy the forces of evil.

                Brilliant. This is not cryptic at all, and I think the analogue is a
                fantastic one. I'm swiping this idea as of now, but I'll acknowledge where
                it came from.

                thanks!
                Bill
                ___________________________
                William Arnal
                Department of Religious Studies
                University of Regina
                Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2


                _________________________________________________________________
                Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                ... You re welcome. I m very pleased you found the suggestion useful. It came out of a discussion I once had with Adella Yabro Collins on whether anyone in a
                Message 7 of 28 , Oct 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  William Arnal wrote:

                  >
                  > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                  >
                  > >Not to be cryptic, but I wonder if it would help at all to provide
                  > >answers
                  > >to
                  > >similar questions regarding the book of Daniel which I take to be
                  > >written
                  > >in
                  > >situation somewhat parallel to, if not analogous with, that which
                  > gave
                  > > >rise to
                  > >GMark, during a war of independence when it seemed that the God of
                  > >Israel
                  > >had
                  > >thrown in his lot with those who advocated and employed particularly
                  > > >violent means
                  > >to destroy the forces of evil.
                  >
                  > Brilliant. This is not cryptic at all, and I think the analogue is a
                  > fantastic one. I'm swiping this idea as of now, but I'll acknowledge
                  > where
                  > it came from.
                  >
                  > thanks!

                  You're welcome. I'm very pleased you found the suggestion useful. It
                  came out of a discussion I once had with Adella Yabro Collins on whether
                  anyone in a time of crisis such as I envisage Mark having been written
                  in would take the time to put together a book of the length his is.
                  Obviously the author of Daniel did, and for similar reasons: making sure
                  the people of God remain faithful, during a time when it was in their
                  interest not to, to a vision of what is entailed in being Israel.

                  She has some interesting things to say about apocalyptic biography in
                  her _Beginnings of the Gospel_. I look forward to her Hermenia
                  Commentary on Mark.

                  Yours,

                  Jeffrey
                  --
                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                  Floor 1
                  Chicago, Illinois 60626
                  e-mail jgibson000@...
                  jgibson000@...



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • William Arnal
                  ... The interesting thing here, though, is the difference: Mark is essentially trying to make sure that the people of God (Jews) do NOT remain faithful (by
                  Message 8 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                    >Obviously the author of Daniel did, and for similar reasons: making >sure
                    >the people of God remain faithful, during a time when it was in their
                    >interest not to, to a vision of what is entailed in being Israel.

                    The interesting thing here, though, is the difference: Mark is essentially
                    trying to make sure that the people of God (Jews) do NOT remain faithful (by
                    keeping Torah, keeping purity traditions, honoring the temple, etc. etc.),
                    when indeed it is in their interest precisely NOT to do so (i.e., it is in
                    their interest to repudiate these things, as Mark wishes). No?

                    Bill
                    ___________________________
                    William Arnal
                    Department of Religious Studies
                    University of Regina
                    Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2


                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                  • DaGoi@aol.com
                    Mark was written to tell about the significance of Jesus. I assume the existence of Q (or a Q-like document) and the existence of a zillion questions
                    Message 9 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark was written to tell about the significance of Jesus. I assume the
                      existence of Q (or a Q-like document) and the existence of a zillion
                      questions constantly to be answered by preachers like Mark; these are the
                      answers that were honed down by the preachers.

                      Mark has little teaching material; mainly parables, the Jesus apocalypse, and
                      apothegms (teachings in narrative settings). It is meant to travel or
                      coexist with a fuller document of the teachings and that must have already
                      existed in use among the cult (that is, gMk is not a document complete unto
                      itself because it does not have a full teaching), and that teaching source
                      was already being quoted and read in the fellowship gatherings of the cult.
                      Mark gives a fuller and written interpretation of the fulfilled prophesies
                      from the scriptures common to the other parties of the Jews, and means to
                      write not a modern biography but only the 'ministry', the cult significant
                      story, as many of the characters are presented in the OT. He is writing the
                      book of the Messiah for the new cult, to travel in the same package with Q.

                      He also writes in order to justify himself; Paul at one point had thought
                      Mark was a good for nothing - the issue separated Paul and Barnabas - and a
                      reconciliation of sorts was effected only by Peter shoving Mark down Paul's
                      throat, but some readers of the letters of Paul may still have mixed feelings
                      about Mark. Mark writes to show that the apostles too were merely human, and
                      time and again had let Jesus down.
                      Mark of course does not equate the significance of Paul, who is merely a
                      preacher and writer, with Jesus the messiah, but probably figures Paul is
                      contentious and self-righteous; nevertheless Paul's personal and
                      philosophical influence on the church as writer and theologian is a fait
                      accompli. Mark probably does not get out from under the dark cloud Paul put
                      him in until he manages to send Revelations to the seven churches (assuming
                      that the gMk is not truncated because of his death before he finished his
                      gospel).

                      gMt's author writes to conflate the two documents into one and to provide a
                      fuller 'biography'. He values both works (gMk and Q) but sees that the
                      combination of the two that he writes will be a better document, and he is
                      successful; gMk and Q both go into a period of decline and disuse in favor of
                      gMt (maybe how the ending of gMk disappears). For a while gMt is the sole
                      book of the Messiah in use in the cult.

                      Luke is not as impressed with gMt as the cult both before and after Luke is.
                      Luke gathers some further data and writes what to him is a better account.
                      He has read gMt, unimpressed, and uses much the same genre (birth narratives,
                      genealogies, gMk/Q mixture) as gMt does - that is, he writes in more the
                      fuller genre of gMt than of gMk - he writes (so he thinks) a better gMt;
                      dividing the long speeches into a more polished narrative (so he thinks).
                      Luke may also be writing in answer, mainly disagreement, to the discrepancies
                      of gJn though there are also indications that gJn is written partly to
                      harmonize some things in gMt/gMk/gLk (as for example in the gJn Anointing
                      scene).

                      It is not a problem why Q disappeared so much as the problem of the
                      survivability of gMk, but my hypothesis of that gets even further afield and
                      is best left for another time - the above I assume is enough irritation for
                      you now. :0)

                      Peace and Joy,

                      Bill Foley
                      Woburn



                      In a message dated 10/02/2 12:50:25 PM, Bill Arnal wrote:

                      <<Hey all:

                      *WHY* was Mark written? Why write a "biography" of Jesus at all?

                      (And how's that for a question out of the blue?)

                      Bill
                      ___________________________
                      William Arnal
                      Department of Religious Studies
                      University of Regina
                      Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2>>
                    • Bob Schacht
                      ... No. It seems to me that the question turns on what remaining faithful meant. Mark has a rather different idea about that, than the Jews for whom Torah
                      Message 10 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 08:39 PM 10/5/2002 -0500, you wrote:

                        >Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                        >
                        > >Obviously the author of Daniel did, and for similar reasons: making >sure
                        > >the people of God remain faithful, during a time when it was in their
                        > >interest not to, to a vision of what is entailed in being Israel.
                        >
                        >The interesting thing here, though, is the difference: Mark is essentially
                        >trying to make sure that the people of God (Jews) do NOT remain faithful (by
                        >keeping Torah, keeping purity traditions, honoring the temple, etc. etc.),
                        >when indeed it is in their interest precisely NOT to do so (i.e., it is in
                        >their interest to repudiate these things, as Mark wishes). No?

                        No. It seems to me that the question turns on what "remaining faithful"
                        meant. Mark has a rather different idea about that, than the Jews for whom
                        Torah was everything (indeed, perhaps being more an object of veneration
                        than God hisself.)
                        Bob
                      • David C. Hindley
                        ... separated Paul and Barnabas - and a reconciliation of sorts was effected only by Peter shoving Mark down Paul s throat, but some readers of the letters of
                        Message 11 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bill Foley says:

                          >>Paul at one point had thought Mark was a good for nothing - the issue
                          separated Paul and Barnabas - and a reconciliation of sorts was effected
                          only by Peter shoving Mark down Paul's throat, but some readers of the
                          letters of Paul may still have mixed feelings about Mark.<<

                          Where do you get that? "And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called
                          Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from
                          them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a
                          sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark
                          with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being
                          commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord." [RSV Acts 15:37-40]

                          The only way you can imagine that Mark was "shoved" down Paul's throat by
                          Peter is to read it into Acts 12:25, but the disagreement came after this
                          event, not before it.

                          >>Mark probably does not get out from under the dark cloud Paul put him in
                          until he manages to send Revelations to the seven churches (assuming that
                          the gMk is not truncated because of his death before he finished his
                          gospel).<<

                          I'm definitely lost now. What Revelations? What seven churches? Are you
                          suggesting on the basis of Acts 12:25 ("And Barnabas and Saul returned from
                          Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John
                          whose other name was Mark") that Mark was the John who wrote (at least) the
                          part of the book of Revelation (2:1-3:22) that dealt with the seven
                          churches?

                          Respectfully,

                          Dave Hindley
                          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... Sakari, I don t know Spong s theory in full; I read only a review of his book. My contribution to this topic would be briefly: Canonical Mark is a second
                          Message 12 of 28 , Oct 6, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sakari Hakkinen wrote:

                            > Why was Mark written?
                            >
                            > - How about the possibility that Mark was written in order to be read aloud
                            > in Christian Synagogues/House Churches after the passages of the Torah and
                            > the Prophets? The theory of the Gospels as Midrash-type lectionaries is
                            > proposed by Spong (Liberating the Gospels, 1997), who is strongly attracted
                            > by Goulder's thesis. I can't remember whether this theory is discussed at all in
                            > X-talk.

                            Sakari,

                            I don't know Spong's theory in full; I read only a review of his book.

                            My contribution to this topic would be briefly:
                            Canonical Mark is a second version of a pre-70 Gospel ( - midrash-type
                            lectionary, if you will -). The rewriting was necessitated by the tragic
                            outcome of the Judean-Roman war. The heightened parousia expectation
                            of the ecclesia (Maranatha!) had been rudely interrupted.
                            Mark designed a passion story explaining the contemporary meaning
                            of Pesach not only in the light of the crucifixion/resurrection but now
                            also the destruction of the second temple/rebuilding of a spiritual temple.
                            This new version of the passion was used and commented upon throughout
                            the Greek speaking ecclesia's.

                            cordially,

                            Karel


                            >
                            > Yours
                            > Dr. Sakari Hakkinen
                            > Diocesan secretary
                            > Diocese of Kuopio, Finland
                            > sakari.hakkinen@...
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                            >
                            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          • Brian Trafford
                            ... This caught my attention, and I thought I might follow up in order to better understand where you are coming from on this. What makes you think that Mark
                            Message 13 of 28 , Oct 6, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In crosstalk2@y..., "William Arnal" <warnal@h...> wrote:
                              >The interesting thing here, though, is the difference: Mark is
                              >essentially trying to make sure that the people of God (Jews) do NOT
                              >remain faithful (by keeping Torah, keeping purity traditions,
                              >honoring the temple, etc. etc.), when indeed it is in their interest
                              >precisely NOT to do so (i.e., it is in their interest to repudiate
                              >these things, as Mark wishes). No?

                              This caught my attention, and I thought I might follow up in order to
                              better understand where you are coming from on this.

                              What makes you think that Mark is directing his Gospel at the Jews?
                              Further, I noticed that you mentioned "honouring the temple" as one
                              of the things Mark disparages. Does this mean that you believe Mark
                              was writing before the Temple was destroyed?

                              Thank you,

                              Brian Trafford
                              Calgary, AB, Canada
                            • Eric Eve
                              ... [much snipped] ... a ... of ... is. ... narratives, ... discrepancies ... and ... for ... I broadly agree with you in relation to gMt and gLk, but I do
                              Message 14 of 28 , Oct 7, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bill Foley wrote:

                                > Mark was written to tell about the significance of Jesus. I assume the
                                > existence of Q (or a Q-like document) and the existence of a zillion
                                [much snipped]

                                > gMt's author writes to conflate the two documents into one and to provide
                                a
                                > fuller 'biography'. He values both works (gMk and Q) but sees that the
                                > combination of the two that he writes will be a better document, and he is
                                > successful; gMk and Q both go into a period of decline and disuse in favor
                                of
                                > gMt (maybe how the ending of gMk disappears). For a while gMt is the sole
                                > book of the Messiah in use in the cult.

                                > Luke is not as impressed with gMt as the cult both before and after Luke
                                is.
                                > Luke gathers some further data and writes what to him is a better account.
                                > He has read gMt, unimpressed, and uses much the same genre (birth
                                narratives,
                                > genealogies, gMk/Q mixture) as gMt does - that is, he writes in more the
                                > fuller genre of gMt than of gMk - he writes (so he thinks) a better gMt;
                                > dividing the long speeches into a more polished narrative (so he thinks).
                                > Luke may also be writing in answer, mainly disagreement, to the
                                discrepancies
                                > of gJn though there are also indications that gJn is written partly to
                                > harmonize some things in gMt/gMk/gLk (as for example in the gJn Anointing
                                > scene).

                                > It is not a problem why Q disappeared so much as the problem of the
                                > survivability of gMk, but my hypothesis of that gets even further afield
                                and
                                > is best left for another time - the above I assume is enough irritation
                                for
                                > you now. :0)

                                I broadly agree with you in relation to gMt and gLk, but I do have one
                                problem with this. Once you propose (quite rightly, IMHO) that aLk knew gMt,
                                the problem is not why Q disappeared but why we should think it ever existed
                                in the first place. Or this that what you're intending to express by the
                                phrase "or Q-like document"? If aLk knew gMt it surely no longer makes much
                                sense to reconstruct Q largely on the basis of the double tradition, and
                                even if aMt had access to other sources besides gMk (and I would agree with
                                you that he probably did), how "Q-like" can we suppose it or they to have
                                been?

                                Eric:
                                << Mark seeks to persuade his audience that Jesus' death
                                wasn't some ghastly accident or terrible failure. I think Mark may be doing
                                other things besides, but it does seem to me that one thing he may be doing
                                is to provide a narrative legitimation for a movement with an embarrasingly
                                crucified founder (if one may put it that way), although I suspect that the
                                legitimation is aimed at insiders rather than outsiders as a way of keeping
                                them on board rather than with any apologetic intent.>>

                                Bill:
                                > But the movement is already about forty years old, growing wildly, and
                                does
                                > not seem to need this at such a late date.

                                Yes, but around this time many Jews were busily telling and retelling
                                stories of their founder figures (e.g. Moses) and they'd been around a lot
                                longer that 40 years! Moreover, by the time Mark was written the first
                                generation of Jesus' followers would mainly have died away, along with their
                                memories and, perhaps, the first flush of enthusiasm. Of course one may also
                                want to look to external events that could have precipitated a crisis, such
                                as the Jewish War, in which having a founder of Jewish origins crucified as
                                a rebel by the Romans might suddenly start looking like a freshly sensitive
                                issue!

                                Best wishes,

                                Eric
                                ----------------------------------
                                Eric Eve
                                Harris Manchester College, Oxford
                              • William Arnal
                                ... I was just 5responding to the implicit comparison between Daniel and Mark -- it seemed to me that while Daniel was urging perseverence in maintaining a
                                Message 15 of 28 , Oct 7, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Brian Trafford wrote:

                                  >What makes you think that Mark is directing his Gospel at the Jews?

                                  I was just 5responding to the implicit comparison between Daniel and Mark --
                                  it seemed to me that while Daniel was urging perseverence in maintaining a
                                  distinctively "Jewish" way of life in a situation in which this would be
                                  dangerous, Mark is urging (at least partial) repudiation of a traditional
                                  and distinctively "Jewish" way of life. This observation does not really
                                  depend on any conclusion about whom the gospel is directed to.

                                  >Further, I noticed that you mentioned "honouring the temple" as one
                                  >of the things Mark disparages. Does this mean that you believe Mark
                                  >was writing before the Temple was destroyed?

                                  No.

                                  Bill
                                  ___________________________
                                  William Arnal
                                  Department of Religious Studies
                                  University of Regina
                                  Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2


                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                                • Brian Trafford
                                  ... Alright, this helps somewhat. Thank you for the clarification Bill. At the same time, my question was triggered by your equation of the people of God
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Oct 7, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In crosstalk2@y..., "William Arnal" <warnal@h...> wrote:
                                    I asked:
                                    > >What makes you think that Mark is directing his Gospel at the Jews?

                                    Bill replied:
                                    >I was just 5responding to the implicit comparison between Daniel and
                                    >Mark -- it seemed to me that while Daniel was urging perseverence in
                                    >maintaining a distinctively "Jewish" way of life in a situation in
                                    >which this would be dangerous, Mark is urging (at least partial)
                                    >repudiation of a traditional and distinctively "Jewish" way of life.

                                    Alright, this helps somewhat. Thank you for the clarification Bill.

                                    At the same time, my question was triggered by your equation of "the
                                    people of God" with the Jews for Mark, and I am less certain that
                                    Mark limited the "chosen people" to just the Jews. Like Paul he
                                    appears to see this group as including Gentiles, a thought that would
                                    have never occured to the author (nor the audience) of Daniel.
                                    Additionally, the Temple was meant to be the focus for Daniel and his
                                    audience (c. mid-2nd Century BCE), especially as that Temple was
                                    denied to the Jews, and was being used (abused?) by Greeks. Given
                                    such a senario one would expect a book devoted to Judaism and its
                                    traditions.

                                    For Mark, by contrast, either the Temple was already destoyed (if you
                                    accept a late dating of Mark), making devotion to (or attacks
                                    against) it meaningless, or, if one goes with an early 60's dating of
                                    GMark, it was controlled by the Sadducees, a group viewed with little
                                    respect by early Christians, and excessively (in their minds)
                                    committed to the rules and laws, but showing none of the Christian
                                    understanding of God and the after life. On this basis I would
                                    expect Mark to be less sympathetic to observing the Torah, especially
                                    if Jesus and other early Christians (like Paul) had already deemed
                                    these laws to be of less importance. I guess what I am saying is
                                    that the two situations, of the authors of Daniel and Mark, are
                                    simply not analogous, and the contrast between them and their themes
                                    is not only not surprising, but even to be expected.

                                    All of that said, Mark did seem to think highly of Daniel, and used
                                    it quite a lot in his portrayal of Jesus. Perhaps this is akin to
                                    later readers reading the Bible and finding messages that remain
                                    relevant in their own lives, even if their situations are quite
                                    different from those of the original authors of Scripture.

                                    I followed up:
                                    >Further, I noticed that you mentioned "honouring the temple" as one
                                    >of the things Mark disparages. Does this mean that you believe Mark
                                    >was writing before the Temple was destroyed?

                                    Bill again:
                                    > No.

                                    Yet I was forced to wonder why "honouring the temple" (or,
                                    alternatively, "attacking" it and what it stood for) would be
                                    important to Mark, especially if it had already been destroyed.

                                    Thank you for your response Bill. You have helped to clear up some
                                    points for me.

                                    Peace,

                                    Brian Trafford
                                    Calgary, AB, Canada
                                  • Ron Price
                                    ... Eric, As I see it, Matthew s additions to Mark can be classified roughly as: (a) dozens of short authentic-looking aphorisms (b) a few long parables
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Oct 7, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Eric Eve wrote:

                                      > If aLk knew gMt it surely no longer makes much
                                      >sense to reconstruct Q largely on the basis of the double tradition,

                                      Eric,

                                      As I see it, Matthew's additions to Mark can be classified roughly as:
                                      (a) dozens of short authentic-looking aphorisms
                                      (b) a few long parables containing Matthean themes and terminology
                                      (c) narrative which looks like Matthean composition or incredible events
                                      or both.

                                      aMt could have composed much of (b) and (c) with minimal dependence on
                                      non-Markan sources.
                                      But where did (a) come from?
                                      Also, where there is an overlap with gMk, how is it that aMt's version
                                      of an aphorism often looks more primitive than aMk's version?
                                      Again, how is it that gMt has so many doublets? Many of them could be
                                      explained easily by aMt's use of two written sources.
                                      Finally, what did Papias' TA LOGIA refer to?
                                      It would surely be quite reasonable to postulate a sayings source to
                                      explain all these questions, and to reconstruct it largely (but not
                                      almost exclusively as with Q) on the basis of the double tradition
                                      because that's where most of the aphorisms appear.

                                      > ..... and even if aMt had access to other sources besides gMk
                                      > ..... how "Q-like" can we suppose it or they to have been?

                                      In general it would contain Q's short aphorisms but not its long
                                      parables or its narratives. Indeed it would look something like, if not
                                      exactly like, the set of sayings identified in tabular form on:

                                      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQsQ.html

                                      Ron Price

                                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                      e-mail: ron.price@...
                                    • DaGoi@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 10/07/2 12:28:44 PM, Eric wrote:
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Oct 8, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 10/07/2 12:28:44 PM, Eric wrote:

                                        <<
                                        I broadly agree with you in relation to gMt and gLk, but I do have one
                                        problem with this. Once you propose (quite rightly, IMHO) that aLk knew gMt,
                                        the problem is not why Q disappeared but why we should think it ever existed
                                        in the first place. Or this that what you're intending to express by the
                                        phrase "or Q-like document"? If aLk knew gMt it surely no longer makes much
                                        sense to reconstruct Q largely on the basis of the double tradition, and
                                        even if aMt had access to other sources besides gMk (and I would agree with
                                        you that he probably did), how "Q-like" can we suppose it or they to have
                                        been?>>

                                        We still have the problem of the relative dearth of teaching material in
                                        Mark, that gMk is not at all what it should be, given the amount of teaching
                                        material (most of which I suppose he would have little problem with) that
                                        should be around him - suggesting to me that he writes a rider tracate to Q.

                                        Bill Foley
                                        Woburn
                                      • DaGoi@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 10/06/2 1:22:53 AM, Dave wrote: ... separated Paul and Barnabas - and a reconciliation of sorts was effected only by Peter shoving Mark down
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Oct 8, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 10/06/2 1:22:53 AM, Dave wrote:

                                          <<Bill Foley says:

                                          >>Paul at one point had thought Mark was a good for nothing - the issue
                                          separated Paul and Barnabas - and a reconciliation of sorts was effected
                                          only by Peter shoving Mark down Paul's throat, but some readers of the
                                          letters of Paul may still have mixed feelings about Mark.<<

                                          Where do you get that? "And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called
                                          Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from
                                          them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a
                                          sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark
                                          with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being
                                          commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord." [RSV Acts 15:37-40]

                                          The only way you can imagine that Mark was "shoved" down Paul's throat by
                                          Peter is to read it into Acts 12:25, but the disagreement came after this
                                          event, not before it. >>

                                          I was thinking more in terms of 1Pt where Peter from the Babylonian Diaspora
                                          writes to Galatia et al with Mark and Silas, presumably when Paul's in prison
                                          in Israel. I see Paul has already come to terms with Peter's behavior he
                                          dissed in his letter to the Galatians - note the turnaround between this and
                                          the implied behavior he suggests towards the weaker brother in 1Cor(?) and
                                          Romans, but his strong opinion against Mark may - but maybe not - persisted
                                          until Paul's Jerusalem visit and after. Of course it's unknown how Peter and
                                          Mark got together

                                          << >>Mark probably does not get out from under the dark cloud Paul put him in
                                          until he manages to send Revelations to the seven churches (assuming that
                                          the gMk is not truncated because of his death before he finished his
                                          gospel).<<

                                          I'm definitely lost now. What Revelations? What seven churches? Are you
                                          suggesting on the basis of Acts 12:25 ("And Barnabas and Saul returned from
                                          Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John
                                          whose other name was Mark") that Mark was the John who wrote (at least) the
                                          part of the book of Revelation (2:1-3:22) that dealt with the seven
                                          churches?>>

                                          I was wondering if John, stressed and possibly sent a revelation, could have
                                          written the Apocalypse. I was going to, and maybe will someday, go over
                                          exactly what his pattern is when he gets stressed, like in the 2 and 3 John
                                          letters which I take as being written in flight. So I read (and am still
                                          reading) vol. 4 of the Moulton Grammar of the NT Gk, Style, by Turner who
                                          time and again shows that Revelations style is more like Mark than the other
                                          books in the NT, so I'm going to be examining, if I can, whether Mark (yes,
                                          John Mark - thanks for the reference) could be stressed enough to write this
                                          way instead.

                                          Originally who wrote Rev was like the pile of old electronics in my
                                          attic, a toy for my retirement - I'm pretty much busy with wondering whether
                                          Clem Alex wrote gThom, and examining the textual criticism of the General
                                          Epistles, wondering if I can show a history of the anthology (I'll have some
                                          preliminary thoughts on this soon to ask you to pick apart to reality check
                                          my methods), but there's probably enough motive force in the Mk/Rev subject
                                          to kick it around a little, and it seemed to fit in as an aside to the g4
                                          canon post of what's up with gMk. Sorry I'm not more definite on this, and
                                          there appears to be more to it than it may first appear, though my Greek is
                                          not really as advanced as to do it justice yet. I think anyone who has the
                                          background can do all of our retirements a favor by giving the idea a
                                          definite heave ho, but otherwise for now I can only give Turner's work plus
                                          my own connections (which I think he has easily in hand but is too
                                          conservative to make).

                                          Bill Foley
                                          Woburn
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.