Re: [XTalk] Crossan's Gospels
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Vincent Sapone
> Earlier commentators often discussed whether the unnamed young manfleeing naked into the night from the garden of Gethsemane in Mark
14:51-52 might be Mark himself obliquely and indirectly signing his
narrative. It is just as possible, even more credible, but
unfortunately quite as unprovable, to suggest that the unnamed woman
in Mark 14:3-9 is "Mark" herself obliquely and indirectly signing
This business requires a lot more argument than it's given by JDC. I
suppose that anyone is entitled "to suggest" anything, nonsense or
not, but not every suggestion is worth the effort to type it out.
This thesis of JDC just seems to be a woolly guess without further
merit. Two nonsense theories are hardly worth discussing vis a vis
which is more credible despite utterly unprovable; that sort of
stuff isn't scholarship, not even bad scholarship, but whimsy. Maybe
Mark was actually the apostle James. Just as possible, even more
credible, Mary, mother of Jesus, was the sister of Mary of Magdala
who, being the wife of Jesus, had to hide her illegal union from
public view. And so the Merovingian line is not licit no matter what
the piory of Sion says. Crossan is not always as far in his
speculations from The Da Vinci Code as he thinks he is.
>That however, is not the point. We cannot ever be sure whether Markwas a woman or a man.
Mark was a man until it is cogently argued otherwise.
> We can, however, be absolutely sure that the author of this gospelchose an unnamed woman for the supreme model of Christian faith--for
the faith that was there before, despite, or even because of Jesus'
death. Easter, for her, came early that year." [Jesus A
Revolutionary Biography, p.192)
> I have a very general question for now. What version of Mark arewe talking about
We, aka I, are talking about the version Nestle-Ahland Third because
that's the one at hand here in Dallas PA.
> and do the different theories have a major impact on this overalldiscussion?
Well, probably not unless the theories are credible and coherent. If
they are just woolly whims then they really are wasting the time of
> To steal Crossan's terminology, the reworking of Mark--especiallythe ending -- may have been a small industry in the church.
I know of five endings to Mark. 16:8, shorter, longer, Mt., Lk.
> For example, Crossan thinks that "the original version of Mark'sGospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39. What comes
afterward, from 15:40 through 16:8, was not in Secret Mark but stems
from canonical Mark. . . . The evidence for [this] is internal and
circumstantial, tentative, hypothetical, and clearly controversial.
No. It's not "evidence" at all. It's Crossan making things up and
putting them in print. You cannot just invent something and then say
that your evidence is half-assed and yet expect people to take it
seriously. Better you should invent something and admit you don't
have any evidence worth anything. Then people might wonder why you
are saying anything at all but at least all would be aboveboard.
> But it fits well with Markan theology in which faith and hopedespite persecution and death is much more important than visions,
apparitions, and even revelations." (Historical Jesus, p. 416)
This too is Crossan making things up and making them sound
impressive. Now, if he said that he himself deletes the ending of
Mark found in the best manuscripts because he, Crossan, believes
what is said above, then OK. But to put the onus on Mark, I don't
think that's right. The notion that Hope, despite death, is more
important than Revelations is, I would say, simply incoherent.
> . . . "The centurion, named Petronius in the Cross Gospel, at theGospel of Peter 8:31, which was, in my opinion, known and used by
Mark, is left unnamed by him at the end of the passion narrative in
parallelism to the unnamed woman at its inception." (ibid).
Is there any professional in the NT field who actually takes this
Crossan Cross Gospel business seriously? Crossan's arguments seem to
be If X and If Y and If Z then If A then B If C. Come On! One might
just as well say that the structure of the whole Gospel moves from
an unnamed Dove at Jesus' Baptism to an unnamed Anonymous Guy at
> There are at least enough theories on different versions of Markout there that one should at least make their stance on the issue
known. That way we are all on the same playing field or at least
know where the other person stands.
Nestle-Aland Edition 3.
The Secret Gospel of Mark is a forgery by Smith or, if you don't
trust Smith to have done it, a forgery by somebody in Alexandria pre-
The Cross Gospel is a third century invention.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Gospel of Mary Magdalene -- > Peter vs. Mary
> --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
> > [Mark] wrote for first century Jews ...
> Then why was it necessary to explain to the reader that:
> "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully
> wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and
> when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they
> cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have
> received in order to observe ..." (Mk7:3-4)
> Since Steve alludes to such passages as this in his assertion that
> GMk was written for Gentiles, the ball seems to be in your court
> to explain the presence of such passages, rather than merely
> contradicting Steve's position without explanation. Should one
> assume that your position is that canonical GMk was redacted or
> edited for Gentiles? If so, do you have any guess as to when this
> happened, or how extensive a revision it might have been?
> Mike Grondin
> Mt. Clemens, MI
> Dear Mike,
You are right, of course. The ball is in my court with a brief comment like
that. The question of the addressees of Mark's Gospel is shrouded in mist
and our knowledge of such introductory questions is therefore limited. My
comment was based on the fact that Mark never cites non-Jewish authors but
frequently refers to Tenach. His subject matter is a first century Jewish
Passover story with rather complicated midrashim. Evidently, Gentile
readers were included in the community for which Mark wrote, traditionally
Rome. And Mark added his comment for that reason.
Since it has been recognized that canonical Mark was the result of redaction
and since in his epilogue he refers to LXX Isa 22,16, I take it that the
redaction took place after the destruction of the temple. The number of
Gentiles joining the
ecclesia apparently warranted this explanatory note, because the Gospel was
read out loud in the worship service.
These remarks are admittedly too brief. But the type of scholarly exchange
through doesn't permit lengthy argumentation.
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/