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

Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg and Mark's Date

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    ... That s right. Argues that Mark 13:1-2 s no stone on another represents the calling out of Jerusalem s gods (from the Roman perspective) and offers an
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Oct 3, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      > At 09:37 PM 10/3/2005 -0400, Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net wrote:
      > >Since the thread on Mark's dating just died out, I read with
      > interest John
      > >Kloppenborg's piece in the JBL on *evocatio deorum* and the dating
      > of Mark.
      > >Have any of the rest of you read it?
      >
      > Is that in the latest JBL? I haven't gotten mine yet.


      That's right. Argues that Mark 13:1-2's "no stone on another"
      represents the "calling out" of Jerusalem's gods (from the Roman
      perspective) and offers an interpretation of the destruction ex post
      facto. I wonder whether it's credible that Mark would be so indebted
      to pagan Roman tradition, but I agree with Jeff that it's an
      interesting piece.

      Jeff Peterson
      Austin, TX
    • Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net
      Mine just arrived yesterday.. Jeff ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Mine just arrived yesterday..

        Jeff
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:34 PM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg and Mark's Date


        > At 09:37 PM 10/3/2005 -0400, Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net wrote:
        >>Since the thread on Mark's dating just died out, I read with interest John
        >>Kloppenborg's piece in the JBL on *evocatio deorum* and the dating of
        >>Mark.
        >>Have any of the rest of you read it?
        >
        > Is that in the latest JBL? I haven't gotten mine yet.
        >
        > Stephen Carlson
        > --
      • Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net
        I read the article a little differently... So much of the later dating of Mark (post 70) has been grounded on the specificity of the description of the
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I read the article a little differently... So much of the "later" dating of
          Mark (post 70) has been grounded on the specificity of the description of
          the destruction of the Temple that Kloppenborg suggests that (common)
          knowledge of the seige practices of the Roman army would have allowed Mark
          to write this pre-70, knowing that this is what would happen because, as
          Jeff P. suggests, the "tutelary god" of the city has been called out...

          Jeff (K.)


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Jeff Peterson" <peterson@...>
          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 11:51 PM
          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg and Mark's Date


          >
          > On Oct 3, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
          >
          >> At 09:37 PM 10/3/2005 -0400, Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net wrote:
          >> >Since the thread on Mark's dating just died out, I read with
          >> interest John
          >> >Kloppenborg's piece in the JBL on *evocatio deorum* and the dating
          >> of Mark.
          >> >Have any of the rest of you read it?
          >>
          >> Is that in the latest JBL? I haven't gotten mine yet.
          >
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... It s on-line now. It is a fascinating, thought-provoking, and solidly researched piece--just what one would expect from Kloppenborg. As for your comment,
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:51 PM 10/3/2005 -0500, Jeff Peterson wrote:
            >On Oct 3, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
            >> Is that in the latest JBL? I haven't gotten mine yet.
            >
            >That's right. Argues that Mark 13:1-2's "no stone on another"
            >represents the "calling out" of Jerusalem's gods (from the Roman
            >perspective) and offers an interpretation of the destruction ex post
            >facto. I wonder whether it's credible that Mark would be so indebted
            >to pagan Roman tradition, but I agree with Jeff that it's an
            >interesting piece.

            It's on-line now. It is a fascinating, thought-provoking, and
            solidly researched piece--just what one would expect from Kloppenborg.

            As for your comment, almost all of Kloppenborg sources for the
            evocatio deorum were writers flourishing in Italy (incl. Josephus)
            with the only exception being a not very illuminating inscription
            in a Cilician town. Kloppenborg does not really say in the article
            where he thinks Mark was written, but it seems to me that any case
            for Mark's alluding to an evocatio deorum would be strongest with
            a Roman provenance for Mark--a position that does not quite enjoy
            a majority status today.

            But how much indebtedness to pagan Roman tradition is really
            needed for Kloppenborg's argument to work? The Jewish references
            for the departure of the Lord from the first temple (Jer 12:7,
            Ezek 8:12 9:9 and 1 Enoch 89:56) are somewhat analogous, but his
            argument needs to rely on the knowledge that the Romans had a
            practise of demolishing temples. I suppose this knowledge could
            have been learned from bitter, practical experience without much
            intimacy with the details of the pagan Roman tradition behind it,
            but that knowledge, by itself, does not help us in deciding
            whether Mark's allusion to the practice is in anticipation of a
            future event or in retrospection of a past event for the author.

            Accordingly, Kloppenborg's case for dating Mark needs to depend
            on the retrospective literary and historiographic use of the
            evocatio ritual and "the wider field of prodigies used by Roman
            writers in their historical accounts" (445). I feel that its force
            then depends on how much one thinks that Mark was written in Rome
            or otherwise betrays a Roman audience and/or the influence of Roman
            historians, which Kloppenborg does not really address except to
            note that he's not very optimistic about value of the patristic
            evidence on the origin of Mark (421).

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
            Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.