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

Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg and Mark's Date

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net
    Mine just arrived yesterday.. Jeff ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.