Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg and Mark's Date
- At 10:51 PM 10/3/2005 -0500, Jeff Peterson wrote:
>On Oct 3, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:It's on-line now. It is a fascinating, thought-provoking, and
>> 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
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 C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481