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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Audience of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Rikk Watts
    Five minutes... and I must really get back to work... ... Sorry to be so forthright, but I should have thought that this was exactly what it implies. : ) I
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 1, 2011
      Five minutes... and I must really get back to work...

      > if the church was that size - and I agree what
      > evidence we have suggests it was pretty insignificant - then yes, they
      > probably would have known who the writers were. That doesn't imply that
      > they're mentioned anywhere in the NT though!

      Sorry to be so forthright, but I should have thought that this was exactly
      what it implies. : )

      I mean, if I was in a movement of this size where they were two Marks, one
      significant enough to be associated with Peter (at least according to Luke
      and 1 Peter), and the other who wrote the gospel, and perhaps even a third
      who was connected with Paul, I think I'd want to know which Mark we (because
      we are still small enough with sufficient peripatetic links to be a "we")
      were talking about. If they were different folks, why do neither the gospel
      nor the other materials who speak of Mark feel any concern to indicate that
      these are different people? I can't believe that it was because they all
      operated in splendid isolation and complete ignorance of one another. Did
      the writer of Acts really not know about Mark's gospel? I find that hard to
      believe. This is not a big movement. How many "Marks" of this caliber could
      there be? The most straightforward and obvious answer (at last to me) is
      they don't differentiate between them because they believed these Marks to
      be the one person for the simple reason that they were. If they are not,
      then someone would need reasonably to explain how a movement such as this
      could get confused. Somewhere there would need to be a near universal lapse
      of memory and that within their own lifetimes.

      I'd need some pretty compelling evidence and a good alternative explanation
      of the social dynamics of a relatively knit first generation "cult" movement
      (who are small enough for their relatively small cadre of leaders still to
      bump heads over their different opinions) to be persuaded otherwise.

      For the record, nothing in my work on Mark nor my views of its content are
      dependent on authorship; they are, if you will, author neutral. So I don't
      have any bets riding on this. (I'm not much on conspiracy theories either).

      Rikk

      Ok.. I'm off now for another day or so.. apologies and thanks for your
      indulgence.

      > From: <RSBrenchley@...>
      > Reply-To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:54:57 -0500 (EST)
      > To: xtalk <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [XTalk] Re: Audience of Mark
      >
      > <<I should think the same principle applied to Matt et al. Keith Hopkins,
      > ³Christian Numbers and Its Implications² Journal of Early Christian Studies
      > 6 (1998) 184-226, if my notes are correct, suggests that by 100, there were
      > probably only 7000 Christians. He suggests 30% would be adult males, thus
      > some 2100, of whom only 20%, 420, could read but say only 2% were literary
      > sophisticates, i.e. 42 (!). Of that lesser number, we would need to have
      > someone in a community of sufficient wherewithal and of sufficient personal
      > standing and literary ability to produce a gospel. This strikes me as not
      > being a large pool, in which case one might expect such an individual to be
      > sufficiently well known not to require any modifier. Just it would apply to
      > Mark so also to John, Matthew, and Luke. I.e. no matter how common such
      > names might have been in the larger environment, in the early Christian
      > world the pool was almost miniscule by comparison. To the extent that Matt,
      > Lk, and John were written earlier than 100 the numbers would be
      > proportionately less.>>
      >
      > Thanks for the figures. If the church was that size - and I agree what
      > evidence we have suggests it was pretty insignificant - then yes, they
      > probably would have known who the writers were. That doesn't imply that
      > they're
      > mentioned anywhere in the NT though!
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Robert
      >
      >
      > [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
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.