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

Re: [XTalk] Re: [Synoptic-L] Thesis: Mark Used Cross Gospel in 15:42-16:8, Pt.1

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    ... The reconstructed text of Crossan s Cross Gospel is *not* written in the I form. ... You have not given me opportunity to present my full thesis before
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Karel Hanhart wrote on Saturday, February 23, 2002:
      > >>
      > >> Karel, while we agree on the approximate date of Mark, we hold quite
      > >> different
      > >> views with regard to the Markan provenance.
      > >> Again, I have developed a position which places the Markan community
      > >> in the
      > >> village region of Caesarea Philippi. I referred in my post to you
      > >> where that
      > >> position can be located, namely, in my essay, "Guidelines for
      > >> Locating the
      > >> Markan Community," Kata Markon (2/29/00); XTalk (2/29/00; Archives
      > >> #3913). I
      > >> interpret Mark as being a Galilean, or Galilean sympathizer, who is
      > >> strongly
      > >> anti-Judean. I do not mean *anti-Jewish.* Mark is opposed to the
      > >> cultic
      > >> ideology of Judean Judaism and its Temple establishment, as well, in
      > >> my view, as
      > >> the Jerusalem Church which has "sold out" under James and the
      > >> tradition of the
      > >> cohort of the Twelve to the Judean orientation.
      > >
      > Ted,
      >
      > Yes, I have read your exposé and I reached the very opposite
      > conclusions. And both interpretations are based on the same texts of
      > Mark. With one distinct difference in approach. You believe Mark knew a
      > so-called Cross Gospel, which Crossan distilled from the second century
      > Gospel of Peter and which in the judgment of many is inauthentic.
      > (a) It is written in the "I" form. (I, Peter, saw...).

      The reconstructed text of Crossan's Cross Gospel is *not* "written in the 'I'
      form."

      > To me, Crossan
      > circumvented the interpretation of Mark's opened tomb story by claiming
      > that Mark made use of this supposedly earlier Cross Gospel. In this
      > strongly anti-judaic Gospel of Peter (including the Cross Gospel -
      > distillate, Jesus is pictured as leaving the tomb accompanied by two
      > other figures in the face of guards. Judean bystanders bemoan the fact
      > that Jerusalem will be destroyed because of their sins. Does it not
      > appear to be a second century hotch-potch of themes taken from the
      > Synoptics and especially from John? (Compare the use of hoi ioudaioi)

      You have not given me opportunity to present my full thesis before drawing
      conclusion regarding its validity. For if it proves to have validity, then we
      must date the Cross Gospel before Mark. And while the Gospel of Peter is
      second century CE, its independent tradition of the story of the guard at the
      sepulcher (which even Raymond Brown recognizes as a coherent canonically
      independent source which the author of the Gospel of Peter used in his
      composition: see Pt. 1 of my thesis), is pre-Markan if my thesis holds up.

      > To me Mark is (a) the John Mark of the Epistles and Acts, born and
      > raised in Jerusalem, {who must have mourned the fall of Jerusalem), the
      > interpreter of Peter. Hence both knew each other in Rome where Peter
      > died, as I Clement states.
      > (b) In Mark's haggadah, Simon Peter's confession is made just before
      > the scene on the Mount of Transfiguration. The confession is made at the
      > most Northern part of the Gospel's geography, from where Jesus' paschal
      > pilgrimage to Jerusalem begins. I believe Mark deliberately chose that
      > site because of its name Caesarea Philippi. It means the 'Imperial
      > Philippi'. Peter makes his confession in Caesar's territory, thus
      > foreshadowing his apostolic mission in the imperial city of Rome. But,
      > writes Mark, Peter also stood in Jesus' way; he first needed to learn to
      > follow Jesus on the "way" to the Cross. This exegesis is confirmed in
      > the Transfiguration scene, where Peter wants to build three tents and
      > remain on the mountain (of eternal bliss). The readers are thus prepared
      > by Mark to accept the period of suffering that will come (13,9). But
      > they ought to be able to accept sufferings in the future in the faith
      > and hope of resurrection (9,9).

      Karel, You are right. We read the same texts and come to conclusions that are
      radically different. The differences are so great that I just do not know how
      to bridge the chasm between us. I think in numerous posts, along with my
      _Mark-Traditions in Conflict_, I have stated my presuppositions, the way I read
      the texts and the reason I draw the conclusions I do. Yet, you have apparently
      found virtually nothing that I have written as having exegetical or
      hermeneutical substance, much less cogency. And, quite frankly, I find you
      superimposing upon the text a haggadah template that the text itself just does
      not invite. Your appeal to ancient tradition (the author is John Mark of
      Jerusalem, Petrine historicity reflected in the Gospel, etc.) as being
      historically authentic is contrary to what my study of Christian origins and
      that of many other scholars have concluded is historically authentic. As much
      as I regret it, I guess there is no alternative with respect to our dialogue
      with each other but to accept the fact that the hermeneutical chasm is so great
      between us that we must come to the recognition that we finally have no
      alternative but to agree to disagree.

      Thank you for engaging me. I do appreciate the investment of your time and
      thought in doing so.

      Ted
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.