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

Re: What is the Auditory Piracy model? [was: Re: [Synoptic-L] Hohum]

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: Tim Reynolds To: Ken Olson ; Cc: Ted ; jessica
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Tim Reynolds <molad@...>
      To: Ken Olson <kaolson@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
      Cc: Ted <tedrey@...>; jessica <lil.shaver@...>
      Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:45 PM
      Subject: Re: What is the Auditory Piracy model? [was: Re: [Synoptic-L]
      Hohum]


      > on 9/9/03 4:21 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:

      >
      > > KO:
      > >>> 3) Why we should think that Mark was a document with limited
      > > distribution
      > >>> rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.

      Karel's response:

      1. Mark shows signs of a redactional hand. Why? It would make perfect sense
      that in the wake of the devasting news that Jerusalem had fallen, Mark
      re-wrote a new and radically revised passion narative (plus introduction) to
      be read in the Pesach season. As I see it, John Mark had indeed been
      working with Simon Peter in Rome ( 'Peter's interpreter').
      In pre-70 days the ecclesia was naturally in need of a written document on
      the passover death of Messiah Jesus next to the prescribed synagogal
      readings for the Passover season. It is sometimes called 'UrMarkus'. In his
      revised post-70 passion story Mark now takes account of the temple's
      destruction. No doubt, in pre-70 days the ecclesia was still fervently
      praying for the parousia: Maranatha and the pre-70 gospel would have
      reflected that expectation. No one could have foreseen the debacle of 70 and
      the prospect of new exile, when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans.
      2. I realize full well that the problem is very complex, but the following
      can be defended in detail. John Mark's short gospel became the first post-70
      authoritative gospel as
      soon as it was adopted by Matthew. For Mark has been incorporated in Matthew
      almost in its entirety. Matthew was probably an important leader of the
      mother ecclesia (in Pella?) and his assent to Mark's views was of
      extraordinary if not foundational significance for the process of canon
      building. In Mt 16,17-19 ( - a summary of Mark's epilogue -) Matthew pays
      tribute to Peter and his ecclesia in Rome.."on this rock.." for which Mark
      II initially was written.
      [ Perhaps Mark had fled from Rome to Alexandria, as his gospel had
      pre-eminence in that city in a less abbreviated form than canonical Mark.]
      Yet, his is the Roman gospel. The above scenario explains why Mark was
      preserved next to Matthew, although almost all of it is found in Matthew
      rendering its preservation superfluous. It was (a) the first gospel written
      after 70 with its events so traumatic for all Judeans and (b) it came from
      the city of Peter and Paul.

      cordially,

      Karel
      >
      > Clement, c. 200, describes the document he's discussing as kept under
      guard
      > [!] and read annually to baptismal candidates. So *that* document,
      anyway,
      > was not in first-century circulation. The question is, was that Markan
      > document -- no one questions either the existence of this text or Mark's
      > authorship -- our Mk?
      >
      > OK so far?
      >
      > I get testy, and I apologize. You deserve better.
      >
      > tim
      >




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Tim Reynolds
      ... I don t see it. Does anyone else see it? ... Check. He established the church in Alexandria in the 40s, attended the 62 convocation in Jerusalem
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        on 9/30/03 5:29 AM, Karel Hanhart at k.hanhart@... wrote:

        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Tim Reynolds <molad@...>
        > To: Ken Olson <kaolson@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
        > Cc: Ted <tedrey@...>; jessica <lil.shaver@...>
        > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:45 PM
        > Subject: Re: What is the Auditory Piracy model? [was: Re: [Synoptic-L]
        > Hohum]
        >
        >
        >> on 9/9/03 4:21 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:
        >
        >>
        >>> KO:
        >>>>> 3) Why we should think that Mark was a document with limited
        >>> distribution
        >>>>> rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.
        >
        > Karel's response:
        >
        > 1. Mark shows signs of a redactional hand.

        I don't see it. Does anyone else see it?

        > As I see it, John Mark had indeed been
        > working with Simon Peter in Rome ( 'Peter's interpreter').

        Check. He established the church in Alexandria in the 40s, attended the 62
        convocation in Jerusalem following James' lynching (leaving one Annianus
        locum tenens), went on to Rome with Peter, returned to Alexandria consequent
        to the Neronian pogrom, and began his parataxis, ended by his lynching in
        68.

        > John Mark's short gospel became the first post-70
        > authoritative gospel

        The first gospel at all. As Brian Wilson pointed out (with reference to
        another, hypothetical, Urbuch), it served as the physical prototype of
        Christian lit: codex format, Greek ciphers, nomina sacra.

        > [ Perhaps Mark had fled from Rome to Alexandria,

        v supra

        as his gospel had
        > pre-eminence in that city in a less abbreviated form than canonical Mark.]

        Specifically, the holograph contained two passages that were omitted from
        the catechetical readings.

        > Yet, his is the Roman gospel.

        v supra
        >

        Tim Reynolds
        Long Beach CA


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.