Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Mark without Q

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT earthreach.com>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Mark without Q
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:43:52 -0600



Jack Kilmon wrote Friday, January 04:
> Let's look at
> the Markan parallels
> in John:
>
> John Mark
> 1:35-39 1:16-20
> 1:40-42 1:16-20
> 1:43-51 1:16-20
> 2:13-17 11:15-17
> 3:3-8 10:13-16
> 4:44 6:4
> 5:1-18 2:1-12
> 6:1-15 6:35-44
> 6:16-21 6:47-52
> 12:1-8 14:3-9
> 12:27-28 14:32-42
> 13:36-38 14:27-31
> 18:1-11 14:43-50
> 18:33-37 15:2
>
> As is obvious, the Markan parallels in John are IN ORDER causing one to
> believe that
> John (supposedly composed around 95ish CE) used Mark (supposed composed
> around
> 70 CE) but is that true? Is it possible that Mark used JOHN?

Jack, unless I misunderstand what you, I do not find in your example that
the Markan parallels in John are "in order."
I do not find the following in order, if you mean the same order in John as
they are found in Mark:
2:13-17 11:15-17
3:3-8 10:13-16
4:44 6:4
5:1-18 2:1-12
6:1-15 6:35-44

I do, however, agree with you that John was dependent upon Mark. In the
near future I plan to post an argument for John using Mark as a model from
Jn. 1:19-34.

> The John parallels in Mark were not taken
> from
> Mark by the Johannine scribe but were taken from "proto-John" by Mark who
> also has
> an agenda to respond to "proto-John" to which Mark is inimical, the first
> edition of Mark
> being pro-Peter and "proto-John" being polemical to Peter. I cannot help
> but notice that
> the Johannine parallels in Mark are from an unglossed, unedited and
> unredacted John....
> first layer, so to speak.

I am not persuaded by this trajectory of the relationship between Mark and
John. I shall also speak to this trajectory in a future post.

Ted Weeden






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page