Kata Markon

[Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>]

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eszter <ESZTER.ANDORKA AT student.kuleuven.ac.be>
> To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 4:56 AM
> Subject: [gmark] Re: The purpose of Mark's gospel.
>
> > Hello Jeff,
> >
> > I do not think that Mk would be secondary to Mt and Luke. In contrary, I
> > believe that Mk was a source of both. (Maybe not exactly the same Mk that
> > we know, but a not much different edition.) But your question was about
> > the purpose of the gospel. Let us see:
> >
> > I can interpret "purpose" on two ways. First about the use, setting or
> > function of Mk in the life of the marcan community. I would agree those,
> > who claim that 1. Mk was a kind of christian paschal haggadah, a text to
> > be read (recited) in the night of pesach for the entire community; 2.
> > this event had an initiative function for the catechumens, who had been
> > baptised than , probably at dawn. The text has several hints into both
> > directions. You can consult for ex. the book of Benoit Standaert:
> > L'Evangile selon Marc. Not a brand new book (early 80ies), but very
> > detailed in this regard.
> >
> > "Purpose" of Mk can mean the particular bias of the author, in the sense
> > that he (I think he was male) wanted to form his community, react onto
> > conflicts and challenges experienced by the community and its members. The
> > marcan scholarship provides numerous possible answers. Some of them:
> >
> > 1. Inner conflict of christians. Mk wants to side with one of the groups.
> > (ex.: Weeden, Kelber)
> >
> > 2. Inner conflict of christians. Mk wants to mediate. (ex.: Betz, Robbins)
> >
> > 3. Christians in the situation of persecution. (Maybe related with the
> > Jewish War.)
> >
> > 4. A rather peaceful period, after persecution - temptation of being like
> > others.
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > Combinations of these are also possible, maybe needed. I would say: yes,
> > there were hardships in the recent past of the community. I think the
> > conflict had to do with the antijudaist tendencies of Rome in the late
> > 60ies.

Dear Eszter,

As you may know, I have argued rather extensively for a 'revision' by Mark of 
an
older pre-70 Passover Haggadah. Perhaps this older Haggadah was also written 
by
Mark; but unfortunately we  do not have such a document. It is acknowledged by
many that an editorial hand is visible in Mark's Gospel.  If indeed Mark
revisied it in the light of the traumatic experience of the Fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the temple, we have a solid reason why the pre-70
document no longer had sufficient 'authority'  in the ecclesia to warrant
including it as a document in the canon.
What makes you stick to the date "in the sixties" besides 13,14? The reference
to the "bdelugma" could have been in that older version (Caligula!).. Mark
retained it in view of the even greater catastrophe of 70 (Titus).

your Karel