Kata Markon

[Eszter <ESZTER.ANDORKA AT student.kuleuven.ac.be>]

Dear list members, dear Karel,

I managed to get an exemplar of your book and spent a long Belgian weekend
enjoying it. I liked a lot your concern for Jewish-Christian dialogue. (I
wonder why did not you participate the Study days "The fourth gospel and
the J-Chr dialogue" in January at KULeuven. It was a really wonderful one.
Or where you there? 
(I learned from your book that you are a grandfather of more
grandchildren, so maybe I should talk to you with a little more respect,
isn't it? If so, just tell me. I can not properly feel the stylistic tones
in English.) 

To your arguments for a post-70-dating:
1. I think your dating can only stand together with your position of an
EXCLUSIVELY JEWISH INTEDED AUDIENCE. /I see your point with the
difficulties of the term "Jewish", but I think the the use of "Judean" to
designate an ethnic-religious identity is no solution for the problem. How
can you call then the Gentiles living in Judea? If we focus on the
religious aspect, we should better say "Israelite" which fits better both
to today's Jewish use and to the NT terminology, see for ex. John 1,47./ I
have two objections to this hipothesis. 

1a. The Gospel text has numerous parentheses directed to Gentiles:
2,18; 12,18; 12,42; 15,42. (Semitic expressions are translated in 3,17;
5,41; 7,11; 7,34; 15,22; 15,34, but it can be needed for Diaspora Jews as
well.) In 6,48 the time is defined in Hellenistic terms. 10,11 does not
make any sense with the Jewish law but with the Roman one. More, the
concern for Gentiles in the Marcan theology (see feeding miracles, etc.)
also presupposes a Gentile presence in the audience. 

1b. For the cryptic speech: I am Hungarian, in the first two decades
of my life I was an active speaker and decoder of cryptic speech. My
culture has great traditions in double talk. I think to have an ear
trained to identify it. 

According to my experiences there are 3 kinds of cryptic speech. I
will try to explain these categories as I see them. 

a) Parallel speech. The surface story points to the same direction as the
hidden one. The text is inclusive in the sense that the reader/hearer, who
can not get the hidden text still makes the same emotional experience, as
the initiated reader. The surface story is usually historical or fabulous.
For example in the 19th c. after a defeated revolution against the
Habsburgs, a Hungarian poem described the suffering of a captivated stork,
and its deep desire for freedom. Even those, who can not decode the stork
as Hungary, can cast in the emotional message. 

b) Inverted speech. The surface story is opposed, inverted, made
ridiculous. This normally happens by exaggerations, vulgar allusions, or
by using far too solemn language. The text is exclusive in the sense that
the author and the insider reader laugh over the head of the outsider
reader, who is usually the oppressor. 

c) Real doubble speech - a combination of the first two. There is a hidden
story on the same topic as the surface one, and the goal of the text is to
communicate as much as possible about the truth. After a revolution beaten
down it can be very important to recall the events, the heroes and their
sacrifise. But since in an opened dictature it is not allowed to remember
on revolutions, authors can try to twin the real story of suffering with
an inverted story on the goodness and generosity of the oppressor. This is
a difficult game to play. The ironic and the serious statements can
alternate end to end. The text is exclusive: the non-initiate reader
believes accepts the message of the surface text and becomes ridicule
along this text. 

But in a real dictature the surface text is needed. Nobody dares to
publish a mysterious text, which obviously contains hidden message.
Remember how hostile was the Stalinism to abstract arts. They found it
dangerous because of the possible hidden meanings. The dictature always
suspects rebellion. The best stategy is to distract its attention by a
seemingly innocent surface story. 

If I undertand you correctly, you see parallel and real double speech in
Mark. The surface story is the death of Jesus, the hidden one is the
destroyal of the Temple, or the killing of Jesus by the Romans. But I
think the two kind of text can not be mixed because of their different -
inclusive and exclusive - attitudes. 

How is it than? Is the non-initiate reader of Mark completely mislead by a
surface story, or invited into a common emotional experience by this? I
would opt for the second. The complex midrashic matrix of Mark - I agree
on the existence of it - is not make ridicule out of a naïve reading, but
deepens that reading. 

I do not think that an excusivist rhetoric could be detected on any level
of GMark. Should we imagine the community of Mark as a pure Jewish group,
which does not even want to accept any Gentile members? I can not
harmonise this image with Mk. 

2. JAMES AND THE JUDEAN (in geographical sense!) COMMUNITY 
> > 2. The fall of Jerusalem had have its effect on the dynamic of the
> > Christian community as well. The tragedy had different importance for
> > those who were closer to James then for others. I am unable to see the
> > trails of it in the Markan text.
> 
> I truly wonder if  the trauma  of 70 was only important to those who
were "more close
> to James", as you suggest. It deeply affected all Judeans, whereever
they lived, I am
> sure.

I did not want to suggest that. In contrary, I think that this tragedy was
a trauma fro all the Christians as well as for all Jews. But the destroyal
of your home, the killing of your relatives and the burning of your
childhood's sites is still a different experience than the destroyal of
the central locality of your religion and maybe nation. If I imagine the
scenario in the Christianity in 72, I expect symphathy, respect and
compassion toward those who experienced the first one from those who went
through the second one. I do not want to paint an ideal, soft and peaceful
image on the early Christianity. But I do think that a national tragedy
can affect a break in the everyday fights for power and authority. But the
GMark does attacks the authority of the circle of James. 

3. A new argument, I formulated it recently, thanks to you: ORALITY
in the PROCESS of making GMark. I fully know that it is a debatted
question, and I do not want to enter intio discussion with all the
possible positions here. But I am a pastor and teacher who have narrated
the Passion many times in my life. I know that this is the best to retell
of all the gospels, the text immeadiately grasps the attention of the
audience and keeps it on high in a permanent undulation (wave?). I think
that the Markan story, the curve of its dramatic tension, the tightness of
its logic was not made at once, but in telling and retelling, in
interaction with the audience. If it is true, the author of Mk could not
immeadiately react to 70 with such a worked out Peszach Haggadah. 

Hmm, I am very interested what do you think about my arguments.

Yours

Eszter