Kata Markon

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

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> GMARK Digest for Sunday, January 07, 2001.
>
> 1. Re: Chaper 13
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Chaper 13
> From: "Antonio Jerez" <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:38:39 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> Phil Campbell wrote:
>
> > I think the objective should be to work out the message of the MARKAN =
> author
> > rather than synthesis with the other gospel writers. Don't you? =
> (Besides
> > which, don't you think the END OF THE AGE may be a reference to the =
> end of
> > the AGE/ coming into Kingship of the Messiah?)
>
> Of course I agree that "the objective should be to work out the message =
> of
> the MARKAN author". But how is the best way to do that? Your method
> appears to be the read the text in a kind of vacuum, only glancing =
> backwards
> toward OT texts to find parallel meanings. I think it is a lot more =
> rewarding to
> look both backwards and sideways - towards the other gospels that were =
> written
> about the same time as GMark. I hope you are not going to argue that =
> Matthew and
> Luke are of no use in finding out what the more obscure Mark may have =
> been hinting

I too believe that the latter approach is the more promising
one. In fact all the critical tools we have at our disposal should
be applied as they may shed new light on a passage:: textcriticism,
source
criticism; redaction criticism, rhetoric analysis, narrative analysis;
interpretation of texts that appear to be a midrash; the
Wirkungsgeschichte",
cultural-anthropological approach,
the psychological approach, the analysis of the libetration theologian  
the
feminine approach etc.
The above is not meant to stifle discussion. I am simply citing by heart
some
examples of  methods of exegesis from the report by the papal bible
committee of
1993. I believe they all should be taken seriously.
But it will make a substantial difference if one argues from
the point of view of Markan priority or of the Griesbach
hypothesis. So I would suggest that when offering an
exegetical contribuition in Kata Markon we state first briefly our own
position
on the author, and the time and place of writing, and on the readers. It
will
make the evaluation so much easier.
I for one would like to open a discussion on the question:whence
the title of the Gospel with the anarthrous "arche tou euaggeliou..." 
and
why he states that he is citing Isaiah although he begins with
Malachi?  In a former contribution I suggested that this
odd beginning  suggests that Mark was writing a midrash.
Moreover, it also fits the hypothesis that Mark is commencing
a post-70 revision of an earlier document.
I would appreciate reactions.
..
Karel Hanhart     K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl