Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Secret Mark

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirby" <kirby AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Secret Mark
  • Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:56:29 -0800


Hello,

Koester and Cameron, among others, hold that original Mark was penned c. 70
or so, that it was expanded into Secret Mark in the early second century or
so, and that our canonical Mark has the Secret Mark passages excised.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/secretmark.html

I currently think Koester's view is cogent although not certain. I would be
interested in hearing other perspectives, however.

best,
Peter Kirby <kirby AT earthlink.net>
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: [gmark] Secret Mark


> I'm curious as to what any one out there thinks of Keoster's and/or
> Crossan's theory regarding the relationship that Gmark has with "The
> Secret Gospel of Mark".
>
> For any who are unawares of their thought, they, or at least Koester,
> (and I hope I get this remotely correct) believe that Secret Mark was
> written first (contrary to the more "traditional veiw that places it
> well into the 2nd Cent.), well, no, actually "Proto-Mark" was
> written first, then Secret Mark, and then Canonical Mark (written mid
> 2nd cent.?). There's a lot more to the theory, but I'm more
> interested in any thoughts that may be floating out there in this
> well informed group then in explaining the theory.
>
> Peace.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: kirby AT earthlink.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>




  • Secret Mark, Steve Black, 02/19/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Secret Mark, Peter Kirby, 02/19/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page