Kata Markon

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

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Secret Mark
> From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:18:59 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 2
>
> 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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Secret Mark
> From: "Peter Kirby" <kirby AT earthlink.net>
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:56:29 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 3
>
> 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/

I would like to hear reactions to my proposal in "The Open Tomb"  (60-64; 
96-105), namely
(a) that proto Mark was written in Rome before 70 under the aegis of Simon,
(b) that Secret Mark (- a radical post-70 revision of proto-Mark -), was  
written for his own ecclesia (did Mark flee to
Alexandria under Nero?),
(c) that Mark submitted his revision to Matthew for his approval as head of 
the  'mother community' somewhere in Syria
(-originally the Jerusalem community -)
(d) that relatively shortly afterwards Matthew composed his 'official' 
gospel, adopting the gist of Mark's new post-70
passion including his open tomb story, an approval of this 'Roman' gospel 
confirmed in his 'Peter and the keys' addition.
Matthew, moreover added much didactic material, correcting Mark's heavy 
emphasis on Paul's role in the molding of tradition
and excising certain passages in Secret Mark, f.i. re: the "neaniskos", to 
which Clement was referring..

Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl.