Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: gmark digest: February 21, 2001

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: gmark digest: February 21, 2001
  • Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:04:41 +0100




Kata Markon digest wrote:

> GMARK Digest for Wednesday, February 21, 2001.
>
> 1. Secret Mk
> 2. Secret Mk
> 3. Jesus' Confession - Peter's Denial
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Secret Mk
> From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:11:35 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> At 12:00 AM -0500 2/21/01, Kata Markon digest wrote:
> >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..
>
> How does this work with the known textual evidence - specifically
> concerning the added ending attached @ 16:9-20. I believe this ending
> is known mid 2nd cent. I think we could presume Matthew's redaction
> of Mk (Canonical) would of had a ressurrection appearance! If so,
> this framework doesn't leave any time for the ending to be lost!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Secret Mk
> From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:23:39 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 2
>
> re: Karel Hanhar
>
> I just reread your suggestion, and I think I misunderstood you with
> my last post. I was assuming you were dating Canonical Mk mid 2nd
> cent. - but I think your theory places it earlier. When would
> canonical Mk be roughly dated in this scenario?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Steve,

I am dating canonical Mark about 72 CE. I believe that his Gospel (with
elements
now preserved in "Secret Mark" ) was submitted to Matthew for his 'approval'.
These
elements were not made public as Clement writes in his letter. Matthew built
on
Mark.

Karel





  • Re: gmark digest: February 21, 2001, Karel Hanhart, 02/22/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page