gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Re: gmark digest: February 28, 2001

From: Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>
To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: gmark digest: February 28, 2001
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:20:21 +0100

Due to Josephus' near silence on the origins and development of the Jesus'
movement, we know very little of the 'Jesus of history'. It appears to be
beyond
doubt, however, that Jesus lived and taught and was called Messiah and was
crucified. The crucifixion implies that at some time he was arrested and
tried.
A so-called cleasing-of-the-temple incident must have led Pilate to order the
crucifixion as if Jesus had instigated a sedition. But it is unlikely that the
'cleansing' took place during the season of Pesach.. Judean governmental
leaders
may well have falsely accused Jesus of sedition on the grounds of the temple
incident. We are less certain, however, that the arrest took place on the
Mount
of Olives. However there are also no grounds to deny that it occurred there.
I have already indicated in earlier contributions why I believe Mark
wrote a
revised pre-70 Passover haggadah and that Mark's gospel should be deciphered
with the help of midrash next to the more established methods of
interpretation.
The work of Montefiore, Bowman, Daube, Safrai and others led me to that
conclusion.

Karel Hanhart

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> GMARK Digest for Wednesday, February 28, 2001.
>
> 1. Judas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Judas
> From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:58:31 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> --============_-1228746523==_ma============
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> What evidential reasons are there (if any) to suppose Judas (and the
> whole Mount of Olives episode, for that matter) was or was not part
> of the tradition that Mark inherited, and which he "creatively"
> enhanced.
>
> I may be misunderstanding the thoughts represented on the list, but
> it seems assumed that Judas was "created" by Mark, and was not in his
> received tradition. Mark's redactional role seems to me to be of
> crucial significance in understanding the gospel and Mark's thinking.
>
> I could easily posit some "historical" event which Mark elaborated
> upon (which wouldn't "prove" any thing of course) - say that Jesus
> spent time just outside Jerusalem with his disciples (and Judas?)
> before his crucifixion. Mark reflecting upon this in the light of II
> Sam/Zech placed this activity in the Mount of Olives for
> theological/narrative purposes (possibly enhancing it with additional
> narrative parallels). This seems as plausible to me as his creating
> this sequence entirely from scratch- I, however, certainly haven't
> proved anything!
>
> I'm interested in the redactional theory in practice and not so much
> in its results (for now).
>
> How do we is separate "tradition" from Mark's creativity? How can we
> verify our results?
>
> Its seems to me that so much scholarship hangs in the air of
> possibility, without the possibility of any verification.
> --
> Steve Black
> Diocese of New Westminster
> Anglican Church of Canada
>
> 3049 West 14th Ave
> Vancouver, BC
> Canada
> V6K 2X7
> --============_-1228746523==_ma============
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
> <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Judas</title></head><body>
> <div><font size="-1" color="#000000">What evidential reasons are there
> (if any) to suppose Judas (and the whole Mount of Olives episode, for
> that matter) was or was not part of the tradition that Mark inherited,
> and which he "creatively" enhanced.<br>
> <br>
> I may be misunderstanding the thoughts represented on the list, but it
> seems assumed that Judas was "created" by Mark, and was not in his
> received tradition. Mark's redactional role seems to me to be of
> crucial significance in understanding the gospel and Mark's
> thinking.</font><br>
> <font size="-1" color="#000000"></font></div>
> <div><font size="-1" color="#000000">I could easily posit some
> "historical"  event which Mark elaborated upon (which
> wouldn't "prove" any thing of course) - say that Jesus spent time
> just outside Jerusalem with his disciples (and Judas?) before his
> crucifixion. Mark reflecting upon this in the light of II Sam/Zech
> placed this activity in the Mount of Olives for theological/narrative
> purposes (possibly enhancing it with additional narrative parallels).
> This seems as plausible to me as his creating this sequence entirely
> from scratch- I, however,  certainly haven't proved
> anything!</font></div>
> <div><font size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
> I'm interested in the redactional theory in practice and not so much
> in its results (for now).</font></div>
> <div><font size="-1" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
> <div><font size="-1" color="#000000">How do we is separate
> "tradition" from Mark's creativity? How can we verify our
> results?</font></div>
> <div><font size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
> Its seems to me that so much scholarship hangs in the air of
> possibility, without the possibility of any verification.</font></div>
>
> <div>-- <br>
> Steve Black<br>
> Diocese of New Westminster<br>
> Anglican Church of Canada<br>
> <br>
> 3049 West 14th Ave<br>
> Vancouver, BC<br>
> Canada<br>
> V6K 2X7</div>
> </body>
> </html>
> --============_-1228746523==_ma============--
>
> ---
>
> END OF DIGEST
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

Re: gmark digest: February 28, 2001, Karel Hanhart, 03/01/2001
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: gmark digest: February 28, 2001, JFAlward, 03/01/2001