Kata Markon

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

Printed below, you will find a corrected version of yesterday's reply to 
Weeden. The
uncorrected version was inadvertently sent to 'Kata Markon' -  it was late at 
night.
It contains a number of mistakes in English grammar, in computing errors and 
in
other annoying corrigenda. I have blamed Mark for writing the 'Greek of an
immigrant' - my English may illustrate this worldwide phenomenon of clumsily
expressing oneself in someone else's language. Perhaps my writing in faulty 
English
may encourage non-English speaking colleagues to participate in the 
discussion.
After all, the Gospel is studied in many countries and the United Nations 
hasn't as
yet adopted an artificial language, like Esperanto, to serve as a truly 
ecumenical
means of communication.
KH

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> GMARK Digest for Monday, April 16, 2001.
>
> 1. Judas Re: gmark digest: March 27, 2001
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Judas Re: gmark digest: March 27, 2001
> From: Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:49:28 +0200
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> We owe a word of thanks to Ted Weeden for his detailed exposition on the 
> pivotal
> figure of Judas. Since I disagree with him on key points, I will try in six
> sections to answer him and also to react to some colleagues writing  on the
> subject in Kata Markon last March. Let me start by noting that I side with 
> those
> who concluded that Judas is a fictional figure whose 'kiss' must symbolize 
> an
> act or acts referred to or alluded to in the narrative world of this oldest 
> known
> Gospel. Moreover, in order to be an effective symbol, the kiss must have 
> evoked in
> the minds of Mark's Christian Judean audience an event or a sequence of 
> historical
> events painful to them, worthy to be symbolized by a deadly 'kiss'.

> I.    Thus far, one major element of the narrative world of the story has 
> not
> been discussed: the epithet ascribed to Judas early in the story, ' hos kai
> paredoken auton' , who handed him over (3,18) - often wrongly translated 
> 'who
> betrayed (= pro-edoken) him'.  For the verb 'paradidomi' controls the
> composition of the last two of the three passion predictions.

> The story of the passion - to use an irreverent metaphor - carefully 
> follows the
> time - table in
> the third prediction (10,33f.) including the mocking, spitting, flogging and
> killing.  [Incidentally, it is in 10,32 that according to Clement of 
> Alexandria
> the 'neaniskos' of Secret Mark appeared. And the question arises why 
> precisely
> there? I believe, as shown below, that in Mark the youth is the counterpart 
> of
> Judas in this 'handing over' process].  The 'kiss'  of Judas marks the 
> turning
> point from Jesus' active life to his passion. From then on his life turns 
> toward
> his death. He is 'handed over' first 'to the high priests' etc (!) as 
> predicted
> in 10,33 and afterwards he is handed over to the pagan Pilate by the 'high
> priests, together with the elders and scribes' (15,1). This precise order 
> of (a)
> first to the high priests and then (b) to the Gentiles is followed only in 
> the
> third prediction (10,33).  So the question arises why only in the third
> prediction and why repeat the passion prediction three times at all, while
> modifying its wording? It is, as if Mark - by three times carefully 
> modifying
> the wording - is guiding his readers from an earlier understanding of Jesus'
> death to a deeper understanding, relevant to his contemporary post-70 
> readers.
> The pre-70 first edition of 'Mark' may well have contained a single saying 
> that
> Jesus alone would be 'rejected' by the elders and by Caiaphas alone. For the
> verb 'reject' is used in the first prediction (8,31) and only there. The
> 'handing over' sequence starts in the second prediction for the development 
> of
> this deeper understanding. What is this 'deeper' understanding for readers 
> who
> next to the crucifixion now are also deeply moved by the tragedy of the 
> downfall
> of their nation?
> Mark invites his readers, as it were, to see a connection between the
> crucifixion in ± 30 and the ruining of the temple in 70, but what is this
> connection?
>  I conclude that this 'handing over' process to the Gentiles is the cantus
> firmus or the central theme of the post-70 revision of Mark that ends with 
> the
> vision by the women of the disaster that will come upon the PLACE, that is 
> the
>
> Maqom, Mount Zion, 40 years after the crucifixion.The Place will see the 
> death
> of thousands. The angel does not gesture to an empty slab of stone in a
> monumental grave; his words refer to this vision of the terrifying future 
> event
> in 70:"Behold, the place - the 'Maqom', where they laid him". Fearful, they
> fled! But the promise of the living Messiah remains: he is not there where 
> they
> buried his corpse (ptoma, 15,45), he will 'go before' to the Gentiles, where
> those who belong to his living Body (soma), the ecclesia, will see him.
>     Any exegesis of the Judas' episodes must fit into Mark's narrative 
> world, as
> Steve Black rightly noted, unless we declare the author to be absolutely
> incompetent. Now without the kiss, Mark seems to imply, Jesus would NOT have
> been handed over and the elaborate introduction to the Last Supper about WHO
> will hand Jesus over,  underlines the fact that 'one of the twelve' is 
> about to
> do just that.
>
> II. Thus far little attention has also been paid to the corporate  meaning 
> of
> some of the persons involved or of the plural form used, where one would 
> expect
> a singular. So in 8,38 a distinction is made between the person of Jesus 
> and the
> Messianic figure of the 'huios tou anthropou' of Dan 7, whose parousia was 
> still
> awaited in the time of Jesus. It has been rightly observed, already by T. W.
> Manson, that the key term 'huios tou anthroopou' [taken from the messianic
> vision in Dan 7] is a corporate figure.  According to Dan 7,14 all power 
> will be
> given to this God-sent Human One [= huios tou anthropou]; his deeds will 
> differ
> from
> the beast-like cruelty of the rulers of four Gentile nations: like a lion, a
> bear, a panther  and an unspeakable monster, the Syrian Hellenic empire. 
> What is
> more, the 'people of the Most High' will share in the coming kingdom of the
> Human One according to Dan.7. Since Mark uses the term
> 'huios tou anthropou' in the triple passion prediction, - he verbally quotes
> Daniel 7 in Jesus' confession (14,62) -,  it stands to reason that he has 
> this
> corporate meaning of the 'Human One' in mind: the Messiah AND his people 
> will be
> handed over to the Gentiles.

> One may also infer that in the opening phrase "the kingdom of God is at 
> hand"
> (1,15, cf Acts 1,6), this
> corporate understanding of the coming kingdom already played its part also 
> in
> the pre-70 forerunner of our Gospel "he will reign forever and ever" as in
> Handel's Hallelujah choir. The hope of the kingdom of the Human One as in 
> the
> Danielic parousia expectation was real in the time of Jesus. So also in the 
> pre-70
> precursor of Mark's Gospel,

> Mark I,  the hope of the coming kingdom was fervently expressed - no one at 
> that
> time
> foresaw the extent of the coming catastrophe.

> But in the wake of 70 Mark needed
> to explain why the parousia had been delayed.
> Here the symbol of the kiss comes into the story. Iscariot, "one of the 
> twelve",
> represents a segment of the population, in casu the high priest(s) etc.whose
> wrong decisions caused the coming disaster according to Mark and the delay 
> of the
> parousia.

> III  As to the plural form:
> (a) we don't read a prediction "I" will be handed over, but the 'Human One' 
> will
> be handed over. In this manner Mark subtly included the unexpected downfall 
> of
> God's
> people in 70 in the story of the crucifixion. And for that reason  the
> suffering of his people in 70  is also referred to in the passion of Jesus 
> (the
> curtain is rent, foreshadowing 70).
>     (b)  We observed that in the post-70 triple prediction, this corporate
> personality,

> the 'huios tou anthropou' - the Messiah and his people -, becomes the 
> subject of a
> process,

> for in the second prediction the verb 'paradidomi'  is introduced (9,31). 
> And in
> 10,33f   the process of
> 'handing over' is further expanded to two phases, first to high priests 
> (plural)
> etc and than to the Gentiles (cf. Mt 27,18.26).
>     (c) It catches the eye furthermore, that the term 'high priest(s)' is 
> always
> in the plural in Mark. For only Caiaphas was high priest at the time of 
> Jesus'
> death.  The same is true for the arresting term 'Gentiles'. At first sight 
> one
> doesnot expect to read that Jesus would be 'handed over' to the nations. For
> Caiaphas turned

> Jesus over primarily to Pilate alone; Jesus became the object of the 
> cruelty of
> the soldiers only
> indirectly, by implication.
>     (d) Now in the odd verse 15,1 the verb 'paradidomi' is used again and 
> here too
> a corporate phrase is used. It is a typically Markan verse (euthus - meta 
> ton
> presbuteron). It is strange because of
> the plurality of the people involved. The entire council was 'binding' just 
> this
> one man and they were 'handing him' over as a body to the governor.
>    I am making this point of plurality and corporateness at length. For I
> concluded that Mark was writing a Passover Haggadah, a story in which the 
> tragic
> events of the entire Judean people in the first century are subsumed in a
> symbolic story, a passover haggadah, but strictly seen through the eyes of
> Christian Judeans who confessed Jesus to be Israel's Messiah. In their eyes,
> what happened during the days of Jeremiah, had happened in their own time 
> and
> certain compatriots were accused of having contributed to the fall of 
> Jerusalem
> as in the days of Jeremiah.
> Thus in his post-70 revision Mark retold the story of the crucifixion, but 
> it is
> now told in the shadows of the tragic course of events from 30 to 70 CE that
> followed the death of the Messiah. His followers would also 'drink the cup'.
>     Mark's story is meant to become part of the seder of Israel, just as
> the Exodus experience and the exile to Babylon were already part of the
> Haggadah. Mark tells his passion story anew to show what led to the 
> downfall of
> Jerusalem but also to open a door to the promised future - the risen Messiah
> will go before.... The "sheep" would be scattered" (14,27) but this being
> scattered among the nations  would serve the healing of  these nations. 
> They would
> hear the word.
>     In Mark's Haggadah some actors represent a larger group of people. 
> Caiaphas
> is a main actor, but he represents also successive high priests, those who 
> in
> the period of 30 - 70 persecuted  Jesus' disciples. The deeds of his 
> successors
> are seen as part of Caiaphas' initial crime.  Saul  was the first who in the
> name of the high priest was "persecuting Jesus" (Acts 9,5) in the eyes of
> Christian Judeans. Also the deeds of Pilate and his soldiers are magnified 
> to
> symbolize also the future course of events The soldiers killed Israel's 
> Messiah
> but in the act the curtain of the temple is torn in two, foreboding the
> destruction of the temple by the Roman legions in 70. Thus Mark's readers, 
> for
> whom the trauma of 70 was recent history,  looked at the crucifixion in
> retrospect colored by that recent event..
>     So just as Josephus in his Bellum  wrote a history of the War and its
> causes, Mark rewrote a Passover Haggadah to be read in the night of Pesach 
> about
> Jesus' crucifixion but  now implying a  causal connection between the Cross 
> and
> the temple destruction.
>   .
> IV. Asked who it was who handed Jesus over "to the Gentiles" (10,34),  the
> answer remains unclear. In Getsemane it is Judas with his kiss (14,18.54) 
> but
> the actual 'handing over' is done by the high priests (!) and the entire 
> council
> as a body (15,1). Since the Judas figure appears to be fictional, the kiss
> symbolizes the deeds not only of one high priest, Caiaphas, but also of the
> highest office holders
> of the people of God that succeeded him in Jerusalem. The religious 
> sentiment
> should not be overlooked. The high priests, elders and scribes belong to the
> people
> of God - the kiss implies a certain intimacy - yet, the accumulation of 
> their
> deeds meant

> the kiss of death. Judas fictive role is controled from beginning to end by 
> the
> action of
> Caiaphas and his ilk sitting in the (doomed) temple (14,1f.). This link 
> with the
> temple is confirmed by the midrash of Judas' suicide ( in Mt 27,5-10 and in 
> Acts
> 1,20). For in them allusions are made to the desolation of the holy city.
>     Furthermore, scholars like Vermes, rightly recognized the story of the 
> Aqeda
> in the 'binding' of
> Jesus. For stating that the entire (!) council was "binding" just one man is
> strange indeed. But in the context of the suffering of the Messiah and his 
> people,
> it served to remind the reader of the story of the Aqeda (Gen 22). It tells 
> of the
> 'binding' of Isaac like a sacrificial lamb by Abraham -
> "your only son whom you love" - , cf Rom 8,32. Mark emphasized purposely the
> 'binding' of Jesus by the council (15,1) The Aqeda theme probably served as 
> a
> leading
> metaphor already in the pre-70 Christian Judean Haggadah, cf. 1,11; 9,7 -
> "only beloved son").

> V.  It is clear that the thrice repeated passion prediction serves as the 
> THEME
> of the narrative world of Mark II, i.e. canonical Mark. For he wanted to 
> subsume
> the plot of his
> story with a kiss that introduced the 'handing over' process. He invented
> therefore the
> figure of Judas, emphatically designated as "one of the twelve" in 14,
> 10,17,20,23. Iscariot is the pivotal actor to symbolize the role of the 
> 'high
> priests, elders and scribes' in the death of Jesus and of the people of 
> God, the
> 'huios tou anthropou'. So Judas
> handed 'Jesus' over to 'the nations'.
>     Now this 'handing over'  to death is only one element in this mysterious
> 'handing over' process (see my Open Tomb, 393-461). The role of the high 
> priests
> represents only the NEGATIVE, dark and treacherous side of this process. It
> proved not to be the only side of the 'handing over-process' according to 
> the
> climactic message of the angel  in the monumental tomb. The other side was 
> that
> the 'huios tou anthropou' would also be 'handed over' to the Gentiles in a
> POSITIVE, life-giving, way through the apostolate among the nations. Paul,
> fulfilling a role opposite to Judas, is the central figure here. Though 
> tainted by
> the high priest's conspiracy, giving him letters to "persecute" Jesus, he is
> pictured as narrowly escaping from Gethsemame, the very place where Judas 
> began
> the 'handing over' process. And Paul as the young man is there naked! Mark 
> refers
> his reader to 2 Cor 5,3, in which Paul faces the possibility that also he 
> will be
> found 'naked' before the judgment seat of Christ (vs 10), but is encouraged 
> by the
> thought that (at his baptism) he was "clothed" with Christ and that his 
> apostolate
> had borne fruit. He would not be found naked there, for he had been clothed
> (endusamenos). Paul's letters were studied by Mark's readers. So Mark, as I 
> see
> it, retrojected Paul as the 'neaniskos' into the Gospel, both in the 
> Getsemane
> story and in the tomb story, just as he created the Judas' kiss to

> symbolize the role of the high priests. Mark needed a fictive Judas and a
> historical Paul to paint as it were a theodice. God was able to turn the 
> evil of
> the cross and the templedestruction to good. Paul is the thirteenth 
> disciple in
> Gethsemane who "also followed - sunekolouthei". Thus the 'kiss' forms the 
> turning
> point in the 'Pass-over Haggadah' of the people of God, as Mark saw it. But 
> in
> the vision of the women it is precisely this thirteenth follower, the 
> NEANISKOS,
> buried with Christ in order to rise with him, now robed in a white 
> baptismal gown
> who tells the women to tell PETER that the risen Master goes before them 
> into the
> Galil of the Gentiles. In fact, the messenger in the monumental tomb is the 
> angel
> of Paul, for the women see in their terrifying vision the burning down  of 
> the
> temple in 70; and Paul had already died in 70.  The tragedy of the death of 
> the
> Messiah and of the following exile in 70 would be turned to good, for the 
> risen
> Messiah would 'go before' to the Gentiles  as PAUL had indeed written in Rom
> 11,25.  I need not expand further on the importance of the verb 
> 'paradidomi' in
> the Gospels and the epistles in the sense (a) of  Jesus 'being handed over 
> to
> death' or 'giving himself up'  and in the sense of (b) 'handing over' 
> Israel's
> sacred tradition, at least in the author's eyes. In an artful way Mark told 
> the
> contemporary history of his people in one moving tragic story of its 
> Messiah, but
> with a hopeful ending.  Luke in the first part of his Acts  appears to mark 
> the
> same turning from persecution to apostolate among the nations by the 
> commissioning
> of Saul (13,1) after the persecution of Acts12.

> VI. Returning to the careful buildup  in 8,31; 9,31; 10,33f  of the 
> 'paradosis'
> theme, I am rather convinced that the Judas' kiss represents the ambiguous 
> aspect
> of Israel being the elect of God.
> As is made clear in the Hebrew Bible, there will always be 'Iscariots' 
> among the
> elect, men of deceit (sheqer, Ps 27,12 - passim). The false kiss itself is a
> midrash on 2 Sam 20.9, as Ted acknowledged. For in midrash a text is quickly
> singled out when identical wording is used (namely 'kataphilo' in 20,9 and 
> in Mark
> 14,5; cmp

> phileso, 14,4). Moreover, the hypocrtical action of Joab in the source text 
> (Joab
> to Amasa, "Is it well with you. my brother?") corresponds well with its
> counterpart, the kiss of death by Judas. It is possible that, while 
> studying the
> Ahitofel episode, Mark used it as a contextual paradigm for the

> Gethsemane episode. But the identical wording in 2 Sam 20,9 (kataphilesai) 
> and the
> similarity

> of action (greeting-kissing....and stabbing) are, I think, decisive in 
> determining
> to what text Mark referred to express the role Judas in initiating the 
> dramatic
> unfolding of  the events to come.    I have placed Judas' kiss, therefore, 
> in the
> wider context of Mark's narrative world.

> Clearly, with the above thesis I differ widely from Weeden's 
> interpretation. Below
> I will briefly point out where in the argumentation we chose different 
> avenues of
> thought in the exegesis.

> > GMARK Digest for Tuesday, March 27, 2001.
> >
> > 1. Judas' Kiss and Methodology
> > 2. Re: Judas' Kiss and Methodology
> > From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:33:54 -0600
>
> > .   The length of this post is necessitated in order to address 
> > adequately the
> > critical methodological

> > issues that lie at the core of Joe's disagreement with my hermeneutic of
> > Mark and mine with his... I also hope I may engage other listers on the 
> > issue
> > of methodology ...
> > You (Joe) state:
> > "To sell Jesus to the Hebrews as the rightful heir to the throne of the
> > house of David, Mark apparently decided to show them that events in the 
> > life
> > of David prefigured those in Jesus' life."
>
>  I agree with Ted that the purpose of Mark is much broader.  In the Passover
> Haggadah  references are made directly or indirectly  to Moses, Joshua, 
> Elijah,
> David etc., The Gospel is like a tapestry in which the main motifs of 
> Scripture
> are interwoven. Not just one figure should be selected, as Joe did.
>
> > ... (as Joe put it)  [Mark] "scoured the Old Testament for things the Lord
> > did, and events in the lives of persons that he could have Jesus emulate."
>
> Joe's expression does not cover the process of midrash. Composing a midrash 
> is not
> composing a story and then "scouring" the sacred writings to lend support 
> (more or
> less) to what he knew in
> the first place. It is rather applying Scripture to one's  present 
> situation.
>
> I agree with Ted that the choice of methodology determines the exegesis. 
> But I
> have problems with his presuppositions and conclusions on several major 
> points.
> In his reply to Joe, he states that Mark
>
> >  "virtually dismisses Son of David christology (12:35-37) and debunks the
> > office of the Twelve (presumably representing the 12 tribes of the new 
> > Israel)
> > by totally discrediting its
> > twelve office holders, the disciples".
>
> This doesnot do justice to Mark's Gospel. Peter (including his remorse) has 
> the
> leading role among the disciples in the Gospel. He confesses Jesus and in 
> spite of
> his
> misunderstandings (all role-players misunderstand him at times) he is the 
> last
> person named in the Gospel. Not only in the tradition, but also in Paul's
> letters, he is the acknowledged leader of the ecclesia in the diaspora. And 
> his
> apostolate in Rome seems historically anchored in spite of the dire 
> critique of
> the Tübinger School. (IClement knows of a Roman Peter, as early as 100 CE).
>     As I explained before (Open Tomb, 561-565), Mark not only invented 
> Judas,
> "one of the Twelve", but he also retrojected the "12" in his revision of the
> proto Mark I. The names of the four lists of apostles, we now have, are not 
> in
> accord, a major puzzle. I have tried to reconstruct the original list of the
> twelve. They were, I believe, not chosen by Jesus as a body, symbolizing a 
> New
> Israel, as some hold.  It appears more likely that soon after the 
> crucifixion, -
> an event alluded to in Luke's Acts 1- twelve leading persons  of the Jesus'
> movement were chosen, some of whom had been the immediate disciples of 
> Jesus.
> The Risen One 'appeared' to these Twelve; there was no Iscariot there! But 
> Mark
> altered this original group of  twelve. His corrected list, now represented 
> God's
> people in such a way that the fictive Judas Iscariot as well as the 
> Greek-named
> Andreas, the 'spiritual' brother of Simon Peter, were introduced. Andreas is
> purely Greek, not so Shemon. Two others - Jesus' brothers James and Judas - 
> were
> subtracted from the original list. Mark's readers knew the names of the 
> original
> twelve, of course and would have noticed at once the new one, Iscariot, the 
> man of
> the lie [sheqer], "one of the twelve" and his assignment. He would "hand 
> over" the
> "huios tou anthroopou", i.e. the basic theme of the Haggadah. The added 
> Greek name
> would tell the readers that Greek converts now were considered to be part 
> of the
> people of God. Mark symbolizes the incoming

> of the Gentiles by calling Andreas the 'spiritual' brother of Shemon, the 
> Rockman.
> Jesus call them
> both as his first act at the 'shore of the sea' to "fish for people".
>
> >  Many of the OT allusions in his Gospel Mark inherited from his sources, 
> > for
> > example the miracle catenae, apophthegms,etc. (see Paul Achtemeier [JBL
> > articles, 1970/1972, on the Markan miracle catenae.
>
> As I see it Mark deliberately created a second feeding of 4000 to show that
> Jesus not only taught the nourishing bread of the Torah to the 5000 (the 
> Judean
> people) but also to the 4000 (the Gentiles), which his disciples didnot
> understand (8,21).
>
> > Jesus' feedings, and Jesus' stilling of the storm, which you feature on 
> > your web
>
> > site, should be ascribed to the creators of the stories prior to Mark
>
> As I see it, Mark I, or proto-Mark, was a pre-70 Passover Haggadah for the
> celebration of Pesach, used in the ecclesia and probably also written by 
> Mark.
> He revised it radically after 70. From the point of view of style, 
> proto-Mark
> and                        Mark are by the same author.

> > ..." who are the "Hebrews?"  If you are referring to Jews of Mark's time,
> > which Jews: Galilean Jews?  Judean Jews?  Diaspora Jews?  Hellenistic 
> > Jews?
> > As Horsley has pointed out
> > (_Galilee_ and _Archaelogy, History and Society in Galilee_), the old
> > constructs for identifying Jews in the late second temple period are not
> > only oversimplified but also wrong-headed.
>
> Surely, there were various kinds of Judeans, as citizens are in any 
> country. And
> the
> allegiance of Galileans to the authorities may well have differed from the
> Judeans of Jerusalem. But they all had in common that in their synagogues 
> (resp.
> ecclesia's) they read and applied the Hebrew Bible to their own 
> circumstance. This
>
> is precisely what Mark did.
>
> > ...Finally with respect to (4), if Mark is writing to "Hebrews," why does 
> > he
> > find it necessary to explain the practice of  "the Pharisees and all the 
> > Jews"
> > (I think he means "Judeans") with respect to washing hands and food before
> > eating (7:3f.)?
>
> This is a legitimate question. My answer is that in Mark's ecclesia in the
> diaspora there must have been a goodly number of former pagans who were
> superficially familiar with halacha.  Following my theory, the gripping 
> story
> itself could have been understood even by the children and by the Gentiles 
> who
> just joined the ecclesia. But for the deeper interpretation, a Judean 
> presbyter
> would have been present. Mark was surely not written for publication in a
> bookshop but for the celebration of Pesach.
>
> > ... the Markan community is situated in a rural village, where illiteracy 
> > was
> > probably as high as 97%?
>
> Here the difference in hypothesis comes sharply into view. One may compare a
> critical interpretation of Mark with building a tower of bricks. My basic
> hypothesis is that Mark indeed was the 'interpreter' of Peter. He was with 
> Peter
> in Rome according to tradition. Weeden's conclusions are part of a different
> interpretative tower: Mark 's community is a more or less sectarian 
> anti-Petrine
> community in Northern Galilee. Now, if one removes the 'hypothesis' from 
> under a
> tower, the entire tower of bricks falls
> down. But the burden of proof lies, I think, on the scholar who disbelieves 
> the
> oldest
> tradition and not the other way around. I for one cannot see how Mark's 
> Gospel
> would have possibly served as substratum for Matthew, which it did, and how 
> it
> could have been adopted into the canon, which it was,  if it was understood 
> to be
> an anti-Petrine, sectarian document. My own hypothesis is at least in tune 
> with
> the oldest tradition, namely, that the author was the John Mark of Acts and 
> the
> epistles. But my tower remains also a presupoosition. It stands or falls 
> with the
> hypothesis the author was John Mark, the Jerusalemite. Based on the text I 
> assume
> that he was a learned Judean, a migrant to Rome - his language (immigrant 
> Greek
> with Latinisms) betrays him.

> >  ...the location of Mark's community and the identity of his genre and 
> > why he
> > chose that genre.
>
> According to my hypothesis Mark wrote for the ecclesia of Rome or of 
> Alexandria
> (Secret Mark shows the same style, and Mark was the first 'bishop' of 
> Alexandria
> acc. to tradition). The emphasis on Jesus' ministry in Galilee is not based
> primarily on the somewhat rebellious nature of Judeans in Galilee, but (a) 
> on the
> fact that the Galilean villages and
> towns were surrounded by Gentile towns and cities, the Decapolis and (b) 
> that
> Mark's ecclesia was also located in Gentile territory.  Jesus' openness 
> toward
> Gentiles and his ministry to Judean and Gentile alike, served as a foil and
> should             characterize the ministry of the Gentiles. Mark was 
> deeply
> influenced by Paul's letters.

> >  Vernon Robbins (_Jesus the Teacher_ ) has best identified Mark's genre as
> > essentially the
> > genre of the teacher-disciple gather as represented by Xenophon's
> > Memorabilia_, which Mark likely imitated.
>

> Mark's Gospel is a Passover Haggadah according to subject matter and 
> because of

> the midrashic method used for telling  his story. It differs widely from 
> Xenophon.
>
> cordially,   Karel Hanhart
> K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl
> >
> ---
>
> 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')