Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT earthreach.com>]

Jack Kilmon wrote Friday, January 04:
>  Let's look at
> the Markan parallels
> in John:
>
> John                    Mark
> 1:35-39               1:16-20
> 1:40-42               1:16-20
> 1:43-51               1:16-20
> 2:13-17               11:15-17
> 3:3-8                  10:13-16
> 4:44                    6:4
> 5:1-18                2:1-12
> 6:1-15                6:35-44
> 6:16-21               6:47-52
> 12:1-8                14:3-9
> 12:27-28            14:32-42
> 13:36-38            14:27-31
> 18:1-11              14:43-50
> 18:33-37            15:2
>
> As is obvious, the Markan parallels in John are IN ORDER causing one to
> believe that
> John (supposedly composed around 95ish CE) used Mark (supposed composed
> around
> 70 CE) but is that true?  Is it possible that Mark used JOHN?

Jack, unless I misunderstand what you, I do not find in your example that
the Markan parallels in John are "in order."
I do not find the following in order, if you mean the same order in John as
they are found in Mark:
 2:13-17              11:15-17
 3:3-8                  10:13-16
 4:44                    6:4
 5:1-18                2:1-12
 6:1-15                6:35-44

I do, however, agree with you that John was dependent upon Mark.   In the
near future I plan to post an argument for John using Mark as a model from
Jn. 1:19-34.

> The John parallels in Mark were not taken
> from
> Mark by the Johannine scribe but were taken from "proto-John" by Mark who
> also has
> an agenda to respond to "proto-John" to which Mark is inimical, the first
> edition of Mark
> being pro-Peter and "proto-John" being polemical to Peter.  I cannot help
> but notice that
> the Johannine parallels in Mark are from an unglossed, unedited and
> unredacted John....
> first layer, so to speak.

I am not persuaded by this trajectory of the relationship between Mark and
John.   I shall also speak to this trajectory in a future post.

Ted Weeden