Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: gmark digest: October 27, 2002

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>
  • To: gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: gmark digest: October 27, 2002
  • Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:52:31 -0500


Dear Susan,

<<<I would like to ask you and other members of the group, is Dr. Kelber's
position, dating Mark after the fall of Jerusalem not even discussed? I can't
really see a person sitting down in the midst of such chaos to write. And
even if someone did, who would read it? In the midst of a war, and given the
state of writing technology at the time, I just don't think this would be an
effective way of communicating.>>>

I have not seen Kelber’s position, I can only glean from your post and Mr
Weeden’s response. By ‘…in the midst of such chaos’ I assume it is
suggested that Mark was written in the besieged Jerusalem during the war
that led to its destruction in 70. The overwhelming support from
tradition, as I understand it (and I see no reason to oppose it), is that
Mark was written in Rome. The main variations among the early Fathers seem
to be not the location but the extent of Peter’s involvement. Clement of
Alexandria (I think) expresses almost disinterest on Peter’s part, some
say that it was written after Peter’s death, some before, while Origen
tells us that Peter dictated it to Mark. (I must say that I think Origen’s
position closest to what probably happened).

I agree that it is difficult to imagine someone writing in the midst of
the Jerusalem siege and then expecting to have much of a readership. This
is particularly so if Mark was written primarily for Christians, most of
whom had deserted the city back in 66.

If Mark was written prior to and in anticipation of some great violence,
however, and designed to encourage the believers through that time, then
it is a very appropriate work. That is precisely the situation for which I
believe it was written. I have argued (not here) that the Revelation was
given prior to the writing of any of the gospels (i.e. in 62) and it
heightened the expectation of impending tribulation. It was for this
period that the gospel – not named by Peter – was penned (in Rome in 64).
In this case also, there was still time for duplication and circulation
(see 2 Pet 1:12-15).

<<< But after a war, it seems there would be a great need for someone to
write a gospel like the one Mark wrote.>>>

After a war – and after the tribulation which it was thought would precede
Christ’s return – there would certainly be need to enlarge Mark. That
gospel which had been useful for the Church expecting an immanent parousia
was not satisfactory for a Church which may now outlast the apostles and
eyewitnesses and would no longer have them to fill in the details.

<<<Even as I write this, it occurs to me the gospel of Mark must have been a
lifetime in the making.>>>

If Peter was involved in gMark, as I suggest, then by 64 his association
with Jesus and his teaching about him and relating the events of his life
had gone on for up to four decades – a considerable lifetime. The actual
writing may not have taken all that long.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page