Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: [GMark] response to question about dating Mark

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tanna Brodbar" <tbrodbar AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] response to question about dating Mark
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:52:50 -0400

Hi Webber (or is it George?),
 
Thanks for responding.  I should clarify that my interest is actually not in attempting to prove a date of the Gospel.  Rather, the three bullet points above my question about implications to dating are the primary ideas that I'm exploring and that I'd like to bring focus to.  I could have made this more clear in my posting. 
 
Before I address your question about dating Mark, let me first qualify my approach:  I am approaching my study of this text from an historical perspective.  That is, I consider this not to be an eyewitness testimony of actual events but instead an historical text that was composed by an early Christian author (most likely a Gentile) who evidently had a combined theological and political agenda.  My approach is based on the premise that the author compiled stories about Jesus and presented them in an order that was not chronological but that was best suited to the author's rhetorical motive.  It seems to me from your response that you are taking a somewhat different approach to your studies and I thought it important to highlight what may be a fundamental difference.  Now, on to your suggestion about the dating of this text:
 
1. The majority of contemporary scholars date the composition of the Gospel somewhere between 65-80 CE.  While the time of the Gospel's composition remains an intriquing topic for discussion, there are numerous elements within the text that suggest an earlier time of composition is unlikely.  The following are a few points that should be considered:
- The text is actually quite vague on events in Jesus' life, one indication that the time in which it was written was quite distanced from when the events would have taken place.
- The fact that Mark is careful to qualify Simon (who carried the cross) as the father of Alexander and Rufus likely indicates that Mark's audience may have known Alexander and Rufus but didn't know Simon.  Therefore, some context was required for this audience that was at least one generation removed from Jesus'.
- Some scholars consider Mk 13:1-2 as evidence of a Markan redaction depicting an event that had already taken place (thus suggesting post-70).
- Scholars suggest that the rending of the Temple curtain upon Jesus' death symbolizes the fall of Jerusalem, more evidence that points to post-70.  (S.G.F. Brandon, for example, points to the Flavian procession of 71 (depicted by Josephus) in which the purple Temple curtains are flaunted in the streets of Rome as having been incorporated in the Gospel here.  He argues this indicates it was written after 71.)
- If you haven't yet read Steve Mason's commentary on Mark in Early Christian Reader, it's an excellent resource that you should check out.
 
2. As far as my own opinion on the date of the Gospel, at this point I am leaning towards a pre-70 date, but I would definitely not go as early as where you see it being composed.  The following points reflect some of my thinking:
- In my mind, the  'prophecy' (13:1-2) is what I believe to be another of Mark's numerous attempts to depict the Jewish Christian leadership in a less-than-positive light.  The prophecy, then, would reflect the spiritual dessication that he believed had befallen the Jewish Christian leadership contemporaneous to Mark's time.  I have to also suggest that the lack of specificity in the text here is more likely to indicate wishful thinking (to be rather flippant about it!) on the part of the author than something that had actually taken place.
- I would also hypothesize that Mark focuses on the spiritual rather than physical throughout the text (in a clear dissociation from Jewish tradition/Law which he feels emphasizes the physical too much, to the detriment of the spiritual).  To me, this indicates that the destruction that's depicted in the 'prophecy' is of a spiritual nature, not physical.
 
- That said, I agree with scholarly opinions on the Simon qualification as well as what the fact that the Gospel does not present details on Jesus' life (which one would expect if it had been written closer to the period of his death) would imply; 
- Additionally, I believe that the Pauline mission had already been firmly undertaken prior to the composition of Mark's Gospel (my analysis finds that Mark is a Pauline text - this is not something that all scholars would agree with!); 
- There are also many elements that suggest to me that Mark was written for an established Gentile Christian community (I would hypothesize that it was written for a Pauline Christian community whose foundations were being shaken by the efforts of Christian Judaizers). 
- Together, these 'proof points' would require a date later than 45.
 
In the end, in order to adequately postulate a possible date of the Gospel's composition, one must consider the broader context of the author's motivations, intended audience and various other clues that are embedded in the document.  While I haven't presented so deep an analysis here, I hope these key points adequately explain why I cannot agree with your dating of 35-45. 
 
Does anyone on the listserve have another viewpoint?  Webber, perhaps you could take an opportunity to share your rationale for locating Mark between 35-45.
 
Thanks again for responding, Webber.  
 
 
 
On 5/30/06, George Young <webber_young AT yahoo.com > wrote:
Dear Tanna:

Hello.  I am new to this list too.  Has anyone
responded to your email?  If not, I would be delighted
to discuss some of your ideas.  If I understand you
correctly, the one question you have posed to the list
is the matter of dating the Gospel of Mark, given its
elusive yet intriguing affinities with the Apostle
Paul's letter to the Galations.  This is a very
interesting question indeed!

What are your own speculations regarding the dating of
the Galatian's Letter?  I tend to date the Epistle as
somewhere around 50 AD.  Certainly the Galatians were
aware of many things pertaining to the WORD,
including, for example, the knowledge of Peter, James,
John, as well as some of the teaching of Jesus
regarding the Parable of the Sower and that Jesus was
announced at the empty tomb as "the crucified One."
Furthermore, it is highly probable that a copy of the
WORD that we know as the Gospel of Mark was written
down before their very eyes.  These and several other
details suggest to me that the Gospel of Mark was
probably written somewhere between 35 and 45 AD, and
probably by an eye-witness to the events described.
What do you think?

Sincerely,

Webber Young.

--- Tanna Brodbar < tbrodbar AT gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm new to this forum.  I'm not sure how specific I
> should get here but
> would welcome an opportunity to engage in discussion
> on this forum and also
> to get your feedback and insights.   Please let me
> know if this is too
> specific (or not specific enough!) for the intent of
> Kata Markon.
>
>
>
> I am conducting an analysis of Mark's
> characterization of the disciples.
> When the text is read as a whole using a
> literary-historical approach it
> seems that Mark is using the disciples to
> communicate a strong
> anti-Judaistic message.  Additionally, the text
> seems to centre on three
> themes:
>
> 1.      Mark emphasizes the importance of faith over
> Law
>
> 2.      Mark presents compelling arguments on the
> need to move away from
> laws/traditions of Judaism
>
> 3.      Intimations that suggest Mark espouses
> Paul's ministry over and
> above the Jerusalem Church – this appears to be a
> significant objective of
> Mark's work
>
>
>
> Interestingly, the tripartite theme appears to be
> closely aligned to the
> issues being addressed in Paul's Galatians.   An
> analysis of Galatians (also
> considering the possible intent of Romans and where
> the two fit in Paul's
> career), overlaid with my observations of a possible
> intent of Mark's
> Gospel, leads me to consider that Mark and Paul (in
> Galatians) may have
> shared the same authorial objectives.   I'd value a
> discussion on the
> possibilities that:
>
>    1. Mark's efforts were undertaken primarily in
> support of Paul's
>    mission and to counteract the threat to Paul's
> authority that was being
>    posed by Christian Judaizers;
>    2. Mark's characterization of the disciples (in
> all its complexity)
>    ultimately indicates he is using them as tools to
> 'un-Judaize' his audience
>    (perhaps 'de-Judaize' would be more appropriate?)
> and that all other
>    characters are subordinate to the disciples in
> this objective;
>    3. The urgent call to action in Galatians is met
> by a comparable sense
>    of urgency - of the same themes - by Mark;
>    4. If the above hypotheses are correct, where
> might this take one in
>    suggesting a date for the composition of the
> Gospel?
>
> Let me know if you'd like specifics from my
> analysis.  Your questions,
> insights are welcome.
>
>
> Tanna Brodbar
> Toronto
> Recent graduate of the Humanities grad program, York
> University
> > _______________________________________________
> GMark mailing list
> GMark AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gmark



**************************************



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
GMark mailing list
GMark AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gmark




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page