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: George Young <webber_young AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] response to question about dating Mark
  • Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT)

Hello Tanna:

Thank you for your reply. You raise many strong
points that are not easily dismissed. The connection
between Galatians and the Gospel of Mark is certainly
one which others have sensed, though not all have come
to a resolution regarding the matter. Moreover, if
one affirms some connection between the two, then the
date that one assigns to Galatians affects the date
one assigns to Mark. If Paul, according to church
tradition, was martyred in 66 AD, then both Galatians
and the Gospel must be dated prior to this date.

For me, it seems appropriate to date Galatians around
50 AD. Within this Epistle, the Apostle Paul makes
several startling comments with respect to the Gospel
of Mark, one of which is found in Galatians 3:1-2.
Here he states that the Galatians have been
"bewitched" - i.e., some sort of spell has been placed
over their eyes. Therefore, he reminds them that
before their very eyes "Jesus Christ was *written
down* as the Crucified One." The Greek word here is
PROEGRAFH, and refers to some form of written
scroll/document. That this "writting" could very well
be the Gospel of Mark is supported by all the prior
knowledge that the Galatians’ have regarding the
Gospel and the other Apostles (e.g., Peter, James and
John, and James the Lord’s brother). Furthermore, if
we look at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke 1: 1-2,
he states that he got his sources for his Gospel from
"those who were eye-witnesses and stewards of the WORD
from the beginning." We know that Luke used the
Gospel of Mark as a source for his own Gospel. These
and other facts push the dating for the Gospel of Mark
way back. If we take Luke at his word, then "Mark"
must have been an eye witness. In other words, Luke
is open about the fact that his Gospel is second
generation, and by implication that Mark’s Gospel is
first generation.

You raise the objection regarding Simon of Cyrene,
whose two sons were Alexandros and Roufus. For me,
this is one of those real spooky moments of the Gospel
of Mark. First of all, most believers would have
wanted to know who this man was who carried the cross
of Christ, especially in light of his teaching
regarding "taking up one’s cross" (recall the request
of John and James to sit at Christ’s right and left).
It no doubt amazed them that this man’s name was
"Simon." Wouldn’t this raise the spectre of Simon
Peter? The meaning in 15:21 seems telescoped, for it
reads "ARA TON STAURON AUTOU." This Simon actually
"took up his cross," but whose cross? Yes, the cross
of Christ, but perhaps also that which was supposed to
be Simon *Peter’s* honour? Instead, in a moment of
truth it passes to another Simon. And, metaphorically
it is, in fact, his cross to bear. Hence, the hINA
clause is elusive, isn’t it? As for his two sons, did
he have his children after this event or before? The
names of his two sons are interesting too. The double
consonant in ALE-X-ANDROS means the name can be read
two ways: either as "Defender of Man" or "The Rooster
Man." Similarly, ROUFUS means something to the effect
of "Destiny."

I find particularly interesting your hunch as to the
agenda of both Galatians and the Gospel of Mark. In
the case of the former, the "agenda," the way I see
it, is about this seeming *Forgery* or, this seeming
*Usurper* that resonates through the ages within
Christianity, namely, this "James the Lord’s brother."
Wasn’t it this James who sent spies down to Antioch
to keep an eye on Peter? Wasn’t it this same James
who arranged the "set-up" leading to Paul’s arrest in
Jerusalem? Don’t you find it strange that when Paul
goes up to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-19) he sees no other
apostles except Peter - "and James the Lord’s
brother." There are many things here that suggest to
me that Paul is hinting that something is amiss.
What’s the connection to the Gospel of Mark? Well, in
Mark we discover, first of all, that the original
"James" was the brother of *John,* and that both were
the *sons of Zebedee.* I have speculated that they
were fraternal twins. Anyway, in the end we have a
"James, Cephas, and John" But if John were to look at
the face of "James" he would not see his brother’s
face but that of another (cf. The story of Jacob and
Esau). The "agenda" or seeming mystery is one which
emanates from the Galatian Epistle, but as for the
Gospel of Mark, if there is an "agenda" it certainly
does not appear to me to be against Jews or the Jewish
authorities, but rather Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom
of God and what that looks like for followers in light
of the Jewish authorities, the Scribes, the Pharisees,
and so forth - all of which want to control, usurp,
suppress, the Kingdom in some way shape or form. In
other words, so far as I can discern, the Gospel of
Mark does not favour one group of people over another.

Tanna, you wrote: "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." What do you mean by
this? Can you give some examples?

Sincerely,

Webber Young.


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

> Hi Webber,
>
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> 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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page