Kata Markon

[Khbonnell AT aol.com]

 

Send GMark mailing list submissions to
    gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

 

Comments on George Young's reply to Tanna Brodbar, Sun June 4

by Kenneth H. Bonnell.  My comments are in double brackets [[...]] at the locations being commented upon.

Today's Topics:
   1. Re: response to question about dating Mark (George Young)
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Young <webber_young AT yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [GMark] response to question about dating Mark
To: Kata Markon <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: 20060604173854.8083.qmail AT web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com href="mailto:20060604173854.8083.qmail AT web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com">20060604173854.8083.qmail AT web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com
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. [[ This would be consistent with the conclusions of Fr. Jose O'Callaghan of Barcelona, Spain, whose conclusions about papyrus fragments from Dead Sea Cave 7 with Mark 4:28,  6:52-52, and 12:17 dated to 50 CE.  (Biblica, 53.1, 1972 and Eternity, month not recorded, 1972).  ]]
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 "writing" 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." 

     [[ This James was also called "The Just" and was the first "overseer" of the group of apostles at Jerusalem.  For further information, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II.i and II.xxiii.  He was succeeded by Simeon son of Cleophas. EH, III.xi.  ]
    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

    [[ "Petros" (Peter) appears in the Textus Receptus family of manuscripts, but elsewhere in those mss. underlying the Revised Standard Version have "Cephas" in those places where the TR has "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.  [[  This James is the one in Acts12:2 and EH,  II.ix.  "... Herod (Antipas) . . . killed James the brother of John with the sword . . . "  ]]

    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  here 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 Saturday June 3, q.v.
> Hi Webber,  etc.