Kata Markon

[George Young <webber_young AT yahoo.com>]

Dear Kenneth:

Thank you for your helpful comments.  They are
interesting insofar as they raise several other
astonishing issues that bear directly upon the Gospel
of Mark.  If for the sake of argument, we assume that
the Gospel of Mark is the underlying WORD that the
Galatians heard/read/experienced, then several other
comments of Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians
become quite spooky.  For instance, you point out that
I referred to "PETROS" when I should have said
"KHFAS".  This was my own careless error. 
Nonetheless, to bear down on your comment regarding
"Peter," I agree with you that throughout the Epistle
its only at Gal. 2:7-8 that Paul mentions "PETROS" -
and here only in the "past tense" (Aor. Ptcp).  He’s
dxxd~  All other instances are "KHFAS."  In the Gospel
of Mark it is Simon "PETROS."   Why the play on names?
 It seems to me, if we go back to the beginning of the
Epistle for a moment, that Paul himself is perplexed,
and knows that not only the Galatians but many others
are being "bewitched."  There is for him a big
difference between the Markan Peter and the KHFAS he
meets in Jerusalem.  After all, he went up to
Jerusalem to inquire and investigate the "history" of
KHFAS.   He stays 15 days and "sees no other
apostles,"  except "James *the brother of the Lord*." 
Then, another astonishing comment: "What I write to
you, behold, before even God, I do not lie."  My hunch
is this:  Paul was in the womb of his mother when
Jesus walked in Israel.  He was a young man, when
Stephen was martyred, and he was perhaps 25-30 years
of age when he saw the risen Christ.  In other words,
he went up to Jerusalem to see if any of the original
apostles were still alive, especially Peter, i.e., the
PETROS we read about in the Gospel of Mark.  Remember
that none of the original 12 were known by face to
Paul, nor was he known by face to them - i.e., none
knew what the others looked like.  They only heard
names and reports.  This is what the Apostle Paul is
saying.  This is also why Paul speaks of
"bewitchment,"  and of Jerusalem as "bondage," and of
"false brothers" and "deceit" and "spies" - the list
goes on…  This is also why he did not go up to
Jerusalem again until 14 years had elapsed, and then
only "by revelation."  Paul is suspicious how KHFAS,
JAKWBOS, and IWANNHS can still be alive in Jerusalem.
Furthermore, my hunch is that it’s precisely Paul’s
knowledge of the Gospel of Mark that makes him so
suspicious.  In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, we
read the Jesus’ family thought (at least at one time)
that Jesus was insane.  Moreover, we also know from
the Gospel that the crowds did believe that he was
either (a) John the Baptist, (b) Elijah, or (c) one of
the prophets - but not the Son of Man who came down
from Heaven.  When "James" says that he is "the Lord’s
brother" he basically saying that Jesus was a prophet.
And, if one says "No, He was the Son of God" then he
would say, "I am a Son of God too."  Certainly we know
that the original James was executed. John, according
to Mark, was destined to have a similar fate.  One
might presume from the Gospel that PETROS would also
follow a similar fate (recall: "Lord I am willing to
die with you…").  In any case, there does to me seem
to be dissonance between what Paul knows from a
written scroll/document and what he sees in Jerusalem.
 The two characters are in conflict with each other. 
Hence, Paul’s statement, "Whatever they might have
been makes no difference to me."

However, with respect to dating the Gospel of Mark,
given the above and several other data, it does seem
appropriate to me to date the Gospel somewhere between
35-45 AD.

Sincerely,

Webber Young.


--- Khbonnell AT aol.com wrote:

>  
> Send GMark mailing list submissions to
> _gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org_
> (mailto: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_
> 
>
(20060604173854.8083.qmail AT web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com">mailto: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_
> (mailto:tbrodbar AT gmail.com) ,  wrote 
> Saturday  June 3, q.v.
> > Hi Webber,  etc.
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 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