Kata Markon

[George Young <webber_young AT yahoo.com>]

Dear Richard:

With respect to John Kloppenborg, his argument on
dating Mark (over and above what he argues in the name
of "Evocatio Deorum") is feeble.   Putting aside for a
moment what I have already written with respect to
dating Mark from the Galatian Epistle and the Gospel
of Luke,  What *exactly* is *written* in the Gospel of
Mark in chapter 13 vv1-2?  Jesus is leaving the
temple.  The stone temple is behind him.  One of his
disciples says, "Teacher, Behold what  works of stone!
Behold what Architecture!"  (Couldn’t it have been 
Rome? Or maybe Athens?  Maybe Alexandria?).  "And
Jesus said to him, ‘You see these great buildings? 
Not one is laid, stone upon stone, which shall not be
thrown down.’"  This has little to do with the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  First of all,
Jerusalem had already been occupied by the Romans for
a long time, and even after the destruction of
Jerusalem the Jews still rebelled against Rome (e.g.,
Masada).  Furthermore, Jerusalem has been rebuilt, and
another stone temple has been rebuilt in its place,
much like before.  There is no difference.  No, here
as elsewhere, Jesus is talking about the glory of Man.
 As you know, humankind has always prided itself on
its architecture.  Indeed, architecture is a way for
each nation, race, people, city, etc., to make a
statement.  And, conversely, to destroy that
architecture is a way for another nation, race, people
etc., to make a statement.  But no matter who is
building or who is destroying its still all in the
name of human glory.  Some of the architecture of the
ancient world is impressive.  After all, we have all
heard the tales of aliens who came down to earth and
helped the Egyptians build their pyramids.  Similarly,
to suppose that one can divine a date for the Gospel
of Mark in the entrails of an animal is, not only
ugly, but foolish.  Clearly the biblical corpus
teaches that Mankind always seeks its own glory.  This
is evident elsewhere in this chapter where the
"building" metaphor continues "nation upon nation,
kingdom upon kingdom." But also the tearing down,
"nation upon nation, kingdom upon kingdom." The way I
understand it is that its more like a condition than
any particular event.  Even just a few lines down
Jesus says to the four disciples "Don’t be alarmed!"

It is a strange irony, but those people who say that
Jesus’ words were fulfilled in 70 AD, are the same
ones who don’t believe His words.  Conversely, those
people who say Jesus’ words in Mk 13:1-2 are not yet
fulfilled, do believe in them.  Uncanny, to be sure.  
There is also an analogy here with the Galatian
Epistle, namely, the dissonance between what Paul sees
with his physical eyes in Jerusalem (Cephas, James,
and John), versus what he knows is the WORD (Peter,
James and John).  I could continue with the SHMEIA and
TARATA (13:22), but… another day…  Anyway, given the
context of this whole chapter and the teaching of
Jesus, I argue that it is only at the time of the
PAROUSIA that these words are fulfilled.  Hence, I
find Kloppenborg’s argument feeble; there is nothing
new in it.  I still maintain that Mark wrote his
Gospel sometime between 35-45 AD, that most of the
evidence points to this early date, and that I’m still
waiting for an intelligent argument otherwise.

Sincerely,

Webber Young.


--- Richard Harris <rhh1 AT nildram.co.uk> wrote:

> > If for the sake of argument, we assume that
> the Gospel of Mark is the underlying WORD that the
> Galatians heard/read/experienced ...
> given the above and several other data, it does seem
> appropriate to me to date the Gospel somewhere
> between
> 35-45 AD.
> 
> ___________
> 
> Have I misunderstood something, or have you just
> made up this dating?  You 
> say 'If for the sake of argument ... ' and then move
> on to claim 'it does 
> seem appropriate to me ... ' as though you have made
> some deduction, 
> reaching a conclusion by analysis.  In fact, the
> conclusion is just a 
> restatement of the initial premise.
> 
> It seems to me that you cannot ignore the evidence
> in Mark that many 
> scholars argue leads to a date circa 70.   Mark
> 13:1-2 is one example.  I 
> would be interested in an argument that suggests
> writers such as Kloppenberg 
> are wrong.  But I have never seen one.
> 
> With good wishes
> 
> Richard Harris
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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