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: "David Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "'Kata Markon'" <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [GMark] response to question about dating Mark
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:23:38 -0400


Webber,

And how would you distinguish between a graphically portrayed reading of Mark
(or other gospel book) and a graphically portrayed
reading of OT proof-texts? I would say that *presuming* that it must be Mark
or another canonical gospel text assumes what must be
proved.

On the analogy of the only other place in the NT where the author himself
appears to use that verb in the same form (Romans), where
he is in fact alluding to a messianic proof text from Psalms, it seems more
likely he was referring to an exposition that had once
made to them explaining how the Jewish scriptures had predicted the
crucifixion of Jesus. It almost sounds like one of those passion
plays we see and hear about in modern times, although it was probably closer
to arm waving and scroll thumping by the lector that
was seen by the eyes of those Galatians.

And those other points are not complaints, they are critiques.

It is also not circular to consider *other* possibilities when considering
the date of any source that the author of Galatians might
have used. "If" the author was really citing a canonical gospel, we cannot
use an undated letter to date an undated gospel. These
documents do not give any distinct indications about date of composition
(e.g., "Written in the X year of Y emperor or consuls Y &
Z/year X of the Greeks/year X from the foundation of Rome/X year of a Y
Olympiad") other than allusions to events, possibly the
revolt of 66-70 CE, which is after Paul's era, and evaluations of the
possible relationships between the gospel sources.

You had gone in stating it was pretty obvious what must surely have happened
(Paul cited an already existing gospel of Mark). Now
*that* can be circular.

Considering the possibility that this or that clause is interpolated requires
no conspiracy. Those who employ the historical
critical method to secular documents don't simply accept documents at face
value, and I do not think we should either just because
we are dealing with documents that happen to be the sacred scripture of the
Christian religion. Do we westerners do that with the
Koran, the Tao-te ching, or the Rig Veda? Of course not. We'd never advance
our understanding of them if we did not question them.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page