Kata Markon

["David Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

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