Vinnie

Hot off the press!

http://www.acfaith.com/gmark.html

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Looks good! Very clean style, clear, and easy to read. If you were really anal/service-oriented you might want to put in the passages in tables side by side in each section.

I re-read David Ross' page on this (http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/) after I read it. It just seems that the parallels between Luke 5 and John 21 are overwhelming, and best explained by that as originally in Mark somewhere.

I was intriguied by the suggestion/hint that maybe our Mark was redacted/prepared from Luke and Matthew and an extant Mark text. Do you think Mark's attitude toward Peter indicates something later going on in the developing institutional Church rather than the early Church?

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Vinnie,

Your analysis of Mark is quite thorough, and you summarise Koester quite well. It seems completely sensible to say that Mark has been redacted, and then to try to identify various layers of redaction...

So why does our mainstream academic biblical community still prefer to remain wilfully blind to all this evidence? Why is nobody other than Koester talking about any of this stuff today?

I submit that this situation prevails only because our mainstream academic biblical community is really nothing more than a bunch of sleep-walking zombies! For them, the canonical Markan priority is really AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, not to be questioned under any circumstances!

But also, I would like to add that Koester is himself not beyond criticism. Please note that, while talking about various layers of redaction in Mk, he never even once mentions that the earliest version of Mk was probably still Jewish-Christian in its character... So there's a bit of a blind spot in Koester too.

Only Loisy went all the way on this, and spelled it out fully. Yes, Virginia-Helmut, the earliest version of Mk was probably still a fully Jewish-Christian text!

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri,

And there could have been an earlier one that was fully Jewish, for example in which the prophet HJ (historical John) is stoned to death, not crucified.

Geoff

Clutch

Vinnie, that's a very interesting essay.

I'd like to thank you for your many excellent contributions to this forum. I have learned a great deal from your posts and linked essays.

Vinnie

I'm not sure on this one right now. This is very complex. How much of the negativity of Peter and the apostles is for literary reasons? How much is specifically for the needs of Mark's community at the time. Overall, Peter and Co. are portrayed positively in our extant canonical text of Mark. Did an earlier version of Mark have more negativity or less? Was it worked over? Honestly, who the hell knows?

My best guess is tied in with Mark ending at 16:8 and much of the content related to his community at the time and the literary character of the gospel. This is just one solution of many though.

The link you provided isn't available at this time?

I was rereading pat of v.1 of Marginal by Meier and he called these views on the text of Mark crazy or something! I'll come back with an exact citation later in the week.

Actually, doesn't Koester think secret Mark was one of the earlier versions and that canonical developed from there? Of course there were versions of SMark as well. The "caroparkian" (something like that I can't remember exactly!) version? I'll check and, again, get back with the relevant info later in the week.

Vinine

Vinnie

Oh and Matt and luke tone down Mark's negatiity so there are two "possibilities": It wasn't in the earlier version or maybe they greatly esteemed the twelve and did not have the same theological purpose as Mark. Both are possible but textual presumption would probably lean towards the latter.

Another thing I was looking at.

Rez Appearances.

Mark has Mary and Mary, Salome
Matthew has Mary and Mary
Luke has Mary, Mary, and Joanna and other women.

Common names are Mary, Mary. Could Salome not have been in the version of Mark used by Matthew and Luke who both independently omit the name? Possible but not very conclusive at any rate as the name may be no more than an incindental detail.

Vinnie

godfry n. glad

Hi, Vinnie...

Looks good, but...

I noted this:

Shouldn't that be mid-second century? I double-checked and Justin is speculated to have lived ~100 - ~165, while Papias is dated at ~65 - ~140, with the bulk of his work being done in his later years, say 115-140. That's all in the _second_ century CE.

Niggle, niggle, niggle...

Best,

godfry