Comments on Earliest Christian History: RBL reviews of The Date of Mark's Gospel: A Respon...

By the way I wasn't suggesting that the euangelion...

2006-01-25T10:12:00.000Z

By the way I wasn't suggesting that the euangelion uses weren't similar - of course I see all the parallels. I was only questioning what I thought was an assumption that this meant that Mark "mirrored" the writings of Paul (and not the other way around or use of similar tradition

This is weird Mike: shouldn't it be me arguing for...

2006-01-25T09:40:00.000Z

This is weird Mike: shouldn't it be me arguing for Markan dependence on Paul?? Anyway, I'm more conservative than you I reckon ;-)

Anyway... The Marcus article has the usual problem in that it assumes Mark used Paul rather than the other way round (or that Paul used similar tradition. Also, remember Paul was obviously active before the letters we have. Now I know Marcus doesn't actually assume Mark was later - he argues it elsewhere but it is true that you have to first identify when the gospel was written before saying if one was dependent on the other.

On Mk 1.19: this is based on a 3 things. 1. a tendenecy in Mark and the synoptics to portray Jesus as a Law observant Jew. 2. Mark 7 provides a narrative seting of Law versus tradition. 3. Jewish handwashing laws involves food becoming unclean (and consequently defiling the insides; cf. Mk 7.15) and the debate is after all framed in the context of handwashing. Together then I think there is an argument of collective weight for Mk 7.19 being part of a dispute which has Jesus rejecting handwashing but not biblical food laws.

The identity of the Wright comment was aimed at not only the Birds of this world but also a few people who know my views on things including students who like to torment me with things Wright.

Steph, I think Mark stands in relation to Pauline ...

2006-01-25T08:34:00.000Z

Steph, I think Mark stands in relation to Pauline Christianity for several reasons (James, feel free to comment afterwards):
a) The use of euangelion in Mk. 1.1; 8.38; 13.10; 14.9 etc, sounds Pauline.
b) Paul's idea of Jew then Gentile (Rom. 1.16), is mirrored in Mk. 7.27 and the feeding narratives where the Gentile side of the lake get fed later.
c) Mark's atonement theology is Pauline, esp. lytron in 10.45 and material in 14.24.
d) And Mk. 7.19c sounds an aweful lot like Rom. 14.14. See the article by Joel Marcus in NTS.
The reason why Luke does not use euangelion is because he prefers the verbal form euangelizomai.

I mean if it was in the original manuscript of Mar...

2006-01-25T02:33:00.000Z

I mean if it was in the original manuscript of Mark, left out by Luke, and not a later addition using Matthew....why should it be post Pauline?

(Bracket wrong place)

Hi Mike (Aussie in exile!Even if euangelion does b...

2006-01-25T02:26:00.000Z

Hi Mike (Aussie in exile!

Even if euangelion does belong to the original manuscript of Mark (and is not as Koester suggests, a later addition reflecting it's use in Matthew, therefore omitted by Luke) .... why should it's correspondence with the missionary terminology in the Pauline writings necessarily equate the gospel with a post Pauline date? Or do you suggest that there is evidence Mark is dependent on Paul?

And just to strike back at Painter - I think it was he who missed the point. There was no circularity.

Enjoy the skiing!

James, When I read David Du Toit's comments about ...

2006-01-24T21:49:00.000Z

James,
When I read David Du Toit's comments about you decisively refuting Wright on Mark 13 I did manage a wry smile. How did I know you were gonna bring that up in your blog? Who did you have in mind when you mentioned that? Probaby me and Sean Du Toit (I wonder if they're related?)
Good to see another Aussie like John Painter sticking it to you as well. Personally, I still think Mk. 7.19c is the Achilles heal in your argument. I also wonder if Mark's use of euangelion mirrors Paul's use of the word which could make for a date well into the Pauline mission (early 50s - mid 60s). You did well, these were some good reviews and I think you came off well. I look forward to reading more of your conservative-evangelical argumentation some time soon!