6 Comments


  1. Honored, Joel, to be joined with your thoughts on this interesting topic.

    Your representation of the author of Matthew as ‘Mark’s editor’ is correct I think, and one of the corollary principles we gain as holders of Markan priority. Matthew’s layout fits the view that it has been compiled in the spirit of a writer who feels that his own yet-unpublished material justifies a new, expanded edition of the story (this is often the case with biography and non-fiction, in which second editions are often more desirable to own than first editions – although it’s nice to have the original effort alongside).

    I would go so far as to say that the author of Matthew (by including as much Mark as he could stand) actually entertained the idea of usurping or replacing Mark’s gospel with his own. I’ll be writing about that soon I hope.

    Reply

    1. Thanks, John! I look forward to your continued thoughts, for selfish reasons!

      Reply

      1. The ‘Palestinian provenance’ you see in Mark could be explained by a dominant Petrine influence, I think.

        I think the tradition which makes Mark Peter’s ‘interpreter’ and places Peter in Rome (at the end of his life) is pretty good and feasible . At least the two concepts explain each other quite well (Peter would need a translator outside Palestine).

        I wonder if a certain family of scholars who cannot accept this Roman provenance for Peter are influenced too heavily by the belief that all connection between Peter and Rome was a fabrication of later Roman Catholics. Tsk. Those ‘apostolic’ issues are old hat in my opinion.

        Reply
  2. Rev Tony Buglass

    I’ve always worked on the assumption that Mark was written just before the outbreak of war (so, early-mid 60s), then Matthew (late 70s) and Luke (early 80s); but Maurice Casey makes more of a case for Mark coming out of the Caligula Crisis of the 40s. I’d agree that Mk.13 comes from then, but the whole Gospel?

    Oh, for a Tardis, to go back and see for myself…

    Reply

    1. hahahaha. I wish I had a Tardis myself!

      I like Dr. Casey as well! Please tell him that I, Steph’s American friend’ said hello.

      I see that Mark may have been pieced together over time. I do think it came together after 71, however. (psst… for now)

      Reply
  3. Rev Tony Buglass

    Ooops – I meant to say, the Casey in question is “Jesus of Nazareth” pub 2010; well worth a read. He’s red-hot on getting back to the Aramaic tradition, and is scathing about certain Historical Jesus scholars who don’t read Aramaic.

    I met him briefly at St Deiniols Library a month or two back, and if all goes according to plan, I I hope to meet him in Nottingham for a chat in a couple of weeks. Nice man.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!