gMark: provenance

[gmx]

Most scholars seem to accept a Roman provenance for the Gospel of Mark, regardless of their respective views on Markan priority.

Assuming Markan priority, what does it mean / imply that the first and most influential Christian Gospel (given its use by Matthew and Luke) was composed in a land far, far away from the Palestinian events it describes?

[Giuseppe]

I think it implies only a thing:

that the author of the first gospel saw his own community as not more a Jewish one, but a properly distinct Christian community.

Therefore he was already able to see the Jews as members of a separate religion from his own.

Therefore, in line of principle, he could very well see ''the Jews'' as rejecting Jesus as a stranger and alien and foreign to them, even though on paper he presented still Jesus as the ''Messiah of the Jews''.

[Giuseppe]

And if Jesus was a foreign, alien and stranger entity for the Jews...

...then a Pontius Pilate (not coincidentially) had to take on the onerous task of presenting Jesus to the Jews officially for the first time *.

*just as Pilate had to present for the first time to the Jews the busts of Roman emperors.

[Adam]

Most scholars seem to accept a Roman provenance for the Gospel of Mark, regardless of their respective views on Markan priority.

I deny the rest as well, but let's start with this. Name the "Most scholars", please, and most importantly establish that they deny the Roman edition (to forejudge the case in my favor) relied on any earlier written sources from elsewhere. Will there be any but Roman Catholic Traditionalists (and derivative EO and Fundamentalists) who deny Higher Criticism?
Presumably these "most scholars" wrote before MacDonald proved that "Q" underlies GMark. Of course maybe you mean that these scholars allow for possible written sources, just that nothing like our current GMark or any real Proto-Mark existed before someone wrote in Rome or thereabouts.

[toejam]

Assuming Markan priority, what does it mean / imply that the first and most influential Christian Gospel (given its use by Matthew and Luke) was composed in a land far, far away from the Palestinian events it describes?

I don't think those factors alone imply much at all. Imagine if in 2,000yrs time, our earliest source for the life of L. Ron Hubbard was a $cientology brochure produced in Japan in 2015. What would that imply? Pretty much nothing more than that $cientology had set up branches in Japan by 2015. Same for Mark. It only implies that Christians had branches in Rome by c.70CE, which I think we could already establish from Paul's letters.

[Bernard Muller]

I think Mark's gospel was written in Corinth, for several reasons, with any of them being strong, but do add up:
a) Mark's gospel does contain some eyewitness(es) testimony (and lacks on important issues, explaining the messianic secret, among other things). And most likely that came from a visit of Peter/Cephas: Peter had made followers in Corinth according to 1 Corinthians. That would explain the Aramaic bits in the gospels.
b) Corinth was a Roman colony then and had a significant population of people from Latin-speaking Italy. That would explain the pro-Roman outlook and Latin words in the gospel.
c) The gospel seems to be written for a church with various beliefs: According to Paul Corinthians letters, that church was subject to many different apostles (some superlative, some false) preaching likely different views of Christianity.
d) The author appears to have known about 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians (I admit, a very weak argument for publication in Corinth).

The whole thing is no more than an educated guess, but I still think Corinth is the most logical place for the gospel of Mark to be written.

Cordially, Bernard

[gmx]

Most scholars seem to accept a Roman provenance for the Gospel of Mark, regardless of their respective views on Markan priority.

I deny the rest as well, but let's start with this. Name the "Most scholars", please, and most importantly establish that they deny the Roman edition (to forejudge the case in my favor) relied on any earlier written sources from elsewhere. Will there be any but Roman Catholic Traditionalists (and derivative EO and Fundamentalists) who deny Higher Criticism?
Presumably these "most scholars" wrote before MacDonald proved that "Q" underlies GMark. Of course maybe you mean that these scholars allow for possible written sources, just that nothing like our current GMark or any real Proto-Mark existed before someone wrote in Rome or thereabouts.

I could dig up a bunch of references, I'm pretty sure. However, from my reading, I hadn't encountered too many alternatives to a Roman provenance for Mark that seemed to have been afforded much credence.

And yes, I am unaware of MacDonalds proof that Q underlies gMark. I shall investigate it forthwith... where and for whom does MacDonald supposed Mark was written?

[Adam]

I'll pass on MacDonald. His Two Shipwrecked Gospels: Papias... is very expensive, have only read reviews and accessible Amazon clips.
You failed to address whether you acknowledge GMark had underlying written sources, like in Aramaic possibly.

[outhouse]

Assuming Markan priority, what does it mean / imply that the first and most influential Christian Gospel (given its use by Matthew and Luke) was composed in a land far, far away from the Palestinian events it describes?

It shows exactly what we know.

The movement grew in the Diaspora in Hellenism, not in Israel. This was the divorce of Hellenistic Judaism from Judaism.


Its my opinion people returning from Passover gentiles and Proselytes found value in the new version of Judaism that let them worship the one god by way of the son.

Son in context was also what the Emperor was first known as.

Gentiles could worship the corrupt politician as "son of god" or they could worship the one god by way of the man who gave of himself for the good of the people as "son of god"

[Ben C. Smith]

I'll pass on MacDonald. His Two Shipwrecked Gospels: Papias... is very expensive, have only read reviews and accessible Amazon clips.

Two words: Interlibrary Loan.