pMark as Aristotlean Tragedy

[Ben C. Smith]

I am not talking about Mark but rather pMark.

Yes, again, I realize that.

(I too am tempted to think that there was once a version of Mark which ended at 15.39... but my ideas on that are not at all fully fleshed out yet.)

[outhouse]

I am not talking about Mark but rather pMark.

Unsubstantiated position.


Mark is seen as a compilation or written and oral traditions, and its not likely there was ever a pmark.


When the temple fell, there was a need to persevere traditions normally shared by people who attended Passover. Mark is a possible reaction to this need.

[Adam]

Nuts.

[Michael BG]

I subscribe to the theory of pMark, an earlier version of the Gospel to which Mark has made various expansions. Some exampl are 3:20 [22-30] 31-34; 6:7-13 [14-29] 30; 2:18 [19-20] 21-22; 9:33-37 [38-41] 42; 14:1-2 [3-9] 10-11.

Perhaps the most important finding is that PN and pMark concluded at 15:39. Thus, the episodes of Jesus' burial and that of the empty tomb are regarded as Markan. In both women, are the main characters and the burial scene prepares for the one that follows.

With regard to PN how do you make a case that Mk 15:42ab is not part of PN

[42] And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation,

As it seems to go with 15:21 as I think Theissen suggests

[21] And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the fields, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.

This would mean that in the PN Jesus is crucified on 14th Nisan.

How to you decide a verse is pMark, or PN or Marcan redaction?

How do you identify pMark redaction on the pre-written gospel tradition?

[outhouse]

How to you decide a verse is pMark

They take a possible pre existing traditions that we think was compiled into mark, and then slap a P on it.

Its a fringe position that carries no real weight at this time.