Mon Nov 4 08:35:05 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Nov  4 08:35:05 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA00853; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:34:08 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:30:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances
In-Reply-To: <327D500E.2D49@accesscomm.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2063



On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote:

> 	I would posit, Dr. Robinson, that "Mark1" would look VERY different
> than the present Canonical Mark.

For the record, I obviously would not.

> 	Rohrhirsch really makes a very good argument that 7Q5 and Mark 6:52-53
> is the only possible identification.  I understand your points, and you
> may be right..but Thiede and Company may also be right.

I still suggest that the textual problems involved tend to rule out such
an identification, especially in view of p52, also a small fragment, with
no doubt whatever as to its identification.

> > Is there some hidden need to have an "autograph" or close to autograph
> > fragment of Mark's gospel?  If so, I would hardly think the sands of
> > Egypt, especially outside of Alexandria, would be the likely place.
> 
> 	It was not found in Alexandria but in cave 7 near Qumran.

Apparently my fingers typed faster than my mind was working, and I don't
know how this jumble came about -- I was trying to make a suggestion as to
where the autograph of Mark might more likely be found, and since
Alexandria attempts to claim a special relationship to Mark himself, the
Alexandrian Copts or even Orthodox would probably suggest the autograph
"must" have been in their region, and not in a cave in Qumran. Following
that, then insert my own comment regarding "I would hardly think" that
even Egypt would hold a fragment of the autograph of Mark, much less
Qumran. Sorry for the confusion. 

> 	I admit I WAS being provocative when I said "perhaps the autograph."
> I believe in a very early date for Mark1, either right before...or right
> after (yes, AFTER) "proto-John," in the early 40's CE.

Each to his or her own. *;-)  I would hold quite different (and later)
dates. 


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back