The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. By James G. Crossley. Pp. xvi + 245. (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 266.) London and New York: T. & T. Clark (a Continuum imprint), 2004. isbn 0 567 08185 0 and 0 567 08195 8. Hardback £65; paper n.p
The aim of this work is simple, though the route chosen for the task is complex and controversial. The author's conclusion, that Mark was written between 35 and 45 ce, is not as secure nor as interesting (in my opinion) as his investigation of the Jesus portrayed by Mark, which has far-reaching...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Review |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2006
|
| In: |
The journal of theological studies
Year: 2006, Volume: 57, Issue: 2, Pages: 647-650 |
| Review of: | The date of Mark's gospel (London [u.a.] : T & T Clark Internat., 2004) (Instone-Brewer, David)
|
| Further subjects: | B
Book review
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The aim of this work is simple, though the route chosen for the task is complex and controversial. The author's conclusion, that Mark was written between 35 and 45 ce, is not as secure nor as interesting (in my opinion) as his investigation of the Jesus portrayed by Mark, which has far-reaching consequences for historical Jesus research., The first half of the book reviews the standard methods used to find a date for Mark's Gospel, such as church traditions, the Markan apocalypse, possible allusions to Markan material in the Epistles, and the supposed post-70 concepts in Jesus’ clearing of the Temple. He rejects all of these as secure ways to date Mark's Gospel. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4607 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The journal of theological studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jts/fli272 |