Thursday, 9 June 2016

Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,
Tom Thatcher ed., SBL, 2014, page 178-180

Dr Chris Keith wraps up his essay with a proposal and four conclusions. His proposal is that ...

regardless of which Traditionsbruch in early Christianity Mark may have been responding to, he chose the written medium as a means of response that extended the audience of his Gospel beyond the limits of interpersonal communication.

This implies a deliberate intentionality about choosing to commit the Yeshua stores and narrative to written form, accepting and regardless of any negative consequences or lack of control, for the sake of preserving and promoting the tradition. This agrees with Keith's first conclusion:

this connects well with the patristic evidence of Eusebius and others explaining why Mark wrote: "When Peter had pubicly preached the worddat Rome ... those present ... exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and this he did, and distributed the Gospel to those that asked him" (Eccl. Hist. 6.14.6).