Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,
Tom Thatcher ed., SBL, 2014, page 181

Dr Chris Keith's fourth conclusion is that scholarly work and assessments on Mark's textualisation of the Christian tradition must be capable of explaining the subsequent Wirkungsgeschicte - impact and reception history - of the Gospel.

This is not to claim that (we can know that) Mark intended everything that came in the wake of his media transition of the gospel tradition. It is, however, to claim that his act of writing contained within it potentialities that later became realities in early Christian manuscript culture, realities that were, therefore, in one form or another, dependent upon his initial impetus.

Put another way, if Mark hadn't taken the first step of writing the tradition down so that it could be copied, sent all over the place and shared both synchonically and diachronically (not to mention simultaneously), the good news about Yeshua might not have spread or endured as it did and we might not have the other gospels.