Gospel of Mark and Propp's Morphology

[neilgodfrey]

It might be thought that Mark could not possibly mean "all" literally in his opening scene and maybe he did not mean it literally -- but I don't think we can decide that by appealing to its lack of realism. We know realistically that "all of Judea" and "all of Jerusalem" could not possibly have gone out into the wilderness to be baptized, but we read several things in Mark that make no realistic sense. Mark has a very small image of the Jerusalem temple, for instance: in his imagination it is no bigger than one of the smaller pagan temples, so small that a single man could halt all operations there by knocking over a few tables and kicking away some chairs.

[Bernard Muller]

Mark has a very small image of the Jerusalem temple, for instance: in his imagination it is no bigger than one of the smaller pagan temples, so small that a single man could halt all operations there by knocking over a few tables and kicking away some chairs.

All operations? I do not think "Mark" said that.
This is what I wrote here http://historical-jesus.info/74.html (correct me at will):

>> Let's first look at Mark's version of the "disturbance" in the temple:
11:15-16 YLT "And they come to Jerusalem, and Jesus having gone into the temple, began to cast forth those selling and buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves, he overthrew,
and he did not suffer that any might bear a vessel through the temple,"
Notes:
a) Mark's gospel is the first one written and the least elaborated.
b) Only gJohn (generally thought the most dubious of all gospels) has Jesus clearing the temple area (with a whip that he made himself from cords on the spot!).

Where does it say Jesus cleared the temple square in gMark? Nowhere.
And all the four statements are general, that is without any indication of how many merchants, buyers, money-changers, seats of sellers of doves and bearers of vessels were affected by Jesus' actions. It can be only a few, some, many, or all. But because the temple court(s) of the Gentiles were so large, few might be the right answer and there is nothing in gMark to indicate otherwise.
General statement?
Just like me saying "I visited the cities in/of Italy". Nobody would think I visited all the cities in/of that country. And even if I did sightseeing in a few of those, I still would not be lying.
Another example:
"When I was in Boston, I argued with the taxi drivers".
Again that statement does not indicate I did that with all the cabbies of this city, or even all the ones I came in contact with. But if I argued with a few of them, but above what a person (including myself) would normally do, that would be sufficient for me saying so. <<

We know realistically that "all of Judea" and "all of Jerusalem" could not possibly have gone out into the wilderness to be baptized,

Yes, "Mark" very likely exaggerated here. But it was in favor of John the Baptist, which is rather bizarre, elevating him by declaring he was a lot more popular than Jesus ever was as described in the gospel.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Mark has a very small image of the Jerusalem temple, for instance: in his imagination it is no bigger than one of the smaller pagan temples, so small that a single man could halt all operations there by knocking over a few tables and kicking away some chairs.

All operations? I do not think "Mark" said that.

You are quite correct. I went well beyond the literal reading. Perhaps Mark meant that Jesus only "began" to cast out some people but then stopped short and did a check of bags to make sure no one entered with a vessel after that.

[15] And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
[16] And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

No man is allowed to bring in a vessel. Men, hand in all vessels before entering. Ladies, you can keep your vessels but make sure it is at least seven days since your last period.

cop_officer_207569_tnb.png (88.29 KiB) Viewed 7210 times

[Bernard Muller]

About "began":
If I say "I went into the museum and began to admire the paintings", the use of "began" does not imply I admired all the paintings in this museum.
"began" just indicates why I did next, after I entered the museum.
If I say ""I went into the museum and began to admire some of its paintings", I don't think "began" is misleading.

And here, "Mark" associated "began to (verb)" with "many", which is not "all":
Mk 6:34b "... and he began to teach them many things."

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

And here, "Mark" associated "began to (verb)" with "many", which is not "all":
Mk 6:34b "... and he began to teach them many things."

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, does it really matter? If they wrote it "all" it would simply be labeled as rhetorical prose. Its a non issue in my opinion.

a) Mark's gospel is the first one written and the least elaborated.

A later Hellenist retelling of events cannot get into any specific's, or they would be asking Romans to put a rope around the movements neck.

There are so many possibilities for the temple events that led to crucifixion.

Im still of the opinion the required temple coin being Melqart in gods house, would have upset any pious Aramaic Jew. And even then I don't place any certainty on it.

[Thor]

I am not sure Neil actually meant "began" as grammatical error or something in that sense. But as a sarcastic comment on how the disturbance in the temple must have a function to be there. That is, the function you see no reason to be there.

Where does it say Jesus cleared the temple square in gMark? Nowhere.
And all the four statements are general, that is without any indication of how many merchants, buyers, money-changers, seats of sellers of doves and bearers of vessels were affected by Jesus' actions. It can be only a few, some, many, or all. But because the temple court(s) of the Gentiles were so large, few might be the right answer and there is nothing in gMark to indicate otherwise.
General statement?
Just like me saying "I visited the cities in/of Italy". Nobody would think I visited all the cities in/of that country. And even if I did sightseeing in a few of those, I still would not be lying.

Why would anyone care about general statements like you saying "I visited the cities in/of Italy"? There must be some kind of "and" to give it function.

This is how I understood Neil`s approach to it at least. But I am very influenced by own cultural relation to folklore and stories, so I could misunderstand the whole thing for sure.

[neilgodfrey]

I am not sure Neil actually meant "began" as grammatical error or something in that sense. But as a sarcastic comment on how the disturbance in the temple must have a function to be there. That is, the function you see no reason to be there.

Indeed. I hoped the cartoon and caption would have been enough to point out I was having a little fun over the consequences of a pedantically literal reading -- especially in the English translation.

[neilgodfrey]

The next three episodes can be seen as the "prophetic hero" (explained here) proceeding on his journey and encountering adventures along the way.

[21] And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
[22] And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
[23] And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
[24] Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
[25] And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
[26] And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
[27] And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
[28] And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.


[29] And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
[30] But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
[31] And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.


[32] And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
[33] And all the city was gathered together at the door.
[34] And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

Exorcism in the synagogue

The prophetic hero impresses the locals with his obvious gifts/talents and a need or lack (-- a man is possessed by an unclean spirit and needs rescuing: Function 8a, a) is then made known to him (-- the need is made known to the hero by his crying out: Function 9, B).

But before the hero has a chance to make his intentions clear in response (which would be Function 10, C) a new character enters -- the demon itself.

The demon asks the hero questions about his intentions since he knows exactly who this hero really is. This corresponds to Propp's Function 4, Reconnaissance, ε, which is usually a part of the introductory moves in the tale. In this case, though, the villain (the demon) is not plotting evil against the hero but is in fear of imminent punishment for evil having been done up till now.

What we have in this episode, then, is a collapsing of elements traditionally from the introductory, main body and concluding scenes from tales: the reconnaissance, evil action being made known though here it is made known through the consequences producing some sort of "loss" after a long period of action, and the moment of punishment on the evildoer: ε -- A/a -- U. i.e. reconnaissance by the villain to learn the intentions of the hero; the evil action or situation of a lack; the punishment.

11th May: Correction to the above.

Rather than "reconnaissance" what we are really seeing is Function 12, D (first function of the donor) -- "The Hero is Tested, Interrogated, Attacked, etc., which prepares the way for his receiving either a magical agent of helper". Here the hero can be approached with a request for mercy of some sort, or a hostile character can even attempt to destroy the hero. So we move to the next Function, 13 E -- "the hero's reaction" -- where the hero performs a service, answers, frees a captive, shows mercy, etc.

Here the hero is the "prophetic hero" and already has the magical agent, however, so Function F, acquisition of the magical agent, is somewhat fulfilled in the 9th type, F9, of Propp's morphology: "Various characters place themselves at the disposal of the hero". The difference in the Gospel, however, is that the ones who respond to the hero with admiration and come to follow him (we later learn) are not offering help to him but are seeking help for themselves.

Actually we are seeing more than those three functions. The villain cries out declaring his recognition of the hero. No-one else had recognized the real identity of the hero. A difficult task is performed -- only the hero has been able to free the one possessed. All of these are Functions found normally at the end of the folk tale:

Unrecognized arrival of the hero -- o
Difficult task -- M
Solution/resolution of the task -- N
Recognition of the hero -- Q
Exposure of the false hero(?) -- Ex
Punishment of the false hero or villain -- U

One sees here in miniature a foreshadowing of the larger tale of the kingdom of God being announced: hero unrecognized -- conflict faced and overcome -- recognition of the saviour -- clarity of who's who and the punishment of the evil and restoration of the good rulership.

We also have the narrative characters acknowledging the function of interdiction and its relative of disobedience/obedience (Functions 2 and 3, gamma and delta). The irony here is that it is the villains who obey and their obedience is a warning of the "evil" that is to come.

I have in the past wondered if the astonishment of the onlookers should be considered a function, too, and I can construct an argument that it should. But I'll save that for later. For now I'd rather stick with the more obvious and direct analysis.

Healing Peter's mother-in-law

Again the same pattern. There is a lack (the sickness/need of health -- Function a) and this is made known (they tell the hero about her -- Function B)

This is followed by the hero consenting to respond (Function C) and the subsequent liquidation of the misfortune or lack (Function K).

The evening healings at the door

Again, much of the difficulty with Mark is his irony. I should have started on Matthew. Normally after a hero responds to a misfortune like this and fixes it all up as heroes do, he is often pursued and needs to be rescued for a time. Is it an irony then that after Jesus acts the part he is pursued but not by obvious villains but by others wanting him to do more rescues? What lends an ironical twist to such an ensuing action is that Jesus regularly seeks to escape -- acting out the part of what pursued heroes normally do.

Or maybe this is over-interpreting the text. Time (or others) will tell.

More likely we are just reading one concise adventure (misfortunes to be resolved) after the other: the man possessed and the demon who cried out; the healing of the mother-in-law; the healing of multitudes.

[Thor]

Although there is a kind of structure to our stories, there is always the danger of over-interpreting them. The change form oral to written transmission removed the dynamic adaptation to context of time and place.

I am not sure how many people know the real influence behind what we acknowledge as great stories of today. But that could also be because they know little of the stories of the past.

This is of course only a interesting approach to stories, and relate little to claims of historical accuracy that seems to be favored today. But for me who grew up with Norwegian folklore and biblical stories side by side, my view is likely to reflect this. Nonetheless, taking two steps back and view things from different angles can sometimes be the best way forward.

[neilgodfrey]

[35] And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
[36] And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
[37] And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
[38] And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
[39] And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

I'm not sure if the above requires functional analysis or where or if it fits.

On another question entirely, I'm reminded that this little snippet is a neat foil to the gospel's conclusion where Peter and the disciples are expected to go looking for Jesus in Galilee -- Jesus having departed "a great while before day" ahead of them.

[40] And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
[41] And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
[42] And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
[43] And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
[44] And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
[45] But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

Again the way this is structured is in accordance with Proppian morphology:

There is a lack -- a
The lack is communicated to the hero -- B
The hero consents to act -- C
The hero liquidates the lack -- K

How does this compare with other studies examining the structure of such miracle pericopes? Must check.

Normally (but it's not a rule) in the folk tale the interdiction and violation precede the lacks and heroic acts to redress them. Here we find Interdiction, γ, and Violation, δ, following.

The consequence of the violation is also a negative, what Propp calls a "preliminary misfortune", λ. However, in Propp's main discussion he places λ as a consequence of submission to the villain's actions.

So we seem to be entering some ambiguity here re morphological analysis. Rationalization might be possible but I'll try to avoid that unless I come to see good reason for it.