Gospel of Mark and Propp's Morphology

[Peter Kirby]

Russian folk-tales potentially have nothing to do with biblical narrative

But don't they, potentially? I think most of us are interested in what you can find and what it might really mean. But all of us should welcome the opportunity to take a step back and ask what has really been uncovered, if anything. This question will be asked and must be asked.

[neilgodfrey]

Of course what I should clarify for any of us new to this whole morphology thing is that it is not the Russian folktale stories themselves that are being compared but the structures of the narratives. It's as much a study in anthropology as it is in literature, yes?

[Peter Kirby]

Of course what I should clarify for any of us new to this whole morphology thing is that it is not the Russian folktale stories themselves that are being compared but the structures of the narratives. It's as much a study in anthropology as it is in literature, yes?

Sure.

If anyone is saying that it is out of the question to do anything like this, then yes, they're foolish.

Still, we have to ask the questions of what it might, after all, mean or not mean.

There's a very real chance that it might lead to no conclusive, relevant result whatsoever, and we should countenance that.

A lot might depend on our opinion of "Propp's morphology" in the first place (not just our opinion of its application to the Gospel of Mark).

[neilgodfrey]

A lot might depend on our opinion of "Propp's morphology" in the first place (not just our opinion of its application to the Gospel of Mark).

Yes. I suspect that long before I'm finished I'll be the only one opening up this thread

As I mentioned in my first post I am also very interested (perhaps more so) in a Levi-Stauss style analysis. What it all means is, of course, always there in my mind. It's a bigger question again -- and given our postmodernist historians now seeing narrative structures in all works of history the answer is not a foregone conclusion.

[Thor]

I have always preferred the more "poetic" approach of Joseph Campbell.

[neilgodfrey]

I meant that Matthew and Luke explicitly refer to a victory of Jesus over Satan in the wilderness.
This is not explicit in Mark.

Andrew Criddle

I didn't mention it earlier but the reason I don't have a problem with functions being implicit is that Propp points out that very often they really are "only" implicit. There are ways to identify them, however. One of these is a consistent pairing of functions -- e.g. fight and victory; interdiction and disobedience, etc. In these cases the presence of one necessitates the presumed existence of the other.

I'm beginning to regret starting on Mark already because I keep running up into difficulties that always remind me of the messianic secret motif. So for example crowds respond with awe etc as we would expect them to react when aware they are in the presence of a divinity. But of course in Mark Jesus is not explicitly recognized as such.

Agree that there are real dangers of subjectivity and imagining things that are not there. I'm trying to be aware of that and set out all the possible options as I go. I'm sure it will be tedious reading for others, I admit. But I find this layout helps me keep a record of what's what and it's not a bad thing if I get caught out and questioned from time to time.

[neilgodfrey]

Another difficulty is that the gospels, and especially Mark, are so often very compressed narratives. Three or four functions can appear in two or three lines whereas in other stories like fairy tales a single function can be expanded out to one or several pages of narrative.

The point of the Greek letter coding of the functions is to afterwards enable a study of the structure/s in the narrative. It's easier to see how movements occur and overlap and repeat etc etc with symbols like those set out on the page.

[dengen]

Another difficulty is that the gospels, and especially Mark, are so often very compressed narratives.

In a thread exploring relationships of individual words, it may prove useful to distinguish the two different meanings of the English word, "gospel".

In Mark 1:1 Neil translated the Greek ευαγγελιου as "gospel". The proper meaning, in my opinion, at the time of Mark's "gospel", for that first encounter with ευαγγελιου is "good news", not "sacred book", as is implied above.

Many authors, including Homer, Aristophanes, and Xenophon, prior to the Christian era, implied "good news" as their intended meaning, writing ευαγγελιου.

wwwperseustuftsedu hopper wordfreq ?lang=greek&lookup=eu %29agge%2Flion

Does Propp identify a similar situation with the Russian folk tales where one word embedded within the text becomes associated with the text itself? Do other languages similarly confound Kata Markon with euangelion mark ?

[neilgodfrey]

In Mark 1:1 Neil translated the Greek ευαγγελιου as "gospel". The proper meaning, in my opinion, at the time of Mark's "gospel", for that first encounter with ευαγγελιου is "good news", not "sacred book", as is implied above.

Many authors, including Homer, Aristophanes, and Xenophon, prior to the Christian era, implied "good news" as their intended meaning, writing ευαγγελιου.

wwwperseustuftsedu hopper wordfreq ?lang=greek&lookup=eu %29agge%2Flion

Does Propp identify a similar situation with the Russian folk tales where one word embedded within the text becomes associated with the text itself? Do other languages similarly confound Kata Markon with euangelion mark ?

I've been using the KJV translation for convenience but I take your point. Yes, the word "gospel" has connotations for us that are alien to the original meaning. "Good news" was also used to refer to the accession of Augustus and there are similarities here with its use in our NT books.

I try to be conscious of where our English translations are either misleading or open to debate and will probably turn to the Greek in those cases.

The analysis of Propp is not at the level of single words in this sense, however, but in the identification and study of the actions and functions or roles performed by the various dramatis personae in the narrative. It doesn't really matter what words are used; what is significant are the principles of what each character is doing and the role the are playing.

[neilgodfrey]

Some years ago I asked on Crosstalk what the scholars thought of the view that the Gospel of Mark's opening scene can be read very much like a "once upon a time" idyllic fairy-tale type opening. I probably didn't use the words "fairy tale" because I don't think I knew anything about Propp's ideas back then.

I explained that if we took Mark literally then we his opening can sound quite fantastical: There is the promise of a great event to come, the ordinary world will soon be met with a visitor from heaven and everyone must prepare. So "all the people" -- "all" of the people from around the countryside of Judea (hey - does that word for "country" match the same word used for Simon of Cyrene whom we've been discussing lately?) -- and "everyone from Jerusalem came out to be baptized.

That is, the whole population of Judea and Jerusalem went out to the wilderness to prepare for this visitor from heaven.

Then Jesus came, was declared to be that visitor, met the devil and was served by angels in the wilderness -- presumably about to begin his work.

Then the one responsible for initiating all this utopian like activity was taken away -- the first function, "absentation" (β) -- and then the darkness, the mystery, the doubt and struggle enters.

My query met with no response. But the question has lingered so I was intrigued when I recently read Propp's remarks that I've copied below.

(I am aware of the usual explanation for Mark's use of "all" as in "all the people" and how it is an idiomatic way of saying "many". But that argument is as much an interpretation as reading Mark literally. How do we decide between the two? If we expect Mark to be a realistic tale then we will assume he was speaking idiomatically; if we expect something else then we may be entitled to interpret him literally. If we don't know we will keep our options open and see what transpires.)

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight; 4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. . . . .

Here for the sake of better understanding, a digression may be made. Further on the tale presents the sudden arrival of calamity (but not without a certain type of preparation). In connection with this, the initial situation gives a description of particular, sometimes emphasized, prosperity. A tsar has a wonderful garden with golden apples; the old folk fondly love their Ivášečka, and so on. A particular form is agrarian prosperity: a peasant and his sons have a wonderful hay-making. One often encounters the description of sowing with excellent germination. This prosperity naturally serves as a contrasting background for the misfortune to follow. The spectre of this misfortune already hovers invisibly above the happy family. From this situation stem the interdictions not to go out into the street, and others. The very absentation of elders prepares for the misfortune, creating an opportune moment for it. Children, after the departure or death of their parents, are left on their own. A command often plays the role of an interdiction. If children are urged to go out into the field or into the forest, the fulfillment of this command has the same consequences as does violation of an interdiction not to go into the forest or out into the field. Propp, V. (2010-06-03). Morphology of the Folk Tale (Kindle Locations 773-781). University of Texas Press. Kindle Edition.