The genre of the gospels.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
The most obvious problem is that

- the gospels are scriptures that you have to read
- but the words of Jesus are speeches that you have to listen

Ben noted the following

These observations even bring the direct speech of the gospels into account; direct speech replicates the original scene, as if the reader were standing there, listening.

I think we can go a step further because the gospels belong to kinds of ancient texts which were read aloud. In the last century it was commonplace among historians

,that silent reading was, if not completely unknown in the ancient world, at least so rare that whenever it was observed, it aroused astonishment, even suspicion“.

The famous anecdote in Augustine's Confessions about Ambrose is well known.

When [Ambrose] read, his eyes scanned the page and his heart sought out the meaning, but his voice was silent and his tongue was still. Anyone could approach him freely and guests were not commonly announced, so that often, when we came to visit him, we found him reading like this in silence, for he never read aloud.

This view is no longer held at any rate with the old simplicity. There is evidence that letters, wills, memoranda, inscription were often read in silence. The silent reading of literary text was also not completely unusual. However, the current consensus is that literary text were more likely to be seen as scripts for recitation than as vehicles of silent reflection and therefore usually reading aloud.

Acts 8:26ff told the story of the conversion of a Ethiopian eunuch

He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard (ἤκουσεν) him reading (ἀναγινώσκοντος) Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

The Ethiopian eunuch read privately, but Philip „heard“ him reading.

[Ben C. Smith]

.
The most obvious problem is that

- the gospels are scriptures that you have to read
- but the words of Jesus are speeches that you have to listen

Ben noted the following

These observations even bring the direct speech of the gospels into account; direct speech replicates the original scene, as if the reader were standing there, listening.

I think we can go a step further because the gospels belong to kinds of ancient texts which were read aloud. In the last century it was commonplace among historians

,that silent reading was, if not completely unknown in the ancient world, at least so rare that whenever it was observed, it aroused astonishment, even suspicion“.

The famous anecdote in Augustine's Confessions about Ambrose is well known.

When [Ambrose] read, his eyes scanned the page and his heart sought out the meaning, but his voice was silent and his tongue was still. Anyone could approach him freely and guests were not commonly announced, so that often, when we came to visit him, we found him reading like this in silence, for he never read aloud.

This view is no longer held at any rate with the old simplicity. There is evidence that letters, wills, memoranda, inscription were often read in silence. The silent reading of literary text was also not completely unusual. However, the current consensus is that literary text were more likely to be seen as scripts for recitation than as vehicles of silent reflection and therefore usually reading aloud.

Acts 8:26ff told the story of the conversion of a Ethiopian eunuch

He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard (ἤκουσεν) him reading (ἀναγινώσκοντος) Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

The Ethiopian eunuch read privately, but Philip „heard“ him reading.

Good stuff. Thanks.

Here are a couple of random references I have picked up on the word logia in Greek:

From Eustathius, Commentary on the Iliad (translation mine): Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι θεοπρόπος μὲν ἄλλως ὁ μάντις. θεοπροπία δὲ ἡ τέχνη αὐτοῦ. θεοπρόπιον δὲ τὸ χρησμῴδημα, ὃ καὶ λόγιον ἔλεγον οἱ Ἀττικοί. / One must know that a diviner is otherwise [known as] a mancer. And his craft is divining. A divination is an oracular response, which the Atticans call a logion.

From Hesychius, Lexicon (translation mine): Λόγια· θέσματα, μαυτεύματα, [προ]φητεύματα, φῆμαι, χρησμοί. / Logia: ordinances, seekings, [pro]phecies, speakings, oracles.

[Clive]

deas that point in this direction have been suggested before. It was discussed whether

- Paul or other early Christians had some sort of a passion play or standardized lecture material
- GMark was performed as a religious street play or held as a public lecture
- GMark is a Greek tragedy

Actually I am not so much interested in the idea that the gospel could funtion as a play or a lecture. It is rather the question whether the withdrawal of the author gives rise to a more direct relationship between the words of Jesus and the hearing audience. Did the gospels generate a situation in which the audience took part as active listeners of the divine words of Jesus?

Maybe the problem is this division of mystery play and eucharist? Maybe it was the same thing, with a script, sometimes performed in a sacred building, sometimes in a market place or theatre?

There is no external real Jesus. Only the ritual, which evolved over time - no need for anything else. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

[Solo]

.
Ideas that point in this direction have been suggested before. It was discussed whether

- Paul or other early Christians had some sort of a passion play or standardized lecture material
- GMark was performed as a religious street play or held as a public lecture
- GMark is a Greek tragedy

Actually I am not so much interested in the idea that the gospel could funtion as a play or a lecture. It is rather the question whether the withdrawal of the author gives rise to a more direct relationship between the words of Jesus and the hearing audience. Did the gospels generate a situation in which the audience took part as active listeners of the divine words of Jesus?

Somewhat belatedly, FWIW:

I have a hunch that trying to pin down the genre of Mark will be an adventure no less exciting than finding which quotes of Jesus in the gospel are authentic sayings of the retired carpenter. Take your pick ! Run with it as far as you can ! My own feeling is that Mark self-consciously and confidently created "a scripture", (he actually refers to his own writing on those terms twice in the gospel, 9:13, 14:21 !!!) primarily as a "therapeutic" narrative for his own community. It is wholly based on Paul whose theology Mark allegorizes. Whether Mark actually intended the casual disdainful reader who stands "hoi exo" of those faithful to Jesus, to mistake his writ for a heroic biography, or a Greek Tragedy, or a festival play is hard to say. In contrast, I believe Mark was feigning being an uneducated simpleton (faithfully to Paul's dictum in 1 Cor 1:19-21 !). It does look that there were three focus audiences: 1) his own community (which as per 4:10-12 knew his gospel....as an allegorical rendering of Paul's letters), 2) Petrine traditionalists whom Mark woed to the cross (I do not believe that Jesus crucified was preached from Jerusalem), and the traditional Jewish readers of the OT and wisdom literature whom Mark tried to drive wild by the gospel's (and Jesus') crazy readings of "the scriptures".

I believe that the reputation of the gospel's miraculous healing power actually came from the "therapeutic aims" of the gospel which was to convert the "demon possessed", despised lunatics (as Paul and Timothy were seen in some places) to saintly, "select" witnesses of the Lord's glory through the indwelling Son. It probably had some success, at least where the underlying mental health issues were accessible to cognitive manipulation. The reason I believe Mark was written in a self-sustained colony of Christ mystics is partly given by the gospel's cure of the leper, after which Jesus no longer can show himself in the city, partly by the demoniacs "knowing" Jesus coupled by Mark's "frank" portrayal of Jesus as someone outwardly resembling the ones he successfully cures of demons.

Best,
Jiri

[outhouse]

.
The most obvious problem is that

- the gospels are scriptures that you have to read
- but the words of Jesus are speeches that you have to listen

.

Not really a problem, just the actual context of shared literary information.

- Paul or other early Christians had some sort of a passion play or standardized lecture material
- GMark was performed as a religious street play or held as a public lecture
- GMark is a Greek tragedy

None of the above.

The context of this gospel was to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair.

The reality is the timing of this text leaves it open to the reality that IT WAS a product of the temples destruction. The way these people shared information had changed forever. There was a desperate need for this new group to share traditions since NO ONE was meeting at Passover to share traditions.

People needed to record what they learned at Passovers in the past. This one gospel text coming from a small community was then slowly circulated in the Diaspora. As it met different communities a few different communities decided this was not their perfect gospel text, and that their traditions were slightly different. It had to be expanded on. The common material was valuable to different communities so they di not outright scrap it, they shared the same common theme and evolved the text forward adding to and mirroring the later traditions that evolved in the decades after the temples destruction.


There is little mystery here, only those that do not want to accept reality. IT is a theological pseudo historical tale of what was most important to small sects in he Diaspora as Hellenism divorced Judaism.

[outhouse]

It needs to be addressed.

While the temple stood, Pauline epistles probably did share time at Passover being circulated in small groups. It was not widespread or common knowledge. The diversity so widespread it would have been just one mans different opinion that was lost in a sea of diversity during this period.

While the temple stood this would have been a whacky form of Judaism and there was no great need to heavily differentiate or divorce Judaism. As reflected in Pauline text. Only theological difference which were huge in this time period within Judaism.


The text we have was only a small fraction of text that existed. Anyone who uses said text as a ladder takings steps such as from Pauline to Gospel text, is pathetically in error and it shows a great lack of overall knowledge on the topic.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
In Mark 4 are the following sayings

- Mark 4:3 Listen! Behold, ...
- Mark 4:9 And he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
- Mark 4:23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” 24 And he said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you. 25 For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

These observations even bring the direct speech of the gospels into account; direct speech replicates the original scene, as if the reader were standing there, listening.

I think we can go a step further because the gospels belong to kinds of ancient texts which were read aloud. ... However, the current consensus is that literary text were more likely to be seen as scripts for recitation than as vehicles of silent reflection and therefore usually reading aloud.

I have a hunch that trying to pin down the genre of Mark will be an adventure no less exciting than finding which quotes of Jesus in the gospel are authentic sayings of the retired carpenter. Take your pick ! Run with it as far as you can ! My own feeling is that Mark self-consciously and confidently created "a scripture", ... primarily as a "therapeutic" narrative for his own community.

So would you agree that the addressed person of the sayings above is (also) the reader (hearer) of the gospel?

The context of this gospel was to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair.
...
IT is a theological pseudo historical tale
...
The text we have was only a small fraction of text that existed.

I suppose that even with a more traditional understanding of the gospel one could agree with that point. What do you think, outhouse? Are the words spoken only within the narrative or also to the reader?

[neilgodfrey]

The context of this gospel was to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair.

We can test this hypothesis.

This hypothesis predicts that there would be an interest in demonstrating the authority of a particular "true" tradition against emerging rival or corrupt variants. We know from the broader literature of the day, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that authors who sought to demonstrate the authority of the claims they were making in a historical or biographical work would make it clear what their sources were. They would then explain why other traditions from other sources were not valid. The authors would also make it clear to readers how it was that they, the authors, came to know about the authoritative traditions or versions of events.

These techniques were used by most Jewish and non-Jewish historical and biographical writing that was intended to assure readers that the claims made were authoritative.

If we test this prediction:

1. The pre-Markan writings (Paul's letters) do not indicate any interest in verifying one tradition over any other. We can conclude that up to the 60s there was no risk of corruptions of the kinds of traditions we presumably read about in the gospels creeping in or that Paul was backing some corruption of the original Jesus tradition. But his is a counter-intuitive result given what research has told us about oral transmission of traditions. So we have a conundrum.

2. Bauckham notwithstanding, the Gospel of Mark lacks all of the standard indications used by contemporary authors to assure readers of the authenticity of its narrative and the inauthenticity of variants.

3. Subsequent evangelists did not consider Mark authoritative as we know from the way they chose to re-write significant sections of it. The changes they introduced are most simply explained as an interest in taking a different theological perspective. Again there is no standard indicator of authenticity supplied to the readers. Luke's prologue is anonymous and vague and is not comparable to any other prologue serious about establishing authenticity. Anyone could say anonymous eyewitnesses and sources verify their account.

4. The sources of many episodes in Mark's gospel can be simply explained as derived from other literary sources (e.g. OT, Paul)

Another prediction of the hypothesis is that we can expect to read oral-type phraseology in Mark's gospel.

Testing for this prediction is inconclusive because what are identified as echoes of orality (e.g. clumps of three things) are equally common in literary works (Henaut et al).

What other predictions can be derived from the hypothesis? So far I think there is no support for the claim that the purpose of the Gospel of Mark was "to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair".

[Clive]

1. The pre-Markan writings (Paul's letters) do not indicate any interest in verifying one tradition over any other. We can conclude that up to the 60s there was no risk of corruptions of the kinds of traditions we presumably read about in the gospels creeping in or that Paul was backing some corruption of the original Jesus tradition. But his is a counter-intuitive result given what research has told us about oral transmission of traditions. So we have a conundrum.

Not necessarily counterintuitive.

Starting from a ritual perspective, that Christ is risen at dawn following eating and drinking of his body and blood, and Paul is somehow the high priest of all this, it is actually a very clear and simple message that is easily tied back into the existing traditions. There isn't much to argue about or get corrupted by oral repetition as it is based on a reasonably well understood script and set of rituals. Variances occur later, maybe following attempts to merge actually completely different christer (from Jerusalem and the diaspora) traditions.

[Clive]

- Mark 4:3 Listen! Behold, ...
- Mark 4:9 And he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
- Mark 4:23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” 24 And he said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you. 25 For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

We have someone going around asserting christ is risen and death where is thy sting. People are having a great time in rituals.

But someone mutters, yes, this is all very good, but I have toothache, my master treats me terribly, some have plenty, others nothing. If you can conquer death, all this other stuff is child's play.

So the morality, equality stuff kicks in as a direct result of the claims. GMark begins the process of writing and expanding the gospel, which was basically a Jewish based riff on greek and oriental cults with some voluntary association social advantages, like some good food. Vast chunks of resources, time and space are still taken up, especially in Greek Orthodoxy, in eating and drinking.