Another thread about the gospel of Mark as a story.

[Ben C. Smith]

I liked Esther, parts of Daniel, and Jonah.

Esther and Jonah are also two of my favorite Bible books.

Please do not judge me here. Flannelgraph nearly ruined Esther for me, too, but it was saved by a book I was given as a Christmas present one year:



I am not saying you or anybody should read it: a Christian novelization of the book of Esther, meant for kids, which tried to put things in context and explain things that are unclear just from a simple reading of the book in the Bible. I have forgotten nearly everything about it, except the scene when Esther approaches Ahasuerus (identified as Xerxes in the novel) in the throne room, with her life on the line. As I recall it, the book did a good job of bringing Esther 4.16 to life: it would not necessarily be obvious to a ten-year-old child why a queen approaching a king in a throne room might be risky. I have obviously since long outgrown the novel, but the book, which I read all the way through for the first time only after reading the novel, has stuck with me.

I have no opinion about the Documentary Hypothesis, but I'm sure that I often hear the voice of one author in the Book of Genesis, especially in the stories of the patriarchs. To me, this old Hebrew master and Mark are the best biblical storytellers.

It would be interesting to me to break down which parts of the narrative give you the sense of that voice. (I am not assigning homework here! Just wondering aloud. I get different impressions from different parts of Genesis, too.)

[Ben C. Smith]

I too am a passenger on the ex-Evangelical boat. Grew up in Pentecostal churches in Western Canada (which caught the crazy fever around the time of the Toronto Airport "revival")....

It was called the "Toronto Blessing" amongst my more Pentecostal family members.

I'm also fascinated by Acts, Genesis, Jonah, and Ecclesiastes. Whoever produced the final edition of Luke-Acts was a masterful storyteller, albeit less sophisticated than Mark.

The extent to which Luke-Acts has shaped all of our visions of early Christian history probably cannot be underestimated.

[MrMacSon]

This is a fascinating thread. eg.

.... People like to say that ''Jesus is the most influential person in Western history''; if that's true, then 'Mark' deserves the real honour, since our Jesus is largely his invention. Of course, in Sunday school, it's usually Matthew's version of the story we get — a Judaized, moralistic version of Mark's Gospel with the "errors" fixed, the details fleshed out, and crucial yet inexplicably missing episodes (like the nativity, the temptations, and the resurrection) restored.

Tenorikuma's antecedent/prequel to that passage^ is worth preserving & noting (in this post of mine), too -

...I adore Mark out of all the Gospels, although Luke has its moments as well. Such a subtle, clever and, at times, paradoxical story.

As is 'the sequel'

I'm also fascinated by Acts, Genesis, Jonah, and Ecclesiastes.

Whoever produced the final edition of Luke-Acts was a masterful storyteller, albeit less sophisticated than Mark.

The extent to which Luke-Acts has shaped all of our visions of early Christian history probably cannot be underestimated.

I like this word -

• ... leterature ...

[Tenorikuma]

It was called the "Toronto Blessing" amongst my more Pentecostal family members.

Yes, we called it that too. A temporary lapse of memory on my part.

The extent to which Luke-Acts has shaped all of our visions of early Christian history probably cannot be underestimated.

And yet it was such an obscure book during the first few Christian centuries. There are almost no patristic commentaries or homilies on Acts.

[Ben C. Smith]

It was called the "Toronto Blessing" amongst my more Pentecostal family members.

Yes, we called it that too. A temporary lapse of memory on my part.

The extent to which Luke-Acts has shaped all of our visions of early Christian history probably cannot be underestimated.

And yet it was such an obscure book during the first few Christian centuries. There are almost no patristic commentaries or homilies on Acts.

True.

[Secret Alias]

... or Mark for that matter.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have no opinion about the Documentary Hypothesis, but I'm sure that I often hear the voice of one author in the Book of Genesis, especially in the stories of the patriarchs. To me, this old Hebrew master and Mark are the best biblical storytellers.

It would be interesting to me to break down which parts of the narrative give you the sense of that voice. (I am not assigning homework here! Just wondering aloud. I get different impressions from different parts of Genesis, too.)

just a little example

The phrase „lifted up his/her eyes“ occurs in Genesis as often as in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Sometimes the phrase is expanded.

Gen 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram,
Gen 24:63 And Isaac went out ... And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold,
Gen 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold,

I got the impression that the phrase „lifted up his/her eyes“ in Genesis is a hint to the reader that God has worked these events (and btw that Mark has understood this – 16:3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back ...)

[Ben C. Smith]

I have no opinion about the Documentary Hypothesis, but I'm sure that I often hear the voice of one author in the Book of Genesis, especially in the stories of the patriarchs. To me, this old Hebrew master and Mark are the best biblical storytellers.

It would be interesting to me to break down which parts of the narrative give you the sense of that voice. (I am not assigning homework here! Just wondering aloud. I get different impressions from different parts of Genesis, too.)

just a little example

The phrase „lifted up his/her eyes“ occurs in Genesis as often as in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Sometimes the phrase is expanded.

Gen 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram,
Gen 24:63 And Isaac went out ... And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold,
Gen 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold,

I got the impression that the phrase „lifted up his/her eyes“ in Genesis is a hint to the reader that God has worked these events (and btw that Mark has understood this – 16:3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back ...)

Very interesting. Thanks.

ETA: I have always rather liked the physicality of idiomatic expressions in Hebrew, and I like it when modern translations preserve them. "Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem," for example, or "he who pisses against a wall" to indicate a male (as opposed to a female). Of course "lifting up the eyes" falls into this general category. I find it all very charming.

[Clive]

lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold

Isn't that a classic stock phrase, used by story tellers probably from before Homer?

[Clive]

Marcus Du Sautoy was on the Beeb yesterday discussing how as he as a mathematician looks for patterns.

Have Iambic pentameters and similar rhythms and musicality been used to ask is this original or has something been edited in or out? Chiasms would be part of this.