Mark's Sources -- a question

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:57 am If so, how do we explain a work (of a range of different oral and other traditional sources) that is supposedly strung together by a rather unsophisticated author that at the same time produces an apparently harmonious vocabulary, style, ideology throughout all of the little anecdotes that he has put together?
Well, hasn't the argument been (ever since the form critics), that gMark exactly does not exhibit a harmonious vocabulary, style, ideology throughout the text?

For the record, I think it does, and the form critics were tragically wrong.
Now I think with the story of John the Baptist's death we certainly do find a very distinctive narrative unlike anything else in the gospel.
But is this short narrative really distinctive from the rest of the text of gMark other than what can be explained wholly unproblematically by one particular fact: This passage is the only passage in the entire gMark, from the very first to the very last, which has nothing to do with Jesus.



Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:05 am There are about 100 distinguishable characters in Mark, which subtends only about 11,000 words. Herod, Herodias, her daughter, the soldier and John's disciples all come alive in the entr'acte. Yeah, it must have been added later by somebody else; somebody who knew how to write, 'cause its achievements are so different from what Malaprop Mark achieves throughout the rest of the work. Lol.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but if not, then could you explain to me briefly why and how you see Mark as 'Malaprop Mark' in comparison to the narrative of JtB in Mark 6?

Thanks.

PS.
I just learned three new, great words from this short thread: Smorgasbord, entr'act, and malaprop! Not bad I must say :D
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Jax »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:14 pm
PS.
I just learned three new, great words from this short thread: Smorgasbord, entr'act, and malaprop! Not bad I must say :D
:D I can relate. Fun isn't it. :)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by neilgodfrey »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:14 pm
Now I think with the story of John the Baptist's death we certainly do find a very distinctive narrative unlike anything else in the gospel.
But is this short narrative really distinctive from the rest of the text of gMark other than what can be explained wholly unproblematically by one particular fact: This passage is the only passage in the entire gMark, from the very first to the very last, which has nothing to do with Jesus.
As posted in response to someone else ....
On literary-critical grounds the martyrdom of the Baptist (vv 14- 29) exhibits several unique features. It is the only narrative in the Gospel which is not about Jesus.34 It is narrated in the simple aorist instead of Mark’s preferred historical present (although the flashback may account for this). There are, as Lohmeyer noted,35 * several hapax legomena in the narrative, and its language is more cultivated than is characteristic of Mark. It is not improbable that Mark took over a preformed narrative of the Baptist’s death and used it for his purposes in chapter six.
Source: Edwards, J. R. (1989). Markan Sandwiches. The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives. Novum Testamentum, 31(3), 193. https://doi.org/10.2307/1560460
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Hi, Stefan
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but if not, then could you explain to me briefly why and how you see Mark as 'Malaprop Mark' in comparison to the narrative of JtB in Mark 6?
I am a great admirer of Mark and what he (?) accomplished. Malaprop Mark tried to allude to what is, in my experience, the most common adverse criticism, that he is supposedly hampered by his usually unrefined Greek. Sorry if that was confusing.

On another point you mentioned,
But is this short narrative really distinctive from the rest of the text of gMark other than what can be explained wholly unproblematically by one particular fact: This passage is the only passage in the entire gMark, from the very first to the very last, which has nothing to do with Jesus.
John's death story offers a fairly obvious "compare and contrast" opportunity with Jesus' passion story, especially as regards the "reluctant sentencing judge" and the two different sets of disciples' handling of their teacher's death. It's also nicely placed in the exposition to maintain the dramatic tension (a fellah really could get killed doing what John and Jesus do - best not to let the audience forget that for too long).

If it had literally nothing to do with Jesus, then it wouldn't be there, IMO. As it is, it is one of several high-impact scenes where Jesus is offstage (others are Peter's denial, the haggling over Jesus' corpse, and the scene whose very point is Jesus' absence, the women and the young man in the empty tomb). It is the only one of those which long interrupts the chronological and spatial flow of the main narrative line.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:09 pm Hi, Stefan
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but if not, then could you explain to me briefly why and how you see Mark as 'Malaprop Mark' in comparison to the narrative of JtB in Mark 6?
I am a great admirer of Mark and what he (?) accomplished. Malaprop Mark tried to allude to what is, in my experience, the most common adverse criticism, that he is supposedly hampered by his usually unrefined Greek. Sorry if that was confusing.

On another point you mentioned,
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the clear-up! I'm also a member of the Markan fan club, I suppose.
'Malaprop Mark'... it sounds like something Donald Trump would say if he were a biblical critic!
But is this short narrative really distinctive from the rest of the text of gMark other than what can be explained wholly unproblematically by one particular fact: This passage is the only passage in the entire gMark, from the very first to the very last, which has nothing to do with Jesus.
John's death story offers a fairly obvious "compare and contrast" opportunity with Jesus' passion story, especially as regards the "reluctant sentencing judge" and the two different sets of disciples' handling of their teacher's death. It's also nicely placed in the exposition to maintain the dramatic tension (a fellah really could get killed doing what John and Jesus do - best not to let the audience forget that for too long).

If it had literally nothing to do with Jesus, then it wouldn't be there, IMO. As it is, it is one of several high-impact scenes where Jesus is offstage (others are Peter's denial, the haggling over Jesus' corpse, and the scene whose very point is Jesus' absence, the women and the young man in the empty tomb). It is the only one of those which long interrupts the chronological and spatial flow of the main narrative line.
Definately it has 'something' to do with Jesus - alot of course - but only indirectly, which makes this passage unique in gMark. Every other scene in gMark has something to do with Jesus directly. I agree with your assessment about the whole (indirect) meaning of the 6:17-29 passage, which of course has everything to do with Jesus. But think about it, all the other scenes where Jesus is offstage nonetheless still have something to do with Jesus directly, quite explicitly (the characters talk about him).

I think "Mark" is working with a huge, coherent complex of theological ideas, motifs, conceptions, etc. which is narratively tied up with the character of Jesus, which means that there is a whole vocabulary of words and terms and motifs that stick to this character (Jesus) and turns up constantly, again and again around him. So when there is one scene which is not about Jesus for once, Mark is more free to use other terms. After all, when we think about all the possible ways to construct a narrative, this passage is pretty damn close in narrative flavour to the rest of gMark. It's not like the narrator suddenly changes style or something.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Bernard Muller »

Now I think with the story of John the Baptist's death we certainly do find a very distinctive narrative unlike anything else in the gospel.
I agree, that story seems to be drawn from a text written by later John the Baptist followers.
Also I made a point that the whole empty tomb story was not written by "Mark": http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
Also I think now the whole mini apocalypse passage was not part of the original gMark, but an afterthought added in a moment of crisis (when false prophets & Christs were threatening to dissolve or divide the Markan community after the fall of Jerusalem) but probably by the same author, with a lot of emotions, carelessness and urgency, which cannot be seen in other parts of the gospel.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Stefan

You and I seem to be in close enough agreement about the Death of John being integral to a unified composition, which is the key immediate issue. I can't see us going to the mat over the difference between "the only scene which isn't 'directly' about Jesus" and "one of several scenes where the author places Jesus offstage, the better to dramatize aspects of how people might have reacted to Jesus."

On what probably will seem like a cavil, but "to preserve the issue," because it is important and will surely come up with urgency sooner or later,
It's not like the narrator suddenly changes style or something.
I'm unsure whether you and I disagree about the following, but there plainly are some who do.

The narrator is a character in the piece. There is no evidence that the narrator "is" the author, anymore than any other character "is" the author. It's like saying that Moby Dick's Ishmael "is" Melville or that the Stage Manager in Our Town "is" Thornton Wilder. (Then again, the narrator of Atlas Shrugged probably is Ayn Rand, lol.)

The Death of John is developed not only coherently with the work as a whole, but is in character for the narrator as well. Its introduction is a well motivated, timely remark about Jesus by Herod that calls for an explanation. The narrator obliges and warms to his task, just as he does when he feels the need to explain, at unnecessary length, what all this hand washing is about (which also has "nothing to do with Jesus"). Compare Winston Churchill, when an Egyptian locomotive broke down, explaining Islam, with the fall of the Roman Empire tossed in for good measure.

Some narrators digress. Mark's does, albeit on a short leash. It's a character trait.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Mark's Sources -- a question

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:53 pm
It's not like the narrator suddenly changes style or something.
I'm unsure whether you and I disagree about the following, but there plainly are some who do.

The narrator is a character in the piece. There is no evidence that the narrator "is" the author, anymore than any other character "is" the author. It's like saying that Moby Dick's Ishmael "is" Melville or that the Stage Manager in Our Town "is" Thornton Wilder. (Then again, the narrator of Atlas Shrugged probably is Ayn Rand, lol.)

The Death of John is developed not only coherently with the work as a whole, but is in character for the narrator as well. Its introduction is a well motivated, timely remark about Jesus by Herod that calls for an explanation. The narrator obliges and warms to his task, just as he does when he feels the need to explain, at unnecessary length, what all this hand washing is about (which also has "nothing to do with Jesus"). Compare Winston Churchill, when an Egyptian locomotive broke down, explaining Islam, with the fall of the Roman Empire tossed in for good measure.

Some narrators digress. Mark's does, albeit on a short leash. It's a character trait.
Yes, that's a very good and accurate description of one important aspect of Mark's narrator, I think. That's what I meant. It's not like in Acts, where the narrator suddenly changes into a first person narrator. GMark has the exact same third person omnicient type of narrator all the way through, which is of course the most common type in narratives, but having such a narrator also means that the author has to make a huge amount of choices all the time, whether consciously or unconsciously: choosing when it's important to let know what the characters are feeling or thinking, when it's important not to know it, when to comment, how to comment, how much to comment, choosing when to paraphrase what the characters say instead of them saying it in direct speech, etc. etc. The narrator in the Death of John exhibits exactly the same type and style as the rest of gMark, and to me it looks like a very consistent style of narration.



Further, I believe the invention of this kind of narrator by "Mark" might be viewed as his real original invention. It (this exact type of narrator and narration) could possibly be seen as the defining characteristic of the 'gospel' genre (the four canonical gospels). This exact narrator is not invented by some collective effort in the early church with their 'traditions' which Mark then took over and only changed a little bit sometimes. The consistent style of this narrator, and the consistent way 'he' blends in with the characters of the story when it comes to using the same conceptual universe with the same motifs and the same 'code' words (e.g. "follow") etc., has to be the invention of a single mind. I'd surmise that the other evangelists took over this concept, but that it originated first with gMark.

For me (and this is perhaps a digression), one of the most interesting questions we can ask of gMark (once we come to believe that we're dealing with a unifed narrative), is:
How does God feel about the things that goes on in the story?
What is God thinking about these events?
What is God's attitude to all this?

God is also on the character list of the story, although he is very thoroughly hidden ("there came a voice", 1:11, 9:7). Either the author of this whole story, "Mark", doesn't think this character (God) was very important and therefore doesn't have an opinion about what this particular character feels and thinks. Or else he consciously chooses not to treat this explicitly. The first option is impossible, I'd say. So the question remains: Why choose not to say anything explicit about the character God?

Like the epistles, they practically only speak about what God thinks and feels about everything. In the gospels, it's the exact opposite (especially the synoptics).
Post Reply