robert j wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:31 pm
JoeWallack wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:18 pm
... All of this suggests that GMark was originally intended for a very high class of readership and not a lower one. It was the subsequent Gospels that brought it down to earth.
Might the colloquial writing style in GMark have been a turn-off for sophisticated readers?
Phaedo missed the boat that day he left the shack
But that was all he missed
And he ain't comin' back
What is reMarkable about GMark is not the unsophisticated grammar but the change
from unsophisticated Semitic grammar in the Teaching & Healing Ministry to sophisticated Greek grammar in the Passion Ministry. I have faith that this type of book will be the next Horae Synopticae
. Horae Synopticae brought CBS out of the Dark Ages by demonstrating that GMark was the original Gospel and books like Voelz will provide the voelztage to demonstrate that GMark was not only first but the most sophisticated. Voelz, as believer, has a related apology that it is because GMark was last. He is as clueless about the significance of his book as Hawkins was about his.
Regarding initial Christian reaction to GMark I think Papias
is illustrative. If he was Christian his entire life than he knows that GMark did not exist until he was mature. The historical Jesus did not do anything impossible and Jesus' audience did not witness anything impossible. So supposed information about Jesus in Papias' time is mainly about Jesus' supposed teachings and stories (Q). Since GMark is a condemnation of Jesus' disciples Christianity has no initial belief in it as history and it is recognized as largely fiction. It is only after GMatthew edits GMark to convert the disciples that Christianity becomes interested in the two as having some historical value. Papias, as an intellectual though (by Christian standards), still knows that GMark and GMatthew are fiction. That is why he says that he is only interested in oral tradition and prefers that over written Gospels. The Mark and Matthew that Papias identifies are the authors of Q material. Subsequent Christianity misidentifies them as authors of the first two Gospels (because it had no other evidence that it was written by disciples or had disciple sources). Note especially that there is no early Christian tradition about recognizing GMark as the first Gospel/only Gospel. All traditions show an early Christian recognition of both.
The distinct change in style of grammar supports the above as the Teaching & Healing Ministry sounds closer to possible history, Q and The Jewish Bible (Semitic setting) while the Passion Ministry sounds closer to likely fiction, Greek Tragedy and subsequent Christian belief/anachronism (Hellenistic setting).
All this being said, the lack of quality evidence for any conclusion here also makes Ben's oral tradition theory possible, which I have to confess is the simpler explanation. The Semitic grammar in the Teaching & Healing ministry is because generally the underlying stories had a Semitic storytelling background and the Hellenistic grammar in the Passion Ministry likewise generally had a Hellenistic storytelling setting. For the most part the author simply presented the grammar as found in the underlying story.
And, as always, the truth may lie somewhere in between as there is also something for those suspecting that there was a distinctly shorter original GMark. As there are two styles in GMark, Semitic and Hellenistic, maybe original GMark was Semitic, this was part of Q, and Hellenistic GMark was added. Or verse-vices. Or maybe there was both, Semitic GMark and Hellenistic GMark, and they were merged. The two styles are woven together so well though that it makes me think all of GMark was an original composition. As Farouk said in Legion
"Have you ever tried to unmake soup?".
The New Porphyry