Godfrey schools Mark on how to write a gospel

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you very much for this, Martin. I made the "Mistake of the Rewrite" (as seen in Luke, just below). The Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood touches Jesus' clothes. I wrote in haste.

Luke 8: 43 - 48 (RSV):

[43] And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one,
[44] came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased.
[45] And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!"
[46] But Jesus said, "Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me."
[47] And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed.
[48] And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace."

"Who was it that touched me?" Notice the subtle change:

Mark 5: 25 - 28 (RSV):

[25] And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years,
[26] and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.
[27] She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.
[28] For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well."

Compare with the Lukan Passage, esp. verses 44 - 46. In many of the Markan Stories, there is a "Clue" given that points to something else:

"...and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse."

I assert that this may be easily seen as Political. The woman, taken as "Real", touches the fringe of Jesus' garment. That is enough at first.

Leviticus 15: 19 - 30 (RSV):

[19] "When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.
[20] And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean.
[21] And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
[22] And whoever touches anything upon which she sits shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening;
[23] whether it is the bed or anything upon which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.
[24] And if any man lies with her, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.
[25] "If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean.
[26] Every bed on which she lies, all the days of her discharge, shall be to her as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity.
[27] And whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
[28] But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
[29] And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting.
[30] And the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for her unclean discharge.

Read as a Political Document, the Woman takes on the Symbolism of the Nation. It is Judah which is Unclean. The mistake I made in haste (..and the mistake I should never, EVER make), is the important point that the Woman touches, not Jesus, but the garment. If this is Political, then Jesus' Garments are Symbols for the Priesthood.

Something happened.

12 years later, the Political Ramifications are still playing out. The Scribes, for example, cannot report what they know to be True. Thus, the important point: The little girl is 12 years old:

Mark 5: 22 - 23, 39 - 42 (RSV):

[22] Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet,
[23] and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live."
***
[39] And when he had entered, he said to them, "Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping."
[40] And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was.
[41] Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Tal'itha cu'mi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise."
[42] And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.

It is Jairus who is important. The Moffatt Translation brings this out:

"He was still speaking when a message came from the house of the synagogue-president, " Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher to come any further ? "

The young girl on the other hand is having her first menstruation at the age of 12, in those days widely considered the right time for it, so she wasn't really ill either. However the consequences for her would have been similar to the plight of the woman because she would have been ritually impure too, only temporary, but how is a young terrified child to know...

Well stated. Compare with: "We have no king but Caesar". If the Political Movement succeeds, it will be a scary time for all the nation. Yet, the Movement shall succeed, against the Herodians and against the Romans.

[43] And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Thus are Revolutions nurtured.

As there were two "Crucifixions", one in the Synoptics, the other in John, there are two stories here. The Woman has had a 12 year period. She is Unclean. She touches "Jesus" and he becomes Unclean as well. The character is Unclean as a result of the touching of the GARMENT, however, not a touching of the person "Jesus". [Edit Note: If this Political Analysis is correct then the Garment aspect of the Story shows that the Priesthood is Unclean. The Nation is Unclean. The Priesthood, which represents the Nation in front of God, is Unclean by something IT did as well. This aspect is not present to the Transvalued story but is, and must be, central to the Original Story.]

The birth of the Political Movement came 12 years earlier. It has been ruthlessly suppressed but it has not died. Jairus asks "Jesus" to make one last attempt to eliminate the Herodians and the Romans, to not allow his daughter - Jairus' Daughter - to die. This character, a Priest, survived the first Death (For me, it's at the death of Herod and the ascension of Archelaus at the 4 BCE Passover) and knows that if he attempts this, he will go to his death.

'My God, my God, for this was I spared?"

Thank you, Martin. I apologize for the length of this and I hope this is not seen as hijacking the Thread. These two Stories, however, are Foundational. You don't have to agree with this Analysis. "It's just Mark". Compare "Are we to drown, for all you care?" in Mark, with "Save, Lord, we are perishing." The Judaic Culture is Transvalued into the story of a savior/god.

That's how you write a Gospel - for Roman consumption.

CW

[Paul the Uncertain]

Thanks to @Giuseppe, @Charles Wilson and @Martin Klatt for their participation in the thread and their insights.

I think Neil's initial criticism was more elementary than some of the comments, though. Neil aimed at the first-impression representation level of the text. Is Jesus' supposed charisma naturalistically portrayed?

I believe it is. A common craft element of writing for performance is to show, not just to tell. Shortly before Mark tells us that the synagogue attendees were impressed, Mark has given the oral reader an example of Jesus' preaching to perform. The World English Bible may not be the most enchanting translation, but even its verse 1:15 is playable:

The time is fulfilled, and God’s Kingdom is at hand! Repent, and believe in the Good News.

Fact claim and fact claim, command and command. A secondary school aspiring actor could crush that line, showing authority because fact claims and commands are the essence of authority. The subsequent synagogue audience reaction recaps what the performance audience has already been shown, and have even tasted for themselves.

With respect to the exorcism, that line, too, is an invitation to the skilled actor to embody authority:

Be quiet, and come out of him!

Command and command; the end.

Alec McCowen's solo performance of Mark can be viewed as "experimental archeology," establishing what a competent single reader can do with the text, and could have done when the text was written. This video recording, taken from one of McCowen's performances, is cued up to open at Jesus' first teaching.

https://youtu.be/-oOaIeythFw?t=367

Yeah, that plays. Note that some of McCowen's choices do not track the "notes" I have given here, indicating not only that a successful "naturalistic" peformance is possible, but also that there is more than one way to accomplish it.

[Martin Klatt]

...

[Charles Wilson]

The astonishment of the audience is expressed by the word ἐξεπλήσσοντο which in fact is a strong word expressing actual shock. In my translation this would lead to a more critical outlook where the audience is in fact questioning his right to teach here because he does not have permission like the scribes do, the regulars they expected for the day.

Another very good point.

Mark 1: 22 (RSV):

[22] And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

It does not follow that the audience automatically embraces this character barging in and taking over the proceedings (esp. if the action is occurring in the Temple at Jerusalem). The Scribes do have permission to read and speak. Does the "Jesus" character also have permission? After all, he taught in the temple daily.

Who could have done that? (Hint: It ain't a wandering preacher character...)

Luke 9: 51 - 53, 59 - 62 (RSV):

[51] When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
[52] And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
[53] but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
***
[59] To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."
[60] But he said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
[61] Another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home."
[62] Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

This person is not a wanderer. He knows where he is going. The people know as well and they don't want any part of it. The people have good reason to avoid following this person:

Mark 5: 35 (Moffatt):

[35] He was still speaking when a message came from the house of the synagogue-president, " Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher to come any further ? "

The "House of the Synagogue President" is being very helpful here, Yes? An informational message that Jesus doesn't have to travel ANY FURTHER.

"Well, thank you, House of the Synagogue President!!! We can simply stop now...After all, lodging at the Judean Barn-Inn can be so expensive...THANX!!!"

John 1: 20 -24 (RSV):

[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
[21] And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."
[22] They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
[23] He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said."
[24] Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.

"He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed..."
***
"Now they had been sent from the Pharisees."

"Confessed" has become Transvalued through the centuries but look at its use here.
This is Political and Martin Klatt is correct.

CW

[Paul the Uncertain]

@Martin Klatt and hi to Charles. too.

I always look at that possibility, but the problem is that if the author had performance in mind he could leave out text that he intended the performers to convey by the visuals and ad hoc inspiration.

Treatments are efficient representations of potential performances, especially when there is no commitment to a specific cast size and therefore no commitment to role assignment withn the cast.

Any actual performance, however, necessarily has a definite cast size and role assignments among them. With that additional information given to an audience, some "spoken stage direction" (what with a cast size of one would need to be said aloud for the action to be understood) can simply be shed as redundant.

Mark is performed quite a bit these days, with different cast sizes from McCowen's (and others') solo through the mid-teens. Role assignment also varies.

For example, the Concordia Seminary (St Louis) ensemble has six performers. Each performer is assigned to read about 1/6th of the received text alone onstage for his sixth. No shedding, then, despite the "large" cast; it's a "tag-team quasi-solo performance." Another project, with about 15 performers to work with, breaks out Jesus (only one performer plays Jesus and that perfomer plays nobody else), but the other roles are shared out more-or-less flexibly among the other gender-balanced cast members. There's lots of shedding in that approach.

From an experimental archeology perspective, the variety of known-to-be-successful casting schemata speaks to the efficacy and versatility of the treatment as a performance representation format. Just as I infer that Mark intended performance, I also infer that he left decisions about cast size and role assignment to the company.

In that case the gospel of Mark could be only the working script, but the complete actual performance would be containing impromptu emissions left to the actors and extras.

Yes, it's only in the last century or so that an author could expect to "control" the speeches in a performance where (s)he wasn't also a producer, director or cast member. Even now, special business isn't subject to effective authorial control. About 40% of the distinct characters in Mark are special business only...

In some sense, all successful playscripts are only working scripts; it's a collective art form, even if these days, playwrights have a strong union. Mark knew he wasn't in control of much.

We might expect upstanding community members attending the service at a sabbath to be critical of some outsider barging in and taking over the reading of the day.

And yet there's no barging on the page, but rather Jesus arrives in the company of four locals. Also, we don't know how much of an "outsider" Jesus is or isn't. Capernaum isn't his hometown, but it is a plot point that there is such a thing a "Galilean accent."

The astonishment of the audience is expressed by the word ἐξεπλήσσοντο which in fact is a strong word expressing actual shock.

It is refreshing not to hear that Mark was too clueless about Koine composition to come up with the correct word. Thank you for that.

At this point, the audience doesn't know that the same word will be used for the hometown synagogue's reaction (at 6:2). But Mark might know it, and so he sets up a "literary" connection between the contrasting receptions.

The audience can accept the word choice on first encounter for two reasons, IMO. First, the Choral Narrator is a character, and like any character in a literary work he's entitled to his opinion. What the "facts of the matter" were, if any, or what the author actually believes about the situation is irrelevant: the character thinks Jesus gave a boffo perfomance.

Second, and more craftworthy in my view, Jesus' preaching elicits a psychotic episode in one of the synagogue audience members. How much "shock" did you have in mind before shock would be a warranted description of what's on the page?

In the later part where the audience again shows amazement something similar points to a less positive reaction:

They liked Jesus' feats well enough to come asking for favors from him as soon as it was lawful to do so (in the evening and thus then end of sabbath). I don't think the plot needs more emotional clarity from them than that; smart folk should be of two minds about Jesus based on the meagre information available to anybody at that point in the story.

[Charles Wilson]

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark09.html#9X

Possible First Performance Site: Caesarea, which has an Amphitheater as well as a politically savvy clientele.