As many will know, against the common translations the Greek text of Mark 10:46 doesn't say
but
This seems to require previous knowledge about the father Timaeus while the son Bartimaeus was seemingly unknown to the readers.
Moderator: andrewcriddle
Excellent point.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:26 pm .
As many will know, against the common translations the Greek text of Mark 10:46 doesn't say
Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus
butthe son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus
This seems to require previous knowledge about the father Timaeus while the son Bartimaeus was seemingly unknown to the readers.
I completely concur. Best post ever by Ben.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:16 pm Nice OP.
Could debate individual points, but taken together it is a good set of reasons for thinking "a" story here existed already.
Heh, thanks.Stuart wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:48 amI completely concur. Best post ever by Ben.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:16 pm Nice OP.
Could debate individual points, but taken together it is a good set of reasons for thinking "a" story here existed already.
I don’t share your opinion here. I have yet to see convincing evidence that otherwise unknown written material or oral traditions of a Christian nature are necessary to explain Mark’s story. I think what might have been gleaned from Paul, the Jewish scriptures, non-Christian ideas ‘in-the-air’, and Mark’s fertile imagination are entirely adequateBen C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:21 pm
... I have argued on this forum that Mark is not telling a new story; he is telling one already known at least in part to his readers. Whether that story was oral or written (or both), and whether it was complete or partial, Mark is not freely composing his text from scratch (or freely composing from Paul + the scriptures + his own private inspirations).
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
There are several junctures in the gospel of Mark at which the author/editor seems to presume previous knowledge, on the part of the reader, of significant parts of the overall storyline.
Do these examples with John the Baptist provide significant evidence for lost texts or otherwise unknown early traditions about the Baptist? I think it’s just as likely, or perhaps more likely, that it was simply at these points in his narrative that Mark decided to reveal these story elements for his Greek audience.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
The imprisonment of John.
Mark 1.14-15: 14 Now after John had been delivered over ..."
While John himself has been introduced (in 1.2-6), nothing has been said which would imply that he was going to be imprisoned. Therefore, this notice seems to presume readers will already know about John's imprisonment ...
The disciples of John.
Mark gives the reader no early indication that John might have disciples ... that John has disciples comes a bit abruptly:
Mark 2.18: 18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they come and say to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast ...?"
To be fair, however, all groups in Mark seem to be introduced abruptly ...
By the time the reader gets to Mark 8:31, the author of GMark has already given some indication that the idiom might be applied to Jesus with some unique significance. Then in 8:31, that significance is more clearly revealed. I don’t see a problem with Mark leaving that significance, that “something more”, as something for the readers to ponder upon.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
The son of man.
The gospel of Mark uses the title "son of man" in a way which seems to expect its readers already to know what it means. Mark 2.10 and 2.28 may be using the phrase "son of man" to mean "human," which is one of its main functions as a Semitic idiom. But in Mark 8.31 it means something more, and this "something more," as a title for Jesus, is never really explained, leaving modern scholars to write entire monographs on the topic.
Certainly Pilate was an historical figure, but probably not well-known among most outside of the Jewish homelands some 40 years or more after his Judean governorship. But in his tale, Mark goes on to reveal Pilate’s authority shortly. And I expect interested Greek readers could ask-around, with some gray-beard Jewish friends or neighbors likely having some knowledge of Pilate’s brutal reputation.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
Pilate.
Pilate, like Simon Peter, is one of the characters in Mark who needs no introduction ... He comes in unannounced:
Mark 15.1: 1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate.
Luke 3.1 and Matthew 27.2, on the contrary, give Pilate a proper introduction into the narrative. But Mark is hardly the only Christian who thinks he requires none. Many other Christian statements, especially some of a somewhat credal nature, also speak of Pilate as a known entity ...
Mark's first mention of Pilate is every bit as abrupt as the creeds' mentions of Pilate are, suggesting that his readers already knew under whose authority Jesus was crucified.
The Simon, pressed into service to carry the cross, is perhaps modified with both his place of origin and the names of his sons to give more distance from the other Simons in the story. But who knows about Alexander and Rufus --- names of Greek and Latin origin, respectively. A number of opinions have been offered over time. Perhaps Mark was just poking some fun at a couple of guys with those names within his own circle of acquaintances, or known by his acquaintances. A bit of mystery around a couple of guys with no real role in the story doesn't lead to the conclusion that they "must have been known in some way to the first readers of this text."Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
Alexander and Rufus.
Mark 15.21: 21 They press into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross.
This kind of jumping out of the narrative to mention later people or events which depend in some way upon what is happening in the narrative is a fairly common storytelling device ... In this case, Alexander and Rufus, while unknown to us, must have been known in some way to the first readers of this text.
I just don’t see the necessity for readers to have foreknowledge about Simon, Andrew, James and John at that point. Mark just introduced them as much as he saw necessary at this point in the story. The Semitic forms of Simon, James and John were very common names in the Jewish homelands of the times --- especially James and John. One couldn’t swing a dead cat around by the tail in a crowd without hitting a James or John or two (no offense to cats --- I like cats). With these somewhat vague introductions, I think Mark is setting the stage for his later reveal for those in the know.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
Simon Peter.
Mark 1.16 seems to presume that readers will already know who Simon is. Unlike most characters in the gospel, Simon is given no introduction by nickname, patronymic, or any of the usual manners; and his brother, Andrew, is identified by his relationship to Simon ...
As for the mention of the betrayal by Judas seemingly out-of-the-blue well before the actual occurrence --- what a great teaser. I suspect many readers or listeners would pay extra attention listening and waiting, or reading-on, to find out how, when, and why Judas betrayed Jesus.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
The betrayal by Judas.
In the list of disciples, long before Judas has betrayed his Lord, Mark already mentions that betrayal:
Mark 3.16-19: 16 And He appointed the twelve; and to Simon he gave the name Peter, 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "sons of thunder"); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.
... it is as if Mark expects his readers to already know the story of the betrayal by Judas, and he is merely pointing out that this is that Judas.
With the Marys --- not entirely unlike the several other characters sharing names --- I suspect Mark is playing with the reader here with purposely constructed confusion. The ‘Who’s-on-First-Mary-Go-Round’ has likely intrigued readers over the centuries and down to this day --- prompting many to pour over the text trying to resolve the questions. And in the process, discovering and learning more about Mark’s intended lessons. What more could such a writer strive for?Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
The second Mary.
Mark 15.40 seems to presume that readers will know how to sort out the names of the women: Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ καὶ Σαλώμη. The issue is that second Mary. The Greek wording is capable of being understood in six different ways, including three in which two separate women are in view:
How is the reader supposed to know which option is correct unless s/he already has some knowledge of these women? (This point comes from Theissen.)
- Mary (the wife) of James the Less and the mother of Joses.
- Mary (the daughter) of James the Less and the mother of Joses.
- Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses.
- (A) Mary (the wife) of James the Less and (B) the mother of Joses.
- (A) Mary (the daughter) of James the Less and (B) the mother of Joses.
- (A) Mary the mother of James the Less and (B) the mother of Joses.
And certainly there is another option --- none of those.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm
To summarize, I think that the author of the gospel of Mark was writing for readers who already knew at least certain parts of the story ...
This analysis says nothing about whether what Mark's first readers knew came from historical facts, from legendary tales, or from previous gospel texts. Any or all of those options are left wide open ...
Yes, Andrew is well attested as a personal name in Greek texts either predating Mark (such as Polybius and Ptolemy II Philadelphus) or unaffected by Mark (such as Josephus, Athenaeus, and Galen).robert j wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:52 pmA side question that may or may not have relevance here --- is there evidence of Andrew (Ἀνδρέας) as a personal name prior to GMark? A cursory internet search provided no help, and I don’t know what might be found in the several volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, or elsewhere.
I have no expectations going in, whether reasonable or not. The entire method is designed to dispense with prior expectations. Rather, each item is evaluated simply on whether it resembles the kind of writing that authors do when they do not expect prior knowledge of their readers or whether it more closely resembles the kind of writing that authors do when they do expect prior knowledge of their readers. It is entirely possible for most or all of the "hits" to go one way or another, but not both, or it is possible that some "hits" will go one way, and other "hits" the other way. It is this range of possibilities that keeps the method free of expectations. Is it perfect? Of course not, and a couple of "hits" in any given direction could be chalked up to quirk or coincidence. The overall picture is what matters more.
thanks for the comment. I read that somewhere Plato talked about three judges in Ades.Martin Klatt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:20 amIn Mark it is even possible there is a title p(e)ilatos used, that has nothing to do with the historical Roman prefect Pontius Pilatus. For what we know and don't of hellinist titles, a p(e)ilatos could be a generic title for a prosecutor or judge in some eastern parts of the empire.