In the OP I argued that two passages in Mark show evidence of having material added to them. Each of these passages also repeats or at least paraphrases something from a source. In the process, an awkward transition is produced. In what follows the repeated material is in
green, whereas the addition or change is in
red.
The first passage is Mark 2.1-12:
1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic, 5b “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — He says to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”
In this case the source is this Marcan passage itself, and the line which is repeated is "says to the paralytic". The repetition gets the pericope back on track after the digression, but (this is important) it also makes an awkward grammatical link between dialogue and narration, which really ought to remain separate from one another.
The second passage is Mark 3.20-35:
20 And He comes home, and the crowd gathers again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.” 28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” — 30 since they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrive, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they say to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He says, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He says, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
In this case nothing from the pericope itself is being repeated; rather, a saying from church praxis about accepting prophetic utterances (as pointed out in the OP) is being repeated or paraphrased. But the additional line or change to the source, meant to make the transition from the saying to the Marcan context more intelligible, manages again (this is important) to create an awkward grammatical link between dialogue and narration, which, as mentioned above, really ought to remain separate from one another.
In the first case, the additional or changed material included dialogue, while the repeated material was narration. In the second case, the additional or changed material was narration, while the repeated material was dialogue (originally church instructions, now placed upon Jesus' lips). But the result is the same: a glitch right at the point at which dialogue gives way to narration or vice versa.
Now, on
another thread I have written:
Ben C. Smith wrote:One can look at the sorts of things ancient authors do to their known sources (Josephus with Kings and Chronicles; Matthew and Luke with Mark; and so forth) to get an idea of what reacting to a source may look like; then, when one finds similar features in Mark, it can form the basis for arguing that there is a source at work somehow.
I intend to offer an example of this very thing here and now. This is a matter of working from the known to the unknown. If two texts whose relative order we can agree upon show a certain pattern, one text serving as source for the other, and then a standalone text seems to follow this pattern all by itself, it stands to reason that this standalone text may be working from a source, as well. This present example will work if you agree that, in general, canonical Luke borrowed from canonical Mark, and not the other way around. Since we are presuming that Luke used Mark, the relevant additions or changes made to the Marcan exemplar will be in
red in the Lucan column, while the repeated text will be in
green, again in the Lucan column.
Mark 1.40-45 | Luke 5.12-16 |
| 40 And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 43 And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, 44 and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest [σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῶ ἱερεῖ] and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” 45 But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter. | 12 While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” 13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. 14 And he charged him to tell no one, but “go and show yourself to the priest [δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῶ ἱερεῖ], and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” 15 But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. 16 But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray. |
In this case, Luke has changed part of Mark's direct address to indirect address, but has then lapsed back into direct address, creating (once more) an awkward grammatical link between dialogue and narration.
I suggest that this sort of weird grammatical transition from dialogue to narration or from narration to dialogue is a very plausible indicator that a source has been modified, as shown by how Luke 5.14 has modified Mark 1.44. We find such weird grammatical transitions in the two Marcan pericopae identified in the OP; therefore it is very plausible that Mark himself is following (but also adding to or modifying) a source.
