The opening of Mark

[rgprice]

Giuseppe's threads have gotten me thinking about this issue again.

The more I look at the opening chapter of Mark, the more I become dissatisfied with its reading. On the simple theory of Markan priority, we would have to conclude that Mark mentioned a few things without detail and that later writers expanded upon what Mark had written. These being namely the arrest of John and the temptation by Satan.

In Mark these things are mentioned very briefly, with little purpose and no background. It seems to me that such statements would have been confusing to a reader who had no other knowledge of the Gospel story. If the Markan narrative were the very first narrative like this about Jesus to be written, wouldn't the writer want to provide more detail so that the reader would understand what was being talked about?

In Luke, however, all of these things are better explained and would make more sense to a first time reader.

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

2 just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“Behold, I am sending My messenger before You, Who will prepare Your way;
3 The voice of one calling out in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!’”

4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 6 John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey. 7 And he was preaching, saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to bend down and untie the straps of His sandals. 8 I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came from the heavens: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

12 And immediately the Spirit brought Him out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild animals, and the angels were serving Him.

14 Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

16 As He was going along the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will have you become fishers of people.” 18 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. 19 And going on a little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John, who were also in the boat mending the nets. 20 Immediately He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and went away to follow Him.

Firstly, note that v14 simply says, "after John was taken into custody." What what? When was John taken into custody? Why? This sounds like something written by someone who knows that the story of John's arrest is already well known to the reader. Secondly, what's up with the very brief mention of Jesus being tempted by Satan? Again, this sounds like something written by someone who knows that this narrative is already known and doesn't want to waste time on it. Satan really plays no other role in the story or Mark either. There is no clear connection made between the demons Jesus deals with and Satan.

Now Luke:

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. 3 And he came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“The voice of one calling out in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight!
5 Every ravine will be filled,
And every mountain and hill will be lowered;
The crooked will become straight,
And the rough roads smooth;
6 And all flesh will see the salvation of God!’”

7 So he was saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, “You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore produce fruits that are consistent with repentance, and do not start saying to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children for Abraham. 9 But indeed the axe is already being laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 And the crowds were questioning him, saying, “Then what are we to do?” 11 And he would answer and say to them, “The one who has two tunics is to share with the one who has none; and the one who has food is to do likewise.” 12 Now even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what are we to do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” 14 And soldiers also were questioning him, saying, “What are we to do, we as well?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone, nor harass anyone, and be content with your wages.”

15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and they all were thinking carefully in their hearts about John, whether he himself perhaps was the Christ, 16 John responded to them all, saying, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but He is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the straps of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people. 19 But when Herod the tetrarch was reprimanded by him regarding Herodias, his brother’s wife, and regarding all the evil things which Herod had done, 20 Herod also added this to them all: he locked John up in prison.

#1 The quote from Isaiah is cleaner in Luke.
#2 Here the writer explains why John is arrested up front. The story makes more sense.

1 Now Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He was hungry. 3 And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.” 4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I want. 7 Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.” 8 Jesus replied to him, “It is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’”

9 And he brought Him into Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written:

‘He will give His angels orders concerning You, to protect You,’

11 and,

‘On their hands they will lift You up,
So that You do not strike Your foot against a stone.’”

12 And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been stated, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

13 And so when the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time.

Here the temptation of Jesus has a purpose. This demonstrates that Satan/the devil, is the "lord of this world". V6 plainly indicates that the world is ruled by Satan/the devil, just as the sect at Qumran and other Jews believed. But this point is never made in Mark, who skips the details that make the scene relevant.

18 The disciples of John also reported to him about all these things. 19 And after summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are You the Coming One, or are we to look for another?” 20 When the men came to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, to ask, ‘Are You the Coming One, or are we to look for another?’” 21 At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits; and He gave sight to many who were blind. 22 And He answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: people who were blind receive sight, people who limped walk, people with leprosy are cleansed and people who were deaf hear, dead people are raised up, and people who are poor have the gospel preached to them. 23 And blessed is anyone who does not take offense at Me.”

24 When the messengers of John had left, He began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who are splendidly clothed and live in luxury are found in royal palaces! 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and one who is more than a prophet. 27 This is the one about whom it is written:

‘Behold, I am sending My messenger ahead of You,
Who will prepare Your way before You.’

28 I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

The comment about the clothing is interesting. The statement implies that John did not meet the expectations of the people who sought him. They were looking for a prophet, but expected him to be more presentable. They expected him to be well dressed.

Interestingly, Mark describes how John was dressed, and uses a passage from the scriptures to indicate that John was dressed like a prophet.

I've said that I have a problem with the idea that one could take a story written without scriptural references, and then be able to find scriptural references to write the same story around. But I think this is an example where that seems plausible.

Yet at the same time, I have a hard time believing that this could be true of all of Mark. What I do know is that much of Mark 1 seems to me like it was written by someone who had knowledge of narrative elements that are found in Luke and knew that their readers would be aware of those details. (Also note that some of those elements are not found in Marcion.)

I don't have an answer here. I also don't think that any conclusion can be made about the entirety of any work. I think its possible that parts of Mark were written before parts of Luke and parts of Luke were written before parts of Mark. What I do know is that to me the opening of Mark reads more like a summary of material found in Luke than the material in Luke looks like an expansion upon what is found in Mark.

[Giuseppe]

If we remove John from the incipit of the gospel, what is left are references to "disciples of John", in addition to a cold distance between the disciples of John and (disciples of) Jesus.

In short: "disciples of John" considered rival sectarians.

Since only Marcion is the best candidate who could consider negatively those sectarians, then a gospel where (in the incipit) there is not a baptism by John but only (in the rest of the gospel) "disciples of John", is probably a marcionite gospel...

...or a gospel that has been at least partially edited by a marcionite hand.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Firstly, note that v14 simply says, "after John was taken into custody." What what? When was John taken into custody? Why?

Precisely, so maybe as audience member your interest has been piqued (whether or not Mark was "performed" in the sense of a stage play, it was very likely read aloud). Your questions will be answered in chapter 6, meanwhile you have been informed that preaching in 1st Century Palestine is a risky business - who knows? Jesus himself might be arrested before the story is over.

The technique is well known. Thanks to dramaturg David Ball, it has a pithy name (a "forward"). Ball wrote about its use in the theater, but all storytelling is the controlled disclosure of information, and so forwards are also found in other genres.

If the Markan narrative were the very first narrative like this about Jesus to be written, wouldn't the writer want to provide more detail so that the reader would understand what was being talked about?

With respect to John, evidently so, since the writer does provide quite a bit more detail when it suits his narrative design. However, with respect to that encounter with Satan, evidently not. Perhaps Mark felt that the many encounters with Satan's minions scattered throughout the performance made whatever point he wished to make that dealing with Satan could make.

But this point is never made in Mark, who skips the details that make the scene relevant.

No, he skipped the scene, thus he would have had no opportunity to make what he omitted relevant. BTW, I understand your evidence that Luke believed that Satan was the Lord of this World; do you have any evidence that Mark, too, believed that?

Satan really plays no other role in the story or Mark either.

If that were true, then that would go a long way toward explaining why there is no digressive desert trial of Jesus by Satan in Mark. I don't think it is true, however:

There is no clear connection made between the demons Jesus deals with and Satan.

Jesus's accusers in chapter 3 articulate a clear relationship between the demons exorcised by Jesus and a chief demon whom they call Beelzebul and whom Jesus refers to in rebuttal as Satan. I don't see why Mark has any obligation to his audience to expound on demonology beyond that Jesus and his accusers agree that the exorcised demons are subordinate to an invisible intelligent power whom Jesus calls Satan. Jesus expects these forces of darkness to be advancing some coherent strategy, and expects his accusers and the other listeners in the scene to more-or-less agree with him about that much.

I've said that I have a problem with the idea that one could take a story written without scriptural references, and then be able to find scriptural references to write the same story around.

I agree, but I don't have any problem with someone writing a story about two Jewish preachers and twelve Jewish preachers in training who are opposed by multiple elite educated Jewish authority figures and then that someone finds Jewish scriptural snippets or allusions to salt into the narrative.

Who knows? You might even have a few scenes where the antagonists debate scriptural content. Maybe the teacher character gives the students some lessons with scriptural content. Maybe the two senior heroes act out scriptural elements (e.g. maybe one "dresses like a prophet," maybe the other enters Jerusalem in a symbolically charged way ... that could work, I think ... I mean, John is going to wear clothes anyway, and if Jesus travels from Galilee to Jerusalem, then he's going to enter the city anyway. Mark doesn't have to compromise the story to jazz up his narration of it).

What I do know is that to me the opening of Mark reads more like a summary of material found in Luke than the material in Luke looks like an expansion upon what is found in Mark.

Reasonable enough. I don't think certainty is possible about the direction of transmission, and as you say, it is not impossible that some sort of ongoing exchange of content might have occurred.

In modern and narrowly theatrical terms, I can't exclude that Mark was a play doctor rather than a playwright. Either role is possible for a distinguished contributor to so magnificently crafted a work as Mark.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

On the simple theory of Markan priority, we would have to conclude that Mark mentioned a few things without detail and that later writers expanded upon what Mark had written.

Isn't that the direction of Christian narrative literature in general?

Mark reports a short mission by Jesus and his death
Matthew and Luke add birth and resurrection
Apocrypha tell of the childhood of Jesus or about the process before Pilate in detail, where miracle after miracle occurs

Mark mentions a mother Mary who thinks Jesus is crazy
Matthew and Luke make a good wife out of Mary and add the father Joseph
others write a biography of Mary and tell about the grandparents
in the end she is a ever-virgin and the merciful Mother of God to whom "all" pray for help

Mark mentions a few disciples in a few scenes
Matthew and Luke fill in more details
Acts tells more about the disciples
Apocrypha report their further adventures in detail
in the end Joseph of Arimathea brings the Grail to England

Mark mentions a Mary Magdalene in the role of a tomb watcher who withholds the good news
Matthew and Luke turn their image into a positive one
John makes her a faithful disciple with feminine features
in the end she is Jesus' wife and their descendants become the kings of France

and so forth

[Charles Wilson]

On the simple theory of Markan priority, we would have to conclude that Mark mentioned a few things without detail and that later writers expanded upon what Mark had written.

Isn't that the direction of Christian narrative literature in general?

Mark reports a short mission by Jesus and his death
Matthew and Luke add birth and resurrection...

Yes and Yes and Yes...But Wait!!! There's More!!!

What of the Denial of Peter? In the Synoptics, Peter is at the door when the Maid states that Peter was one of those with "Jesus".
PETER IS SITTING.

Mark 14: 54 (RSV):

[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.

John tells a different Tale:

John 14: 16 - 18 (RSV):

[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Peter and the others are STANDING.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... service-of (Emphases added):

"The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1)..."

OK, OK. Markan Priority. However, there MUST be more. Mark was written FROM another Document or the Authors of Matthew and Luke, and the Author(s) of John, wrote from something cut out from a very extended version of Mark, which seems highly unlikely. Mark writes of the secular half, John of the Holy when speaking of the Chambers of Hearth and Flame. Indeed, the Names of Hearth and Flames are obliterated, lest someone realize the Priestly Nature of the Dome.

It appears to be more complicated than first appears.

Best,

CW

[rgprice]

Precisely, so maybe as audience member your interest has been piqued (whether or not Mark was "performed" in the sense of a stage play, it was very likely read aloud). Your questions will be answered in chapter 6, meanwhile you have been informed that preaching in 1st Century Palestine is a risky business - who knows? Jesus himself might be arrested before the story is over.

The technique is well known. Thanks to dramaturg David Ball, it has a pithy name (a "forward"). Ball wrote about its use in the theater, but all storytelling is the controlled disclosure of information, and so forwards are also found in other genres.

I don't think so.

13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and [k]believe in the gospel.”

This isn't a mystery that piques your interest, its WTF!?

"after John had been taken into custody"

What? When was that?

Piquing interest would be to say something like, "When Jesus returned he found that John had been taken into custody." Sure, that would be fine, and your justification would make sense. But that's not what Mark says. I don't read Greek, but I have read multiple translations of this, and they all read about the same.

"After John had been taken into custody" assumes that the reader has some understanding of this narrative already.

[perseusomega9]

On the simple theory of Markan priority, we would have to conclude that Mark mentioned a few things without detail and that later writers expanded upon what Mark had written.

Isn't that the direction of Christian narrative literature in general?

Mark reports a short mission by Jesus and his death
Matthew and Luke add birth and resurrection...

Yes and Yes and Yes...But Wait!!! There's More!!!

What of the Denial of Peter? In the Synoptics, Peter is at the door when the Maid states that Peter was one of those with "Jesus".
PETER IS SITTING.

Mark 14: 54 (RSV):

[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.

John tells a different Tale:

John 14: 16 - 18 (RSV):

[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Peter and the others are STANDING.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... service-of (Emphases added):

"The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1)..."

OK, OK. Markan Priority. However, there MUST be more. Mark was written FROM another Document or the Authors of Matthew and Luke, and the Author(s) of John, wrote from something cut out from a very extended version of Mark, which seems highly unlikely. Mark writes of the secular half, John of the Holy when speaking of the Chambers of Hearth and Flame. Indeed, the Names of Hearth and Flames are obliterated, lest someone realize the Priestly Nature of the Dome.

It appears to be more complicated than first appears.

Best,

CW

Would a woman be present (maid)?

[Charles Wilson]

It appears to be more complicated than first appears.

Would a woman be present (maid)?

Great question and I dunno. Support Staff, servants, slaves, women. What are their roles in the Male-Centric Judaic Culture? We know that Malchus had his ear cut off and he was the High Priest's slave.

When Hawai'i was "discovered", there were people there on the islands. What does that mean? Women simply HAD to be on the boats that originally landed there. What were their roles?

If a subservient role - performing a menial task - was necessary, a female would make sense as much as anything else. No History is given for these people. How much notice do you give to a door opener? Perhaps that's the point.

Caesar gives Thermusa to a Parthian king and all Hell breaks when "her" kids get "of age" and she manipulates the results.

Josephus, Ant..., 13, 15, 5 :

""Do thou, therefore," said he [Jannaeus], "when thou art come to Jerusalem, send for the leading men among them, and show them my body, and with great appearance of sincerity, give them leave to use it as they themselves please, whether they will dishonor the dead body by refusing it burial, as having severely suffered by my means, or whether in their anger they will offer any other injury to that body. Promise them also that thou wilt do nothing without them in the affairs of the kingdom. If thou dost but say this to them, I shall have the honor of a more glorious Funeral from them than thou couldst have made for me; and when it is in their power to abuse my dead body, they will do it no injury at all, and thou wilt rule in safety..."

No doubt, women were minimalized but it is not out of the realm of possibility that "Operator of the Door" might have a function performed by a "maid" in the Temple.
Any input here would be appreciated.

Thanx,

CW

[schillingklaus]

There is absolutely no need for women to have been on that boat, as they could have been added later, just as the Romans were all male until they abducted Sabine women.

The scene of Peter at the sanhedrine frontyard is a particularly ridiculous case of interpolation and mutilation performed by Mk, proving once more the insane falsity of Markan Prioritism.

[Paul the Uncertain]

This isn't a mystery that piques your interest, its WTF!?

No, it's not anything as elaborate as a mystery. It's a well-posed question that, as an audience member, you'd like an answer to, and to which you will be provided an answer in the storyteller's good time.

Meanwhile, the character of John has been introduced as a person who has a message and who attracts large crowds to some out-of-the way place to hear it. (Shades of Josephus, eh?) Under military occupation, ancient Roman or otherwise, people like that are subject to suspicion and surveillance. (Indeed, even in contemporary and unoccupied America, the civilian Federal Bureau of Investigation keeps tabs on who speaks at some local school board meetings.) John's arrest is not out of character with what the audience knows when the arrest is revealed, and you and I agree that the audience is interested in hearing more about it at that point. We disagree about the aesthetics of making them wait for that additional information.

It would be one thing to reach the end of a performance with a major plot point unresoved (e.g. a typical objection to the claim that Mark intended the performance to end at 16:8). But the major issues raised by John's arrest are resolved long before the end of the performance. That's part of the working definition of a forward.

If your objection is that this application of a staple element of storytelling craft doesn't work for you as an audience member, then that's fine. The writer's craft is not so well developed that it is possible to please everyone all the time. Further, I have conceded that it is difficult (as in probably impossible) to attain certainty about whether Mark applied his craftsmanship to an existing work (either play doctoring or simply adapting it) or fashioned this piece de novo.

You are the final and exclusive arbiter of whether you found this or any other work of art satisfying. That there is rational foundation for doubt about Markan priority is undisputed.

On a point arising

Piquing interest would be to say something like, "When Jesus returned he found that John had been taken into custody." Sure, that would be fine, and your justification would make sense. But that's not what Mark says.

You are correct that Mark does not state when or where Jesus found out that John had been arrested. Perhaps including this information would improve the performance although personally I do not keenly feel its lack.