Glaswell's thesis is very a crap, a huge incomprehensible meatloaf. I am arrived to understand partially his views only in p. 472 (in red my comments):
Another view, propounded first by Conzelmann, is that it is the creation of the evangelist Mark, reflecting a basic theological principle... This latter approach, whis is a refinement of that of Wrede and Bultmann, is the one that has been developed in the preceding chapters.
This development has been based on the following points: (1) that the teme of secrecy by Mark stands over against messianic, not unmessianic material [The implication is that Mark would be reacting not against the unmessianic Marcion, but against a previous fanatic messianist propaganda (Jesus is the Jewish Messiah with mere earthly ambitions)] and that it negates an earthly or historical messiaship whilst insisting on a heavenly messiahship in terms of Jesus as the Son of Man who had first to suffer and die on earth; (2) that the bi-polarity of concealment and revelation in Mark does not reflect an ambiguous account of Jesus' life, but an ambiguous attitude to the historical Jesus, [no comment: without a historical Jesus, the entire thesis collapses virtually]...
It is enough. Unfortunately I can't find this Farmer's article, arguing for the contrary (that the messianic secret implies the priority of Q over Mark, and obviously Q is partially another name for Marcion):
The Two-Document Hypothesis as a Methodological Criterion in Synoptic Research
An older period of New Testament scholarship often spoke of the Gospel of Mark having a mysterious character. We find this already in Schleiermacher. He reckoned as specifically belonging to this the taking aside of the sick and the manipulations and applcation of material means in Jesus' miraculous healings. Then Strauss made many observations of a similar kind. It was said that Mark liked the mysterious. The healings of the deaf-mute, the blind man, or Jairus' daughter were regarded by Mark, so it was said, as mysteries and Jesus' confidants were looked on as initiates in whose presence such mysteries might occur. Keim says: “Mysterious as it is in none of the older Gospels it his personality (of Jesus)”. He speaks of a perishing humanity and an emergent deity in carnal form in Mark, of the dubious perspective of a magic life, and points to the enigmatic lonely journeys of Jesus and to “his incognito as a matter not of necessity, but of choice”. Other scholars too, such as Hilgenfeld, hint in this direction.
Here, of course, we are dealing with only a few impressions. For the subject has not really been examined and all those we have named have not recognised Mark's actual approach and its context. But we have seen that the impressions were right. And it is characteistic that they should have been experienced. How does it come about that these critics betray a more correct perception of the character of the Gospel than most of the more recent ones?
They have looked at Mark with less prejudice because they considered him the later evangelist, later at least than Matthew. This gave them in relation to him a certain freedom in their observations. One might almost add that the eyes of an opponent are sharp-sighted. In Keim we can see in particular how these things were looked upon, because weapons were to be found there against a view which preferred Mark.
... Those who find essentially convincing the view of Mark here expounded will probably be easily led to doubt the priority of Mark in relation to Matthew and Luke. Wishful thinking may support them in this. It would indeed be most highly desirable that such a Gospel should not be the oldest. But wishes never amount to arguments. Here I cannot essay a proof; I am only expressing my view.
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 4:44 am
MacDonald's explanations are so often "off the mark". I don't think it has anything to do with the Iliad and Odyssey. As usual, one can find much better explanations that relate directly to Jewish works and themes.
I agree in this case. The Hidden Imam or Hidden Power is a key motif of proto-Christian Jews.
On top of that, the narrative structure of Mark is clearly detailing how this Jesus is accumulating authority from slightly different groups and sects, proving himself to be the anticipated figure of all of them until finally the Peter/James cult recognizes this teacher as their hidden Christ. Let him see who has eyes to see is practically shouting at Peter to acknowledge the arrival of the hidden one.
The strength of this correlation obviates the relevance of other parallels. One might argue that Mark's author was reacting to the hidden power motif and was reminded of Odysseus, but then you'd have to prove prosaic parallels, since there is no need to use Homer as a thematic source. Perhaps MacDonald does this. I'm relatively convinced by his parallel with Hector at the gates. Perhaps Mark's author is trained in Homer and using it for structure after first identifying the thematic parallel.
