|
“A theory which would make an author [=Marcion] capable of such a proceeding [=that *Ev had meticulously removed the Mark's compositional framework, and that he literarily marred a coherently structured text] would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank” |
For determining the editorial direction between *Ev and Mark, referencing two phenomena will suffice.
The first is the compositional agreements between both accounts of the healing of a blind man (Makr 8,22-26 and 10,46-52). They constitute a framework around the large passage regarding Jesus' 'path' with the disciples (Mark 8,27-10,45) and thereby provide essential insights into the overall understanding. At the end of the 'path' (in Jericho as the last station before Jerusalem), the healed Bartimaeus follows on Jesus's 'path', even though it then leads only on a comparably short distance to Jerusalem. Both the healing from blindness of Bartimaeus and his discipleship (10,52: ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ) are understood symbolically and associatively. Bartimaeus recognizes the necessity for the preparedness to suffer (narratively displayed for the reader in previous passages), and he follows on Jesus' path to his Passion. The intentionality of these symbolic connotations results from the narrative aboutment of this account: the healing of the blind man in Bethsaida (Mark 8,22-26). His blindness is symbolically connoted and associated with his (insufficient) understanding, as shown through the close correspondence with the curing of a deaf man (Mark 7,31-36) as well as through the 'deafness' and 'blindness' designating the disciples' incomprenhension.
Both of these healings of the blind confirm the carefully designed literary conception of the entire unit. While Jesus sends the healed man of Bethsaida back home again (Mark 8,26: καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ), the healed Bartimaeus follows on Jesus' path to his Passion (Mark 10,52). For readers, the removal of Bartimaeus's blindness embodies his insight on a level that goes beyond the eyesight of the healed man in Mark 8,26.
The difference between both healings from 'blindness' is being narratively displayed. The first healing of the blind man in Bethsaida progresses gradually. Since the visual capacity after Jesus first lays on his hands improves only marginally (8,24), Jesus has to lay on his hands again (8,25 πάλιν). Bartimaeus, however, can see 'immediately' (10,52 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν). Perhaps the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida can be understood as coming from the outside, by laying on hands as magic practice, whereas the restoration of eyesight with Bartimaeus is facilitated by his faith (10,52: ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε). This links him not only to the 'woman suffering from hemorrhages' (Mark 5,34) but above al to the Syrophoenician woman whose theological insight leads to the healing of her daughter. The real reason for the sudden and complete recovery from blindnees of Bartimaeus - enabling him now to follow Jesus - lies neverthless in comprehending everything Mark had elucidated through the narrative and spoken material located between the two accounts of healing: whoever surrenders and is prepared to also surrender his life will attain life.
These very obvious and purposeful compositional signals within the framework of the Markan travel narrative gain significance in tradition history by their comparison with *Ev. The first Markan healing of the blind man (Mark 8,22-26) has no agreement either in Matthew and Luke or in *Ev. The second healing of the blind man (Mark 10,46-52), however, has a counterpart in *18,35-43. For this Marcionite version of the healing of the blind man, it can be made probable that the notice of his discipleship (verse 43: καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν) was originally missing, and that it was inserted by the Lukan redaction. Apart from its wording (δοξάζων τὸν Θεόν) being a Lukan reference, this reaction clashes with that of the crowd (Luke 18,43c), and such a two-fold reaction is exceptionally unusual. Regarding the question about the editorial direction, the compositional characteristics distinctly indicate *Ev-priority. The reverse case would need to assume that *Ev had meticulously removed the compositional framework, and that he literarily marred a coherently structured text. The argument for *Ev-priority, therefore, follows Burnett Streeter's refutation of Lukan dependency on Matthew in view of the Sermon on the Mount: “A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank”.
The first is the compositional agreements between both accounts of the healing of a blind man (Makr 8,22-26 and 10,46-52). They constitute a framework around the large passage regarding Jesus' 'path' with the disciples (Mark 8,27-10,45) and thereby provide essential insights into the overall understanding. At the end of the 'path' (in Jericho as the last station before Jerusalem), the healed Bartimaeus follows on Jesus's 'path', even though it then leads only on a comparably short distance to Jerusalem. Both the healing from blindness of Bartimaeus and his discipleship (10,52: ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ) are understood symbolically and associatively. Bartimaeus recognizes the necessity for the preparedness to suffer (narratively displayed for the reader in previous passages), and he follows on Jesus' path to his Passion. The intentionality of these symbolic connotations results from the narrative aboutment of this account: the healing of the blind man in Bethsaida (Mark 8,22-26). His blindness is symbolically connoted and associated with his (insufficient) understanding, as shown through the close correspondence with the curing of a deaf man (Mark 7,31-36) as well as through the 'deafness' and 'blindness' designating the disciples' incomprenhension.
Both of these healings of the blind confirm the carefully designed literary conception of the entire unit. While Jesus sends the healed man of Bethsaida back home again (Mark 8,26: καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ), the healed Bartimaeus follows on Jesus' path to his Passion (Mark 10,52). For readers, the removal of Bartimaeus's blindness embodies his insight on a level that goes beyond the eyesight of the healed man in Mark 8,26.
The difference between both healings from 'blindness' is being narratively displayed. The first healing of the blind man in Bethsaida progresses gradually. Since the visual capacity after Jesus first lays on his hands improves only marginally (8,24), Jesus has to lay on his hands again (8,25 πάλιν). Bartimaeus, however, can see 'immediately' (10,52 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν). Perhaps the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida can be understood as coming from the outside, by laying on hands as magic practice, whereas the restoration of eyesight with Bartimaeus is facilitated by his faith (10,52: ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε). This links him not only to the 'woman suffering from hemorrhages' (Mark 5,34) but above al to the Syrophoenician woman whose theological insight leads to the healing of her daughter. The real reason for the sudden and complete recovery from blindnees of Bartimaeus - enabling him now to follow Jesus - lies neverthless in comprehending everything Mark had elucidated through the narrative and spoken material located between the two accounts of healing: whoever surrenders and is prepared to also surrender his life will attain life.
These very obvious and purposeful compositional signals within the framework of the Markan travel narrative gain significance in tradition history by their comparison with *Ev. The first Markan healing of the blind man (Mark 8,22-26) has no agreement either in Matthew and Luke or in *Ev. The second healing of the blind man (Mark 10,46-52), however, has a counterpart in *18,35-43. For this Marcionite version of the healing of the blind man, it can be made probable that the notice of his discipleship (verse 43: καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν) was originally missing, and that it was inserted by the Lukan redaction. Apart from its wording (δοξάζων τὸν Θεόν) being a Lukan reference, this reaction clashes with that of the crowd (Luke 18,43c), and such a two-fold reaction is exceptionally unusual. Regarding the question about the editorial direction, the compositional characteristics distinctly indicate *Ev-priority. The reverse case would need to assume that *Ev had meticulously removed the compositional framework, and that he literarily marred a coherently structured text. The argument for *Ev-priority, therefore, follows Burnett Streeter's refutation of Lukan dependency on Matthew in view of the Sermon on the Mount: “A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank”.
(Matthias Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 204-205)
