I have no doubt that Mark was familiar with Leviticus 21, the locus of both high priest garment rending and blemish restrictions, and that Mark artfully mined that and other Jewish scripture for use in his story.
We seem to be drifting away from the OP concerns about a supposed violent disciple in GMark. If we are finished with that, then I'll just wander off.
Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
-
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
- Contact:
Re: Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
The Klinghardt's point is that the contrast
"swords and clubs" versus context's harmlessness
is fully in *Ev, while it is deliberately broken in Mark, since in Mark there is an episode of violence, beyond if by a Jesus's disciple or not.
This is a strong argument supporting Marcionite priority over Mark.
"swords and clubs" versus context's harmlessness
is fully in *Ev, while it is deliberately broken in Mark, since in Mark there is an episode of violence, beyond if by a Jesus's disciple or not.
This is a strong argument supporting Marcionite priority over Mark.
Re: Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
It has to be clear when an argument supporting Marcionite priority is strong:
- When there is apparently an addition by Mark in *Ev
- When a theological reason going against the simple Marcionite theology can be even only imagined behind a such addition by Mark.
-
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
- Contact:
Re: Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
Or equally, the violent incident in GMark is the motive for Jesus's remark.
The authorities have overestimated the degree of resistance Jesus's entourage will mount, if we put the best face possible on their commitment of lavish resources to the detail. Jesus is mocking them, perhaps unfairly (in the story world, Jesus and that same entourage managed to disrupt Temple operations, presumably under the noses of armed guards in broad daylight, and fled successfully).
The author might have omitted the mishap (at the possible expense of a Greek pun on Caiaphas's name, a name otherwise absent from the text), but doing so would change the quality of Jesus's mockery. If the arrest had gone smoothly, then the authorities' cautious planning would have been unambiguously vindicated. What is there to mock?
Jesus could still have made the prophetic-fulfillment remark. Although which prophecy isn't mentioned during the arrest, a reasonable candidate shows up in some manuscripts at the crucifixion, Isaiah 53:12, that he was counted among criminals. Nevertheless, giving Jesus an actual prompt to make such a remark is a reasonable aesthetic choice, IMO. Nobody in the audience is rooting for the big hats at that point in the performance.
That being the case, it is by no means "apparent" that Mark added anything to anybody else's written version of the incident.
The authorities have overestimated the degree of resistance Jesus's entourage will mount, if we put the best face possible on their commitment of lavish resources to the detail. Jesus is mocking them, perhaps unfairly (in the story world, Jesus and that same entourage managed to disrupt Temple operations, presumably under the noses of armed guards in broad daylight, and fled successfully).
The author might have omitted the mishap (at the possible expense of a Greek pun on Caiaphas's name, a name otherwise absent from the text), but doing so would change the quality of Jesus's mockery. If the arrest had gone smoothly, then the authorities' cautious planning would have been unambiguously vindicated. What is there to mock?
Jesus could still have made the prophetic-fulfillment remark. Although which prophecy isn't mentioned during the arrest, a reasonable candidate shows up in some manuscripts at the crucifixion, Isaiah 53:12, that he was counted among criminals. Nevertheless, giving Jesus an actual prompt to make such a remark is a reasonable aesthetic choice, IMO. Nobody in the audience is rooting for the big hats at that point in the performance.
That being the case, it is by no means "apparent" that Mark added anything to anybody else's written version of the incident.
Re: Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
even less apparent is the assumption that Marcion read Mark and removed the episode of violence in full knowledge of the his midrashical meaning (= that Jesus becomes the Jewish high priest as effect of the mutilation of the ear of the slave of the high ptiest).Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:41 am
That being the case, it is by no means "apparent" that Mark added anything to anybody else's written version of the incident.
-
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
- Contact:
Re: Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
In which case, if Mark adding to Marcion and Marcion subtracting from Mark are both implausible, then maybe neither author was working directly with the other's text. I've heard that some folks believe something along those lines.
Re: Why did Mark make useful 'swords and clubs'?
The episode of violence at Gethsemane and the episode of the high priest who rips his own garment are both found in Mark and both absent in Marcion.
Those two episodes give the same midrashical point: the high priest (who condemned Jesus) is unfit therefore Jesus is the perfect high priest.
Could a Greek from Sinope understand a such subtle midrashical point behind the two episodes and accordingly remove them? I doubt very much that he could. Too much experience in midrash from a Greek of Sinope is virtually impossible.
Vice versa, there are no doubts that "Mark" was expert in midrash.
Those two episodes give the same midrashical point: the high priest (who condemned Jesus) is unfit therefore Jesus is the perfect high priest.
Could a Greek from Sinope understand a such subtle midrashical point behind the two episodes and accordingly remove them? I doubt very much that he could. Too much experience in midrash from a Greek of Sinope is virtually impossible.
Vice versa, there are no doubts that "Mark" was expert in midrash.