Again, we agree --- on the problem and pitfalls of interpretations, and yes, especially on your last sentence. That in fact was Kermode's fourth option.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:37 amI think we're looking at the problem from very different perspectives. In Germany, literary criticism was the dominant approach to these texts for over a century. I know of treatises that break down three or four verses of GMark into just as many redactional layers of text, examine their "Sitz im Leben" and boldly locate the origin of these layers in Jerusalem, Galilee, Rome, etc. Above all, I'm tired of the fact that these scholars examined individual verses, emphasizing their enormous unusualness, but never came to the conclusion that, despite the many unusual verses, such unusualness is not the exception but the rule in GMark. Not a word about the fact that some texts of the Hebrew Bible show exactly the same characteristics.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:26 pm on the other hand there are arguments against -- and I don't think those have been addressed directly yet, only bypassed in favour of alternative arguments.
What is the difference between the young man and the woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14:3? The unnamed woman is the acting person in a single verse, appearing out of nowhere and disappearing again. The rest of the pericope is just a discussion between Jesus and the opponents. What about Jesus in Mark 1:9? I understand that the way the young man appears in the story and is briefly portrayed is extremely unusual and even strange. But if in a story many characters appear in this way, then the reader should be prepared for the fact that this is the way it is in this story.
But that does not remove or address the actual points raised for possible interpolation. There is a difference between the woman who anoints Jesus' feet and the rich man appearing etc -- all one-offs, yes, popping in and out of the story. But the meanings of those fly-in fly-out characters is fairly easy to discern as part of the main message and characterization of Jesus and within the larger plot of the gospel.
The questions arising about this particular youth are not the routine form critical questions but are more widely recognized as legitimate quite apart from that sort of textual analysis.
I really don't know how we can know that it is authentic. I remain willing to accept it either way, and to allow for interpretations that are prepared to accept either case.