The purpose of this Thread is to:
Identify
Develop
Inventory
"Mark's" uses of Literary Technique.
In my opinion, the following levels of Belief have the following opinions regarding "Mark's" level of Literary Technique:
Fundamentalist = Simple fisherman's story
Conservative = Primarily simple fisherman's story
Traditional = Mixture of simple fisherman's story and Literary Technique
Liberal = Primarily Literary Technique
Skeptic = Literary Technique
Thus, based on my opinion, the conclusion regarding the extent of Literary Technique in "Mark" is based primarily on level of religious belief and not on evidence. So, instead of simply using my opinion, let's look at the evidence.
The best summary I've seen as to identifying possible Markan Literary Techniques is here:
The Gospel according to Mark:
Literary Features & Thematic Emphases
Quite a list, but they need to be demonstrated (to a Skeptic's satisfaction). In my opinion the most famous Markan Literary Technique is Intercalation, also known as "sandwich". The best existing explanation/example I see of Markan Intercalation is from the late (of BCH) Ben Smith:
Intercalations in the synoptic tradition
An intercalation is a literary device whereby two pericopes, or narrative units, are combined by splitting one apart and inserting the other between the parts. Quite a few intercalations may be found in our canonical gospels, especially in the synoptic three.
But pericope manipulation is only half the picture. There is nearly always a broader point at stake, something fundamental to the purposes for writing the gospel in the first place. Usually this point is fairly obvious, perhaps not on a first reading, but upon a second or a third. I have found that the main point of the intercalation generally revolves around an interplay of past and future; one kind of thing is ending while another is just beginning.
The external pericope of any intercalation (the pericope that has been split apart) I label A1 for part 1 and A2 for part 2. The internal pericope or pericopes (that or those held between the two parts of the other) I label B. This distinctive structure has led many critics to call the intercalation a sandwich.
So, I think Intercalation/Sandwich has been demonstrated here and than some as a Literary Technique of "Mark". The question is, does anyone here question Intercalation/Sandwich as a Literary Technique of "Mark"?The cursing of the fig tree and the temple incident.
Mark Events.
A1. 11.12-14 Between Bethany and Jerusalem Jesus finds a fig tree with no figs and curses it.
B. 11.15-18. Jesus enters the temple in Jerusalem and wreaks havoc with the buyers and sellers.
A2. 11.19-24. Jesus and his disciples pass by the fig tree again and notice that it has withered up.
These pericopes combine powerfully to render the temple complex in Jerusalem obsolete. What we often call the cleansing of the temple is probably more of a symbolic destruction of the temple. Jesus is not purifying the temple of superfluous traders; he is temporarily halting basic temple procedures. Just as the fig tree is no longer useful, so too the temple has finally outlived its usefulness.
The past in this intercalation is the temple and associated rites and rituals. The future is the community of faith which with a word can cast a mountain (the temple mount?) into the sea.
This intercalation is present only in Mark, since Matthew combines A1 with A2 after B and Luke eliminates A altogether (though in 13.6-9 he has a parable about a fruitless fig tree that Matthew and Mark lack).
As an Excurses I'll mention that the extent of Literary Technique in "Mark" has relevance in a number of biblical scholarship/polemics issues. One that is dear to me is the issue of genre. A defining characteristic of Greek Tragedy is use of Literary Technique and for Greco-Roman Bio, lack of it. Sadly, the criterion of extent of Literary Technique is not generally used by Christian Bible scholars to determine genre. Quite a tragedy. The extent of Literay Technique also has significance to the MJ/AJ/HJ debate. An important part of the HJ position is that the Gospel narrative starts out simple and than gets embellished. The extant Gospels though provide evidence to the contrary regarding Literary Technique. "Mark", the first, has the most Literary Technique, while subsequent Gospels reduce the amount, thus moving evidence from genre from Greek Tragedy towards Greco-Roman Bio. That being said, the purpose of this Excursus is not to debate this excursus, it is only to indicate why I think the purpose of this Thread:
Identify
Develop
Inventory
"Mark's" uses of Literary Technique is important.
The Word.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki