"Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboanerges

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboanerges

Post by JoeWallack »

Is "Mark" a Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboanerges? An Inventory of Markan Literary Technique.

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.
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).
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"?

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
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The next best example of Literary Technique I see in "Mark" is Chiastic structure
Chiastic structure (also called chiastic pattern or ring structure) is a literary device[1] for chiasmus applied to narrative motifs, turns of phrase, or whole passages. Various structures of chiasmus are commonly seen in ancient literature to emphasize, parallel, or contrast concepts or ideas. Examples of chiastic structures are the A,B,C...C,B,A pattern and the ABBAABBA…ABBA pattern. Chiastic structures are sometimes called palistrophes,[2] chiasms, symmetric structures, ring structures, or concentric structures.

These often symmetrical patterns are commonly found in ancient literature such as the epic poetry of Odyssey and Iliad. Various chiastic structures are also seen in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, where biblical writers used chiasmus to give meaning to their writings or to highlight details of particular importance.
The Legendary Vorkosigan tries to tame "Mark's" chiasms with ruled, orderly structure here:

Chiastic Structures*

demonstrating that in the big picture "Mark" does appear to use Chiasms.

Ben Smith though righteously demonstrates that "Mark's" apparent chiasms are inexact:

Michael Turton on Marcan chiasms
I would like to call attention to an intriguing project on Marcan literary structure undertaken by Michael Turton, known on some discussion boards as Vorkosigan. His Historical Commentary on Mark, which in my judgment would be better named as a literary commentary on Mark, puts forward the view that Mark wrote each pericope in his gospel as a chiasm.

The word chiasm itself derives from the shape of the Greek letter Χ (chi); it is used in genetics and anatomy to describe a true intersection as implied in that shape, but in literature to describe a passage whose structural elements proceed from the beginning of the passage to its center, then double back on themselves from the center to the end.

A1 [Jesus] saw his mother-in-law lying down....
...B1 ...with a fever.
......C And he touched her hand....
...B2 ...and the fever left her....
A2 ...and she rose up and ministered to them.
JW:
Vorkosigan's problem (and Smith's) is that what "Mark" is primarily interested in and illustrating in these pericopes is REVERSAL. Placing the reversals in exactly offsetting positions is secondary. Whatever is being reversed is consistently close to being properly positioned in a chiasm but often not exactly (many times it is merely on the wrong side of a phrase or one verse away. Thus:

Mark 16:1-8
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. [The girls come looking for Jesus]

...Mark 16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen. [The girls come to the tomb]

......Mark 16:3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?

......Mark 16:4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.[The stone is not where it's supposed to be]

.........Mark 16:5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.["Mark's" creamy center of desert (so to speak), Reversed Expectation. The girls are looking for and do find a young man in The Tomb. It's just not the one they thought they were going to find]

......Mark 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

......Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.[Jesus is not where he should be]

...Mark 16:8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: [The girls leave the tomb]

and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. [The girls leave not looking for Jesus]
By the Way, Ben Smith's sight is excellent (homilied by years at BCH) and should be added to the recommended sites here. Also note that the chiasm of 16:1-8 is further evidence of 16:8 as original ending as I invite Ben Smith to try and make a chiasm out of 16:1-20.

Word.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:The purpose of this Thread is to:
Identify
Develop
Inventory
"Mark's" uses of Literary Technique.
.........
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.
Is that a sandwich? I am not sure if this question has been discussed before somewhere. Usually, the verses are not counted among the Markan sandwiches.

Mark 11:27-35 The Authority of Jesus Challenged - "And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him, ..."
---- Mark 12:1-12 - The Parable of the Tenants
Mark 12:13-17 Paying Taxes to Caesar: "And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, ..."
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by Tenorikuma »

Since I was just recently studying the Beelzebul passage, I can share my observations that it is indeed a chiastic passage with reversal.

A1 — Jesus rejected by his own family (3:21)

B1 — Jesus accused of Beelzebul possession (3:22) + rebuttal (3:23-26)

C — Parable of plundering the strong man's house, the key to understanding Jesus' mission (3:27-28)

B2 — Jesus accused of spirit possession (3:30) + rebuttal (3:29) in reverse order

A2 — Jesus rejects his own family (3:31-35), reversal of A1

Though this passage can be interpreted as a narrative, each pericope is actually independent, linked mainly by the theme of demon possession (or accusation thereof).

Edit: Whoops, didn't realize I was participating in a zombie thread. :tombstone:
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by Clive »

But are not resurrections important? :-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by Clive »

If there are two levels, chiastic and intercalation (intercalcation?), are there others?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The traditional Christian description of GMark is that it is an unsophisticated listing of individual stories regarding Jesus that "Mark" (author) considered memorable and important. An important category of these individual stories is thought to be the Healing stories. Within the Healing category, specifically, many would consider "The Blind" stories either the most significant type of healing stories or one of the most significant:

Miracles of Jesus
Cures

The largest group of miracles mentioned in the New Testament involve cures. The Gospels give varying amounts of detail for each episode, sometimes Jesus cures simply by saying a few words, at other times employs material such as spit and mud. Generally they are referred to in the Synoptic Gospels but not in the Gospel of John.

The blind

The canonical Gospels describes four separate cases of Jesus healing the blind; a fifth case involves exorcism of a man blind and mute, is described in a later section.
I think most people, including Skeptics, would be surprised to learn that in the likely original Gospel narrative, GMark, there are only two blind stories. The following table illustrates the relative placement of these two stories in the overall construction of GMark:

Verse Theme/Commentary
8:22 And they come unto Bethsaida. And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him. The first blind story in GMark
8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. The first blind story is followed by the first Passion prediction story. Note the contrast here between the physical and figurative stories. In the opening physical story, literal sight is successfully achieved. In the following figurative story Peter does not accept ("see") what Jesus wants him to see (failure).
9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again. And now the second Passion prediction story. Note that there is one healing story in between but it is about raising one who appeared to be dead (understand dear Reader). And now, following Peter's "lead", none of the disciples accept/understand/"see" the Passion.
10:32-33 32 And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto him,

33 [saying], Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles:
The third and final Passion prediction, this time, the full Marky. No healing stories in between to get in the Way. Just teaching. And now the disciples are ignoring the Passion predictions.
10:46 And they come to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the way side. Following the third Passion prediction is the second and final blind story.

JW:
In summary, we have a nice Markan thematic sandwich. His only two uses of physically blind stories form the loaves on the outside and this success is contrasted with the fish mens' failure on the inside to spiritually "see" the Passion during the only invocations (3) of the Passion prediction in GMark. This observation is significant for a number of reasons, such as damning evidence for Markan priority as subsequent Gospeller wolves in sheeps' clothing have left bits and pieces of the Markan lamb's blind and passion stories here and there. Here though, it is evidence that "Mark" has a sophisticated, contrived structure.

Werner Kelber, in his classic Mark's Story of Jesus points out the same contrived structure. Sadly, while Kelber is invoked as a legendary authority in any other area of Christian study, this book is traditionally avoided by mainstream Christian Bible Scholarship like Donald Trump and the luncheon special at Taco Bell.

I would like to ask our resident Greebie scholar here Ben Smith, who ironically when he was faithful was skeptical of any contrivance on the part of "Mark" but now that he is less faithful, is less skeptical of such contrivance, what level of contrivance he sees in the above (not in me but in GMark).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:I would like to ask our resident Greebie scholar here Ben Smith... what level of contrivance he sees in the above (not in me but in GMark).
(What does Greebie mean?)

I definitely think the blindness pericopae are intended to point up the blindness of the disciples. And I think you are correct to point out that it is probably not a coincidence that they envelop the three passion predictions. It is an excellent point.
JoeWallack wrote:This observation is significant for a number of reasons, such as damning evidence for Markan priority as subsequent Gospeller wolves in sheeps' clothing have left bits and pieces of the Markan lamb's blind and passion stories here and there.
IMHO, the healings of these blind men are involved in another bit of evidence for Marcan priority over Matthew: http://textexcavation.com/miraclepattern.html. In a nutshell, every dominical miracle that Mark has Matthew also has, except two: an exorcism and the healing of a blind man. But... Matthew has doubled up the recipients of two other miracles: also an exorcism and the healing of a blind man. Since Matthew has miracles that Mark lacks, it would seem that Matthew had more motivation to do the doubling up than Mark would to extract the extra recipients out; Matthew thus takes away two miracle stories without losing a single miracle recipient from Mark.
JoeWallack wrote:...who ironically when he was faithful was skeptical of any contrivance on the part of "Mark" but now that he is less faithful, is less skeptical of such contrivance....
I think you are confusing the recognition of reasonably proposed Marcan literary techniques with the forcing of exaggerated, modernistic, or strained Marcan literary techniques. I generally stand in pretty much the same position as you take in the following observation:
JoeWallack wrote:Placing the reversals in exactly offsetting positions is secondary. Whatever is being reversed is consistently close to being properly positioned in a chiasm but often not exactly (many times it is merely on the wrong side of a phrase or one verse away.
Some of the literary techniques I have seen proposed are like this one: on to something, but expressed with more precision than the text warrants. But I have never shirked from assigning literary techniques to Mark, even in extenso.

Your observation concerning the blindness pericopae enveloping the passion predictions, however, seems straightforward and very likely to reflect Marcan compositional strategies. Well done.
JoeWallack wrote: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....
JoeWallack wrote:Ben Smith though righteously demonstrates that "Mark's" apparent chiasms are inexact....
JoeWallack wrote:By the Way, Ben Smith's sight is excellent (homilied by years at BCH) and should be added to the recommended sites here.
I am glad you resurrected this thread; it gives me a chance to see what you really think of me. :) Thanks, Joe.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed May 17, 2017 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by JoeWallack »

Parable
A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters.[1] A parable is a type of analogy.[2]
JW:
Mark 4
33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;

34 and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.
The author indicates in this pericope that parables are GMark's Jesus' form of communication. Note that the excerpt above is an editorial comment. Editorial comments by definition are for the audience of the author and not the audience of the character. This suggests that to some extent the intent of the parables by the author is for the reader. Combined with the implausibility that a historical teacher would have taught primarily by parables with his disciples consistently not understanding, even after attempts to clarify, goes beyond mere suggesting, to being literary criticism evidence that the parables settings were primarily intended to be figurative for the purpose of making broad conclusions rather than evidence of specific historical information.

With the above in mind let's look at an Intercalation in GMark consisting of multiple pericopes:

[td][url=http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_5]5:1-20[/url][/td] [td]The Jewrassic Pork Story[/td] [td][b][color=#0000FF]The man is not afraid of Jesus[/color][/b] but the demons are[/td] [td]Here we have the Gentile story[/td] [td][url=http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6]6:1-6[/url][/td] [td]A prophet without honor in his own country[/td] [td]Jesus can not heal because of a lack of faith on the part of the potential beneficiaries[/td] [td][b][color=#FF0000]On the other outside of the Intercalation those closest to Jesus such as his family lack faith the same as those closest to Jesus professionally, his disciples, at the other end of the Intercalation.[/color][/b][/td]
Verse Story Lesson Commentary
4:35-41 Jesus calms the sea The disciples fear because they lack faith This chain of stories immediately follows the parables explanation
5:21-24 The Ruler of the synagogue The Ruler has faith that Jesus will heal Here we have the upper class Jewish story. Also note the contrived names Gerasa/Jairus for recognition purposes
5:25-34 The woman with the issue of blood The woman has faith that all she needs to do is touch Jesus The heart of the Intercalation. The story makes explicit that it is the woman's faith that is the cause of the healing as opposed to Jesus' ability to heal. Jesus did not even know who or why he was touched. The low class Jewish story.
5:35-43 The second half of the Ruler of the synagogue story The healing is successful because of the faith of the father and not of the direct beneficiary Note the Intercalation around the heart with the complete pericopes on the outside.

JW:
The Intercalation works as follows:
  • 1) The Inside explains generally what the lesson is, the important relationship.

    2) Here that lesson is that it is the faith of the believer that is the cause of healing and not the ability of Jesus to heal.

    3) Note that the believers are generally unnamed because there is no historical intent to provide a historical witness to a historical healing.

    4) The Outside is intended to be general historical commentary on historical characters using the lesson from the Inside.

    5) Here the application of the lesson is that Jesus' disciples and family could not accept Jesus the way outsiders did because they lacked faith.


This of course is consistent with 16:8 as 16:8 shows Jesus' disciples and family never ended up accepting Jesus and the above explains why (they lacked faith).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: "Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboane

Post by Clive »

If we are looking at a superbly crafted tragedy, might its author be someone very famous?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Post Reply