To this I'd say yes, but with reservations. It seems to me to be a case of breaking the "fourth wall" for a select portion of the audience, when the story is read. So why? And who is the select audience in the know?Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm To summarize, I think that the author of the gospel of Mark was writing for readers who already knew at least certain parts of the story.
Could not agree more. But this does not ask the obvious follow up questions, why or how is the story well known, and where did it come from?Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:16 pm Nice OP.
Could debate individual points, but taken together it is a good set of reasons for thinking "a" story here existed already.
I'll answer Ben's unasked question first, then Peter's unasked questions.
The audience (as I tend to assume the gospels were introduced during a period of rapid and disorganized evangelism) to whom the fourth wall was broken, and who made up the peanut gallery of people who might raise objections, was likely the ecclesiastical class. This includes the readers. This is because these books were not yet available as "home versions" , rather initially existed as scrolls or bound papyri only in small copies in church compounds. So only those very frequently in the compound (monks, nuns, priests, maybe some elders) would make up the likely audience to whom one is breaking the fourth wall -- at least initially.
This select ecclesiastical audience also gives us a possible source of such verses. They may have come from marginal notes. Something the reader would add. Note John 1:15 could also fall into this category -- although it's not the arrest--, as referring to something which has not yet happened; this verse can easily be removed from the prologue, most translations already set it in parenthesis as an obvious intrusion.
Marginal notes possibility brings me to Peter's observation that a story was already known. The implication is not so much that it is known to the audience, as we are talking about the evangelical era of rapid growth in membership, but rather a known source.
To this I think we are looking at two different drivers for these looking back at future events verses, although they may indicate a similar stage in the development of gospels. In the case of John's gospel we are possibly looking at the 2nd edition, where a Catholic editor is aligning John more with the Synoptic story lines. There are many obvious redactional seams in the 4th gospel, including the 21st chapter, the second visit of Jesus for Thomas' benefit, and on and on, which scream to us there is a significant rewrite going on (almost entirely addition of material, as is the norm).
For Mark there is no clear editorial rewrite (contra Robert Price, who seems to see seams in every grammatical mistake ... "seems to see seams' ... say that three times fast). Rather with Theissen's assessment of 6:14 and 8:28, Mark is using a source and changing the voice, leading to grammatical errors. So for Mark the writing process is from source, which is known to both himself and the ecclesiastical community. For John it is an editorial addition.
But what it does tell me, is that both were written after the initial stage of gospels being in wide circulation (that is available in many churches). So they both add editorial commentary. That John gives more details tells me it's probably later, as legends build detail over time. (Anyone who is a Trekkie, Whovian, Harry Potter or Star Wars fan knows the back story is filled out more and more every iteration; it's a natural human tendency.)
Anyway that is the direction I'd investigate.