Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Stuart »

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.
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?
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.
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?

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.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:08 amFor 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.
I do not always understand how you are using your terms. I would classify "using a source and changing the voice" as an instance of an "editorial rewrite," but you seem to be employing these phrases as mutually exclusive opposites or the like. What is the difference, in your usage, between an "editorial rewrite" and "using a source" and making changes to it?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Stuart »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:29 pm
Stuart wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:08 amFor 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.
I do not always understand how you are using your terms. I would classify "using a source and changing the voice" as an instance of an "editorial rewrite," but you seem to be employing these phrases as mutually exclusive opposites or the like. What is the difference, in your usage, between an "editorial rewrite" and "using a source" and making changes to it?
Editorial in the sense that Mark is not making wholesale theological changes. He leaves a very light footprint. So I mean editorial in the "op-ed" sense.

The changes are more for presentation. In my model Mark conflates two sources, so has to change voice of passages he uses from one source to fit the other. Grammar suffers.

John's changes are from a 2nd writer. The source is the very gospel we have, he is making additions. In this case the changes are "op-ed".
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Grammar suffers.
Just curious, why would that be the case under a combination of sources hypothesis and yet not under other composition hypotheses?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:22 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:29 pm
Stuart wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:08 amFor 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.
I do not always understand how you are using your terms. I would classify "using a source and changing the voice" as an instance of an "editorial rewrite," but you seem to be employing these phrases as mutually exclusive opposites or the like. What is the difference, in your usage, between an "editorial rewrite" and "using a source" and making changes to it?
Editorial in the sense that Mark is not making wholesale theological changes. He leaves a very light footprint. So I mean editorial in the "op-ed" sense.
Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Steven Avery »

How can Mark 3:17 mention the “sons of thunder” without knowing Luke 9:52-56 ?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10572
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Stuart »

Steven Avery wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:38 am How can Mark 3:17 mention the “sons of thunder” without knowing Luke 9:52-56 ?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10572
I would caution against this conclusion. Or rather, against this conclusion beyond the authorship of the apostle list in verse 3:16-19. The naming of the twelve is unstable. It is located in different places in each of the three synoptic gospels and missing altogether in the fourth gospel. Mark places his calling of the twelve after the healing of the man with the withered hands then the healing multitudes and the accusations and before the accusations against Jesus, but Matthew has nothing between these passages. A similar analysis of Luke and John reveal their insertion as well,

And that it is missing in John is telling, as that gospel has contact with (at least) two forms of the synoptic gospel in even its pre-Catholic form. I argue the Marcionite form of Luke (e.g., Lazarus character) and also Matthew, which is countered theological point after point very directly. You can argue a different set, but clearly there was deep knowledge and contact. And yet the naming of apostles is missing, and his choice of names for disciples, where there are names, and how they are acquired is very different from the synoptics. Why?

I suggest that we may be looking at a later Catholic layer with the names. The original may have simply been similar to what we see in Mark 3:13-15. What Mark and the others have for the names, could well have been placed in later, by editors with knowledge of the other gospels.
Post Reply