Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the Baptist case is paradigmatic from this POV. My point, basically, is that Ben's theorem is built on the false/unproved premise that the readers HAVE to know necessarily the why, the how and the when of any episode. I don't think so. If Mark was disturbed by the real meaning of the arrest of John immediately after the baptism of Jesus, then he could very well invent an enigmatic arrest without having to explain it to his readers. Sometimes, it is better to (make) believe enigmatic absurd things than knowing a too much embarrassing reality, and this was the case for Mark.

[Giuseppe]

The difference with what Ben concludes is very minimal, really:

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

My view:

The author of the gospel of Mark was inventing for readers who already knew at least by hearsay certain parts of the story, to eclipse these same parts of the story and definitely replace them with the Mark's parts.

ADDENDA:

An example:

• I knew about a Jesus Son of Father who was imprisoned in Sheol.

• "Mark" says me that a robber named Barabbas was in a Roman prison.

Is "Mark" explaining me or is he deceiving me by inventing a totally new story ? Is he assuming really what I already assume or is he replacing gradually the my previous knowledge with the his inventions?

Does Ben contemplate this possibility?

[Giuseppe]

Or think about Alexander and Rufus.

If a reader knew that a Simon was the true victim on the cross, then Mark could have invented ex novo 2 named sons of Simon as potential witnesses that their father Simon was not the victim: only ask them via Mark.

Is this really a construction on what I knew in advance, or is it a way to remove the my previous disturbing knowledge with a new totally invented story?

[Giuseppe]

Another point of potential disagreement:

Ben writes;

The gospel of Mark uses the title "son of man" in a way which seems to expect its readers already to know what it means. Mark 2.10 and 2.28 may be using the phrase "son of man" to mean "human," which is one of its main functions as a Semitic idiom. But in Mark 8.31 it means something more, and this "something more," as a title for Jesus, is never really explained, leaving modern scholars to write entire monographs on the topic.

In context, the Son of Man appears especially in Jesus's prophecies of his coming death in the earthly Jerusalem.

If I was a reader of Mark who unfortunately knew only about an ascension of a Son of God to celestial Jerusalem, how does the Mark's insistence on the link "Son of Man"/"coming death in Jerusalem" represent a real information added in function of what I was already assuming, and not rather a way to eclipse deliberately my previous notions about an ascension to Jerusalem?

[TedM]

My point, basically, is that Ben's theorem is built on the false/unproved premise that the readers HAVE to know necessarily the why, the how and the when of any episode.

There is nothing in his theory that requires his readers know the why, how and when. Where in the world are you getting that? How does that apply to the arrest of John, for example? All that he implies here is the 'what' -- ie that John was 'delivered over'. Where is the evidence that he thought his readers knew when or why? His observation (not sure he considers it a theory at all) follows normal assumptions: he mentions characters without giving background that would be normally given when readers don't know anything about the person being mentioned. That's what someone normally does when writing about someone he thinks the readers should know something about already. It is not normally done if an author is making up the character. This isn't science, but it is working with likelihoods and relies on normal practices.

If Mark was disturbed by the real meaning of the arrest of John immediately after the baptism of Jesus then he could very well invent an enigmatic arrest without having to explain it to his readers Sometimes, it is better to (make) believe enigmatic absurd things than knowing a too much embarrassing reality, and this was the case for Mark.

You seem to be admitting that Mark was talking about a historical John, but your point is that instead of referencing something that his readers knew about John he could have been referencing something that only he knew but was embarrassed about, and that is why he didn't specifically give details explaining what he meant by 'delivered over'. Is this what you are saying?

IF so, then you aren't denying the historicity of the arrest at all. And you are being agnostic as to whether the readers knew anything about it at all. Right?

Even if he was embarrassed about it, he wasn't writing for himself, was he? He still was referencing something --embarrassing or not -- as though his readers already knew about it, so I believe your argument is deficient.

[Giuseppe]

That's what someone normally does when writing about someone he thinks the readers should know something about already. It is not normally done if an author is making up the character. This isn't science, but it is working with likelihoods and relies on normal practices.

my point is not that Mark invented ex nihilo the character of John the Baptist. My point is that Mark invented ex nihilo the single episode "after that John was arrested" deliberately, without giving an explanation for John being arrested. His goal was to eclipse, by his invented arrest of John, a previous hearsay about an "arrest" of John, only, one happened in Sheol:

• Before Mark, the people knew about John being punished by his eternal presence in Sheol, for having he rejected the message of a Son of God being descended in Sheol and ascended from it;

• After Mark, the people knew about John being arrested without apparently a reason, without not even knowing by who (the Herod banquet being possibly a tardive "explanation"), on earth, after Jesus left the wilderness.

You seem to be admitting that Mark was talking about a historical John, but your point is that instead of referencing something that his readers knew about John he could have been referencing something that only he knew but was embarrassed about, and that is why he didn't specifically give details explaining what he meant by 'delivered over'. Is this what you are saying?

IF so, then you aren't denying the historicity of the arrest at all.

my point is that Mark built partially on the readers's knowledge of an "arrest of John the Baptist", only trasposing the episode on the earth.

Basically, TedM, assume that I am a reader of Mark. I know, before reading Mark, in advance this story about John the Baptist:

“In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth—that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom.”
But the serpent which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says, knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe His announcement: and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.

(Irenaeus, From Book I, chap. 27,Against Heresies)

...and this:

19. Death was struck with dismay on beholding a new visitant descend into Hades, not bound by the chains of that place. Why, O porters of Hades, were you scared at sight of Him? What was the unwonted fear that possessed you? Death fled, and his flight betrayed his cowardice. The holy prophets ran unto Him, and Moses the Lawgiver, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; David also, and Samuel, and Esaias, and John the Baptist, who bore witness when he asked, Are You He that should come, or look we for another Matthew 11:3? All the Just were ransomed, whom death had swallowed; for it behooved the King whom they had proclaimed, to become the redeemer of His noble heralds. Then each of the Just said, O death, where is your victory? O grave, where is your sting ? For the Conqueror has redeemed us.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310114.htm

Mark enters and makes me read his phrase:

"After that John was put in prison"...

While before I knew that the arrest of John was his being abandoned forever in Sheol since he, with all the OT prophets, rejected Jesus in Sheol because they didn't recognize him as their Messiah...

...now, after the reading of Mark, I know that the arrest of John is something of enigmatic that happened strangely on earth, without reason, only after Jesus abandoned the wilderness.

If I had asked to Mark:

Mark, but I knew about an arrest of John in Sheol

Mark would have answered:

What are you saying? Read my gospel, please. There you can know something about John's arrest. Ignore all the rest.

Basically, playing on the similarity of episodes - a punition, Jesus who has just abandoned a place - Mark replaced a punition of John after that Jesus abandoned the Sheol with the punition of John after that Jesus abandoned the wilderness.

[TedM]

You are suggesting that Mark referred to something that the readers already knew (John was arrested) but it was really a slight of hand because he later explained that the arrest wasn't in hell at all, but was by Herod -- something the readers knew nothing about? Why be so evasive? Who would be fooled by that?

There is nothing to suggest that Mark was aware of this heretical interpretation of John's 'arrest'. And there is nothing to suggest that Mark's readers didn't know exactly what Mark was talking about in his reference to the arrest. This is all a product of your mind. Possible, but with no support at all, and not the most straightforward way to interpret the reference by Mark.

[Giuseppe]

You are suggesting that Mark referred to something that the readers already knew (John was arrested) but it was really a slight of hand because he later explained that the arrest wasn't in hell at all, but was by Herod -- something the readers knew nothing about? Why be so evasive? Who would be fooled by that?

There is nothing to suggest that Mark was aware of this heretical interpretation of John's 'arrest'. And there is nothing to suggest that Mark's readers didn't know exactly what Mark was talking about in his reference to the arrest. This is all a product of your mind. Possible, but with no support at all, and not the most straightforward way to interpret the reference by Mark.

My point in this thread (since I think that I am correct for all the rest: probably you can't see it because I have not listed all the other parallelisms) is that the enigmatic arrest of John in Mark is deliberate in the his being enigmatic (= without mention of the why John was arrested and by who). Only in this way Mark could elude the attention of his readers, eclipsing the previous meaning of an arrest in Sheol with an arrest on earth. In this way the hearsay Mark-based about an earthly arrest was merged with the previous "heretical" hearsay about a mythical arrest in Sheol. At the end, the historicist hearsay wins.

Ben thinks that the arrest in Mark was not really enigmatic in the eyes of the original readers since these same readers knew to fulfill the missing details by their previous knowledge of the presumed reasons (beyond if real or not) John was arrested and by who. Knowledge that, in the Ben's logic, would have required at least a Gospel, or a legend, or a tradition, preceding GMark.

Giuseppe thinks that the arrest in Mark was deliberately made enigmatic (the readers didn't know why and by who John was arrested) for the reasons explained above, basically, for a Mark's conspiracy designed to eclipse a previous myth (where the real reasons of the John's arrest, in addition to be there, were disturbing for Mark). Hence my scenario also assumes a Gospel preceding Mark, but that Gospel talked about events in Sheol (the arrest of John is one of them) and partially on earth (the preaching of the risen Jesus on earth).

TedM can disagree, but my point here is to make the reader understand the difference betwen Ben's view and Giuseppe's view about the nature of the enigmatic arrest of John. I hope that I have explained enough well the precise difference.

[Maestroh]

Rather the trollish accusation.

You're confusing me with you.

Ben Smith is quite capable of speaking up if he objects to my presentation of the evidences, coming from a full Bible believer position, including the authenticity of the traditional ending of Mark.

A position rejected even by the majority of Bible believers.

Clearly I appreciate the pioneering work of Ben on many of these evidences.

It's funny how mealy mouthed you get around skeptics you know will body slam you into the next millennium and pretend as if you're actually here to do anything other than regurgitate nonsense from your own little Sturgeon's law nightmare at "Pure Bible."

[Maestroh]

Should we not add the lack of a Jesus origin story, including genealogy, as an additional Markan reader's presumption element.
If we stick with actual extant writings, this would make Luke and/or Matthew circulating before Mark

No. Those elements depend upon the kind of story being told; their absence does not imply previous knowledge on the part of the reader.

The position for Mark presuming knowledge of the origin of Jesus looks quite strong.

There are literally dozens of ancient biographical or semibiographical treatments of people which lack accounts of the person's birth, childhood, or origin. This is a dead end, and one which I will not be debating because it is old ground. Thanks.

True, but you're dealing with a KJV Only fundie clown who can't read any firsthand works on his own.