Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Giuseppe »


Jesus’s interaction with the Syrophoenician woman, therefore, reinforces the Jew/nations boundary. The scene may, perhaps, hint at openness to the nations, for Jesus notes that the children must be fed first (πρῶτον), leaving open a possible later gentile mission depicted as feeding dogs.[121] However, this also should not be over-interpreted, for nothing in the imagery suggests the dogs are transformed into children, or that they receive any sort of food typical of children rather than dogs. In fact, the emphasis on the priority of children eating implies nothing transformative about any expected food for the dogs, but rather assumes a typical, ordered hierarchy between the children and their dogs in or around a family home. Therefore, Jesus’s healing of the Syrophoenician woman should not be seen as a watershed moment in Mark’s narrative as Jesus turns toward the nations, but rather as it is depicted in the narrative: an unwanted interruption that surprises Jesus, but results in dogs remaining dogs and eating dog food, and children remaining children and eating their food first

(THE GOSPEL OF MARK WITHIN JUDAISM, READING THE SECOND GOSPEL IN ITS ETHNIC LANDSCAPE, by JOHN R . VAN MAAREN, B.A., p. 256)

Note 121 reads

In this sense, Mark would agree with Matthew, who presents Jesus’s message as directed to Israel during Jesus’s life (Matt 10:5–6), but to the nations after his resurrection (28:19).

(my bold)

Now it becomes clear why even Mark is against Marcion.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Ken Olson »

How do you know it wasn't the other way around, that Jesus was held to have preached first to Jews in Judea, and only later to Gentiles, as our New Testament sources tell us, and then Marcion reacted against that belief?

Your argument (to use the term generously) would seem to be circular. You are presupposing that Marcion was earlier than Mark and therefore Mark was reacting against Marcion. This appears to be an argument aimed at people who already accept your belief that Marcion was earlier than Mark, not one for people who need to convinced of that conclusion and want to see evidence for it.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Stuart »

It's a chicken and egg question.

I think it's entirely secondary. At some stage after Christians in significant numbers existed in Greek communities, a question arose about how Jewish Christianity should be. One faction held that there should be no ties, the LXX (the OT) jettisoned and left to the Jews themselves (the Marcionites certainly held that view), while another faction held that the religion was Jewish, and that it should be preached to the Jews first, and all the Jewish Laws upheld (Matthew certainly reads that way). Both factions sought to read those goals back into the history of Jesus' evangelism and his message. And you can find both in the scriptures, even though the final compromise outcome tilts toward the Jewish connection (we have an OT in our bible and we are taught to find Jesus predicted within that), there are elements of both in the final product.

I think it's a mistake to assume one or the other. Rather both are polemic positions of competing factions.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:42 pm This appears to be an argument aimed at people who already accept that your belief that Marcion was earlier than Mark, not one for people who need to convinced of that conclusion and want to see evidence for it.
precisely. Klinghardt has proved that Mcn precedes Mark without making (deliberately) not even a single reference to a theological argument. So, given what Klinghardt has already proved, my goal here is to find a theological reason behind Mark's digression about Jesus visiting the Phoenicia (precisely the same task Klinghardt himself will reserve for a next book).

After this thread, I think that I can imagine more easily what will be, at least partially, the future Klinghardt's arguments about the Mark's anti-marcionite theological agenda.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:55 pm I think it's a mistake to assume one or the other. Rather both are polemic positions of competing factions.
I agree perfectly.

A question that may be addressed to Stuart in this thread is: given this telling Mark's passage, are you still of the opinion that in Mark there is not a clear defined theology?

My partial disappointment with Stuart's view, born in me after the reading of Klinghardt's book, is that Stuart sees Mark as a mere synthesis of previous gospels, and not as an elaborate construction by a genial editor of Mcn.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:42 pm Your argument (to use the term generously) would seem to be circular. You are presupposing that Marcion was earlier than Mark and therefore Mark was reacting against Marcion. This appears to be an argument aimed at people who already accept that your belief that Marcion was earlier than Mark, not one for people who need to convinced of that conclusion and want to see evidence for it.
I am working my way through Klinghardt, and I am also sometimes struggling to find the thread of the argument. After convincingly establishing that *Ev preceded the Gospel of Luke, at the outset of the discussion of *Ev and Mark, he says (p. 199):
For determining the editorial direction between *Ev and Mark, *Ev-priority over Mark is presupposed as working hypothesis for the subsequent examinations. If *Ev was broadly disseminated (Vetus Latina; Vetus Syra) prior to establishing the canonical edition (as suggested by text-historical observations), the assumption that Mark represents the first redaction of the allegedly oldest Gospel is plausible. Assuming *Ev-priority over Mark, the differences between the texts must be examined as being the likely result of the Markan redaction of *Ev.
Saying "*Ev-priority over Mark is presupposed," "the assumption that Mark represents the first redaction," and "Assuming *Ev-priority over Mark" is a rocky way to start an examination of which came first. And indeed the reader must work to separate arguments for plausibility (which can go either way) from actual arguments for the direction of the dependence.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Giuseppe »

The Klinghardt's (not-theological) argument, from what I have learned, is the following:
  • a pattern can be identified whenever Mark diverges from Mcn: Mark's solution is more elegant and elaborate and sophisticated than Mcn's.
  • assuming Mark's priority, the conclusion is only one: was Mcn too much stupid to not see that he was deforming/breaking a so elegant previous solution?
  • assuming Mcn's priority, the conclusion is only one: Mark was improving and perfecting Mcn.
A possible objection is: if someone who changes Mark is by definition a stupid person (it would be similar to someone who claims "to correct" the Gioconda) , then why did Matthew and Luke change Mark?

The answer is that the objection doesn't work: Matthew and Luke were not stupid people. They were harmonizing Mark with Mcn, hence they had to seem stupid people.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:51 pm I am working my way through Klinghardt, and I am also sometimes struggling to find the thread of the argument. After convincingly establishing that *Ev preceded the Gospel of Luke, at the outset of the discussion of *Ev and Mark, he says (p. 199):
Peter,

You found Klinghardt's argument that the Evangelion preceded canonical Luke convincing? Now I'm really curious. I haven't been able to get hold of the book (it's not in libraries in my area yet, and I'm not willing to pay $200+ dollars for it), so I may not have any more to say on the topic until I've seen the K's argument. Could you recap the argument, or is it the sort of thing you have to read the first 199 pages to grasp?

Thanks,

Ken
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:39 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:51 pm I am working my way through Klinghardt, and I am also sometimes struggling to find the thread of the argument. After convincingly establishing that *Ev preceded the Gospel of Luke, at the outset of the discussion of *Ev and Mark, he says (p. 199):
Peter,

You found Klinghardt's argument that the Evangelion preceded canonical Luke convincing? Now I'm really curious. I haven't been able to get hold of the book (it's not in libraries in my area yet, and I'm not willing to pay $200+ dollars for it), so I may not have any more to say on the topic until I've seen the K's argument. Could you recap the argument, or is it the sort of thing you have to read the first 199 pages to grasp?
I may be able to recap the argument at some point.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dogs remain dogs (in Mark)

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:50 am I may be able to recap the argument at some point.
Peter,

Thanks; yes, I know that was an awfully big request.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply