Sinouhe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:40 am
But I would like to add that Jesus is not only the suffering servant.
The suffering is only one characteristic of Isaiah’s servant.
Jesus is the full embodiment of that servant.
I don't know why scholars focus primarily on the suffering of the servant and leave out the rest.
Isaiah’s servant is the principal source for the messianic characters in the Intertestamental literature.
I've never thought about it but you're right. The shortening of this figure to a suffering servant is a good example of following popular catchphrases without paying attention to the exact content.
However, I think there are some things in making a Markan fake that are easier to accomplish and some that are harder to decide and create. It seems best to me to start with a rough definition of form, length and some abstract content.
Below are some quotes from our own Ulan, Roger Parvus and two scholars that revolve around and attempt to explain a Markan specificity. Controversial points need not be decided here. It only applies to reproduce the phenomenon that they are trying to explain. The fake pericope must be a typically Markan pericope and I think there are subtle literary differences even to Matthew and Luke.
Roger Parvus, A Simonian Origin for Christianity, Part 16: Mark as Allegory
This could also explain a puzzling feature of Mark: “the way it consists of a number of unrelated paragraphs set down one after another with very little organic connexion, almost like a series of snapshots placed side by side in a photograph album” (The Gospel of Saint Mark, by D.E. Nineham, p. 27). To account for this most scholars, including Nineham himself, have recourse to a tradition hypothesis. Mark, they surmise, was probably working with collections of traditional material about Jesus that consisted of essentially independent stories. But it seems to me that the disconnected character of Mark would be explained equally well by Volkmar’s allegorical hypothesis. In this scenario Mark’s primary focus was on Paul, not Jesus, so he had no interest in providing a connected and developed portrayal of Jesus. His focus was on constructing Jesus episodes whose value lay in the various ways they pointed to Paul.
K.L. Schmidt, The Framework of the Story of Jesus
On the whole, however, there is no life of Jesus in the sense of an unfolding life story, nor is there any chronological outline for the story of Jesus. There are only individual stories and pericopes that have been set into a framework.
Ulan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:10 am
There have been enough suggestions that gMark is basically a performance piece, due to all scenes being static and all movements being off-screen. In such a scenario, it's easy to imagine something like the Paul & Barnabas Show moving from town to town, performing the gospel up to the cliffhanger with the empty tomb and the not-telling women in the last scene. Then they may end with the invitation "If you want to know more, come tonight to the house of Timotheus" ...
Tim Geddert, Mark, Overview Mark 1:1-8:26
Mark’s gospel has often been described as action-packed. Jesus … seems always to be on the move. The dramatic action appears in many different scenes (synagogue, house, open space, boat trips, mountain retreats, and so on). Jesus is engaged in many kinds of activities (calling and training disciples, teaching, driving out demons, prayer, miracles of many kinds, conflict with enemies, and more). Often Jesus’ plans change quickly, as the crowds throng around him or his disciples misunderstand him. Some have compared Mark’s narrative technique to a slide show. A picture flashed on the screen is replaced with another, almost before the first can be studied ... The pace is quick.