Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:If we put the items you mention in the table (highlighted red and blue), the table looks like this. I guess the most relevant thing to be said in this context is that the same parents/children are being named and that the same reversal is still observed in the latter part of Mark. Not exactly a huge threat here as to whether the observation 'survives' as an interesting point to the Gospel of Mark, just as the reference in Mark 15:21 is itself interesting.

1.19 2.14 3.17 3.18

Conventional for children to be identified by their parents. James and John, sons of Zebedee Levi, son of Alphaeus James son of Zebedee, John brother of James (Boanerges) James, son of Alphaeus

Convention broken with parents identified by their children. Simon (of Cyrene), father of Alexander and Rufus Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses Mary, mother of Joses Mary, mother of James (the Less)

15.21 15.40 15.47 16.1

This has in its own way been noted in the OP.

Thanks for the table. Now get yer own wimp.

Joseph, an apostle of the following (not from men, neither through man, but through God the Father):

I've noted the above before and more. I point out with interest that in the Greek Tragedy structure of GMark, the classic Recognition Scene of GMark, the Transfiguration, separates the story from Teaching & Healing Ministry to Passion. During the Teaching & Healing Ministry names are presented in traditional form, son of so and so. During the Passion the names are presented in unorthodox fashion (reversed), "father/mother of so and so", for the supposed "followers" of Jesus during the Passion (interesting side reversal with "BarAbbas", "son of the father", during the Passion, presented as the opposite of Jesus). "son of so and so" represents the old Jewish way and "father/mother of so and so" represents the new Christian way.

"Mark" (author) is even so kind as to throw in a related Parable so that those who can see can hear with the in between story of David/Christ. In the Teaching & Healing Ministry Jesus is the son of David but in the Passion Jesus is the Lord of David.

I go beyond Kelber with the above but in his related explanation in his classic:

Mark's Story of Jesus

he points out in general the balanced structure of GMark. The water represents the "divide" between Jew and Gentile. Jesus' supposed trips are balanced between Jew and Gentile. As it relates to the above, Jesus' pericopes are also balanced between male and female. Think Paul. Note with interest that in the above chart there is one father of so and so and one mother of so and so. Just another reason to think that "Alexander and Rufus" is contrived (fiction):

• PK: Why Alexander and Rufus?
  
  Bluto: Why not.

As always I really should be charging you guys for this. Peter, sorry about the "wimp". Can you put in a little PayPal icon at the end of all my posts?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack wrote:I point out with interest that in the Greek Tragedy structure of GMark, the classic Recognition Scene of GMark, the Transfiguration, separates the story from Teaching & Healing Ministry to Passion. During the Teaching & Healing Ministry names are presented in traditional form, son of so and so. During the Passion the names are presented in unorthodox fashion (reversed), "father/mother of so and so", for the supposed "followers" of Jesus during the Passion....

What is the force of supposed followers here? If the transfiguration scene in Mark 9 is the dividing line, then why are the sons of Zebedee still identified in the traditional way in Mark 10.35? Are you saying that James and John are not supposed followers? Or what exactly?

"Mark" (author) is even so kind as to throw in a related Parable so that those who can see can hear with the in between story of David/Christ. In the Teaching & Healing Ministry Jesus is the son of David but in the Passion Jesus is the Lord of David.

That makes sense of a kind, but in what way, if any, does the whole son of David / Lord of David connect with what you are saying about the old son of so-and-so and the new parent of so-and-so stuff in Mark? Further still, since both fathers and mothers on the one hand and children on the other are part of the negated human relationships in Mark 10.29-30, how is parent of so-and-so supposed to be or sound or come across as part of the new?

I go beyond Kelber with the above but in his related explanation in his classic... he points out in general the balanced structure of GMark. The water represents the "divide" between Jew and Gentile. Jesus' supposed trips are balanced between Jew and Gentile. As it relates to the above, Jesus' pericopes are also balanced between male and female. Think Paul. Note with interest that in the above chart there is one father of so and so and one mother of so and so.

One mother alone against one father and four sons, though. Why not go the whole way and balance the sexes completely? Is that just too radical even for Mark?

(I ask these things in all seriousness. I want to know.)

Ben.

Ulan wrote:My use of "pesher" was more or less meant to summarize what you just said, recycling old scripture to apply to a new situation. The main situation here seems to be the destruction of the temple.

neilgodfrey wrote:Does that reading of the evidence have implications for the A and R question? Or does this belong in some other thread?

Sure it has. If nearly all of gMark is recycled from somewhere else, a literal meaning becomes a little less likely. Which doesn't mean you will find the real meaning. So if Simon (Jewish name) is the father of Alexander (Greek name) and Rufus (Roman name), you could of course think of something. Doesn't mean it's correct.

Apologies. My (limited) understanding of pesher was much narrower. I know I have much to learn about pesher.

Ben C. Smith wrote: I do not see why the community would have to be small; surely there are people who live in one city, however small or large, whom people living in another city would not personally know, even if all involved are of the same religious sect.

Why do you find it difficult to think of Mark as written for one circle of people in one area? Many things intended for local use eventually catch on elsewhere and spread, sometimes like wildfire. In Concerning His Own Books, Galen talks about how some of his books were meant only for people he knew, and were given out by request only, but eventually were copied and spread around to other places. Some of the new owners of these copied texts would even come up to him, asking him about variants between their copy and the copies owned by other people.

Ben.

Assuming Mark was written "for a community", the argument as I understand it is that Mark did not need to explain who A&R were because "everyone" knew them. Matthew left them out because "no-one knew them" in the "community" for which he was writing. Ditto Luke.

If Mark had been written for a "larger community/ies" one might expect some indication to explain who A&R were for the benefit of a mixed readership -- mindful of those less familiar with the names.

It is difficult to argue, I think, that A&R would have been known by everyone in Mark's (larger) community because of their reputation or role in the church -- because then it becomes harder to explain why Matthew and Luke believed the names were unrecognizable and therefore omitted them.

That, at least, is how I have thought of it. Open to alternative views.

neilgodfrey wrote: If Mark had been written for a "larger community/ies" one might expect some indication to explain who A&R were for the benefit of a mixed readership -- mindful of those less familiar with the names.

It is difficult to argue, I think, that A&R would have been known by everyone in Mark's (larger) community because of their reputation or role in the church -- because then it becomes harder to explain why Matthew and Luke believed the names were unrecognizable and therefore omitted them.

That, at least, is how I have thought of it. Open to alternative views.

I don't think it was that large. A well established pater familias that had someone literate is my best guess.

I personally don't like using the word church for this period. For me it was still a dinner table hidden religion during this period. Fearful of being identified with Jews.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote: I do not see why the community would have to be small; surely there are people who live in one city, however small or large, whom people living in another city would not personally know, even if all involved are of the same religious sect.

Why do you find it difficult to think of Mark as written for one circle of people in one area? Many things intended for local use eventually catch on elsewhere and spread, sometimes like wildfire. In Concerning His Own Books, Galen talks about how some of his books were meant only for people he knew, and were given out by request only, but eventually were copied and spread around to other places. Some of the new owners of these copied texts would even come up to him, asking him about variants between their copy and the copies owned by other people.

Ben.

Assuming Mark was written "for a community", the argument as I understand it is that Mark did not need to explain who A&R were because "everyone" knew them. Matthew left them out because "no-one knew them" in the "community" for which he was writing. Ditto Luke.

If Mark had been written for a "larger community/ies" one might expect some indication to explain who A&R were for the benefit of a mixed readership -- mindful of those less familiar with the names.

It is difficult to argue, I think, that A&R would have been known by everyone in Mark's (larger) community because of their reputation or role in the church -- because then it becomes harder to explain why Matthew and Luke believed the names were unrecognizable and therefore omitted them.

That, at least, is how I have thought of it. Open to alternative views.

One could argue that by the time Matthew and Like were written Alexander and Rufus (probably born before 30 CE) had both died.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey wrote:Apologies. My (limited) understanding of pesher was much narrower. I know I have much to learn about pesher.

No apologies necessary, as your understanding may actually be correct and I stretched the meaning somewhat. I was following some text from Moshe Lavee with several examples of adapting old texts to new situations, and he seemed not to differentiate between Qumranic pesher or aggadic midrash, at least not in this specific regard. I used pesher instead of midrash, because he basically first describes the pesher practice for the Qumran sect and then says that the "successors of Jesus" continued this practice.

neilgodfrey wrote:

I find it difficult to think of the Gospel of Mark being written with such a limited readership in mind.

Think about what just happened. The temple destroyed and Jews are now enemies of the Empire. Communities that used to share oral traditions at Passover, no longer could.

The whole landscape of the early movement changed, no longer were groups gathering in one cause to share belief and tradition. A need to preserve traditions was created.

If the Gospel of Mark was written for a community so small that no-one else for whom anyone would want to write a gospel would know who Rufus and Alexander were, then would we expect it to have become the model for those subsequent gospels?

Im guessing popularity here Neil. As well as the need for a new way to share traditions was now required.

It became a compilation of traditions popular enough that it spread beyond its community, and as it did other communities found their traditions were not supported, and that it literally needed to be overhauled as to them, it was obviously lacking. And it did not reflect their Christology.

neilgodfrey wrote:Assuming Mark was written "for a community", the argument as I understand it is that Mark did not need to explain who A&R were because "everyone" knew them.

....

If Mark had been written for a "larger community/ies" one might expect some indication to explain who A&R were for the benefit of a mixed readership -- mindful of those less familiar with the names.

Well, everyone is a bit extreme. I would suggest enough to make the reference worthwhile. And anyone who did not know who Alexander and Rufus were might be inspired to ask around about them, similar to how people actually compared and apparently talked about the contents of their Galenic texts.

There is also no real need to imagine Mark writing to every believer in a city, either. He may have just been writing to a narrower circle of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, similar (again) to how Galen wrote some of his medical texts.

On a side note, the vocabulary that involves the evangelists writing either to or on behalf of communities evokes certain past assumptions that I do not necessarily share. I am not saying that it is necessarily a misguided idea; I am just not wanting to import excess baggage into the discussion.

(None of this is meant to be probative; I guess I am just not feeling the force of your objections.)

Matthew left them out because "no-one knew them" in the "community" for which he was writing. Ditto Luke.

It is difficult to argue, I think, that A&R would have been known by everyone in Mark's (larger) community because of their reputation or role in the church -- because then it becomes harder to explain why Matthew and Luke believed the names were unrecognizable and therefore omitted them.

How far across the empire? How many years later? Are you assuming that someone pretty well-known in some segment of the (proto-)Christian assembly at, say, Rome would also have to be pretty well-known in the (proto-)Christian assembly at, say, Antioch years (maybe decades) later?

I guess I just do not get that. It somehow makes perfect sense to me that one or both men might be well-known in (at least part of) one city but not very well-known in (any part of) another city across the empire, and at a later time, to boot.

That, at least, is how I have thought of it. Open to alternative views.

Or maybe I am missing something. Not sure.

Ben.

Another suggestion for the omission by Matthew and Luke, perhaps, is that gMark is of a substantially different genre than our canonical gMatthew and gLuke (which are substantially different with their presentation of infancy narratives, expansive sayings material, etc.), which might be dated anywhere from 10 to 70 years later (70 CE + 70 years = 140 CE, which is within the range of possibility), whose authors could not perceive the meaning of the second identifier for this Simon in gMark and had no other use for it, thus dropping it on that account.

Haven't they also dropped the 'young man' who 'fled naked' in Mark 14:51-52?
And also the 'young man' of Mark 16:5, becoming an 'angel' (Matthew) or two men 'in dazzling clothes' (Luke)?
... and who can really say for certain what that was all about?

They also, in another case, drop the extra bit of 'identification' about the "Boanerges" or "sons of thunder' in Mark 3:17, which we've recently noted on this forum is itself a little bit mysterious (particularly this word 'Boanerges').

I guess what I'm saying is that several minor mysteries have dropped out of Mark in the other synoptics. It might just mean they stumped Matthew and Luke as much as they stump us.