Ben C. Smith wrote:I am not sure what this means. There are several places in the gospel where the movement itself is described, with crowd reactions and conversations while traveling, so I do not know what you mean by "static" in this context.
Some wording in Paul's corpus also suggests that he basically performed the crucifixion.
I am at least aware of that wording (in Galatians, mainly, I believe). Not sure a stage play must be what fulfills it, but not rootedly opposed to it, either.
It's not my theory. I'll try and find the book quote. While movement is spoken about, none of the scenes themselves need any past the constraints of a stage. And crowd reactions are a given if it's a performance. This explains all those "immediately"s, too.
It would help to have passages from other gospels (if they, unlike Mark, are not supposed to be screen plays), or from other Christian texts, that would spill over the constraints of a stage, for contrast.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
A lot of scholarship IMO overemphasizes text as written text both for Judaism and Christianity. This is how I think the Diatessaron was ultimately supplanted by the fourfold gospel. The "intended audience" only knew the gospel through the liturgy, the weekly parsha. This was effectively it's "acting out" in some way. If you look at the Samaritan liturgy (which changed over time) there is some correspondence with retelling the Exodus narrative at Passover then followed by Moses receiving the Torah. That's more than half the year already. I think the liturgy reveals the secret context of the text, it's "messianic" portent owing to the crossing of the Jordan falling on the first of the year too. It's all about redemption. This isn't as strongly emphasized in the main text. But the liturgy amplifies the hell out of it as only scattered passages among the hundreds of portions were read each Sabbath. If you layer the sabbatical years and Jubilee on top of this the redemption emphasis (also a political/revolutionary concept) are even more heightened. But you can't see that in the written text. It's developed as a cipher though the liturgy.
With the gospel the same thing must have been evident especially given Clement's gospel was a year long, matching perfectly with a liturgical year.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
And remember the Israelites were armed at Passover.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Ben C. Smith wrote:It would help to have passages from other gospels (if they, unlike Mark, are not supposed to be screen plays), or from other Christian texts, that would spill over the constraints of a stage, for contrast.
Maybe, maybe not. Mary Ann Beavis' book " Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark" seems to deal in detail with the points why she thinks gMark has resemblance to a Greek drama (five narrative sections interspersed with four teaching scenes, where the latter take the position of the Greek chorus). However, keep in mind that the novelization of a screenplay still contains the screenplay, which means that, whatever you find as answer to your question may not be very meaningful.
I only mentioned this here in the context of John21 as ending of Mark. If gMark is the scaffold of a religious street performance with a mystery aspect to it (the cliffhanger) that serves to get the susceptible among the audience to a more inimate, revelatory session, John21 may have been part of "gMark" without physically being part of the public part.
It also makes sense that "secret" part is more prone to changes than a public one.
And when you mention Secret Mark it is worth noting that the story about the resurrected naked man seems to be related to some sort of initiation rite that was ritually reenacted in some way:
Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautionously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Ben C. Smith wrote:It would help to have passages from other gospels (if they, unlike Mark, are not supposed to be screen plays), or from other Christian texts, that would spill over the constraints of a stage, for contrast.
Maybe, maybe not. Mary Ann Beavis' book " Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark" seems to deal in detail with the points why she thinks gMark has resemblance to a Greek drama (five narrative sections interspersed with four teaching scenes, where the latter take the position of the Greek chorus). However, keep in mind that the novelization of a screenplay still contains the screenplay, which means that, whatever you find as answer to your question may not be very meaningful.
What I was looking for is some reason to suspect that Mark was acted out in the first place, and I originally thought that the self-contained nature of the pericopae was the reason you were offering; I mean, if there is nothing in the text to distinguish it in that regard from any other text, then what brings the idea to mind to begin with? But it now appears that you are saying that Beavis' argument entails certain parallels to the tragedies. I imagine the devil would be in the details for such an argument, and one would have to read the book. Thanks for the reference.
Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed May 17, 2017 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ben C. Smith wrote:It would help to have passages from other gospels (if they, unlike Mark, are not supposed to be screen plays), or from other Christian texts, that would spill over the constraints of a stage, for contrast.
Maybe, maybe not. Mary Ann Beavis' book " Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark" seems to deal in detail with the points why she thinks gMark has resemblance to a Greek drama (five narrative sections interspersed with four teaching scenes, where the latter take the position of the Greek chorus). However, keep in mind that the novelization of a screenplay still contains the screenplay, which means that, whatever you find as answer to your question may not be very meaningful.
What I was looking for is some reason to suspect that Mark was acted out in the first place, and I originally thought that the self-contained nature of the pericopes was the reason you were offering; I mean, if there is nothing in the text to distinguish it in that regard from any other text, then what brings the idea to mind to begin with? But it now appears that you are saying that Beavis' argument entails certain parallels to the tragedies. I imagine the devil would be in the details for such an argument, and one would have to read the book. Thanks for the reference.
Ben.
Yes, let's try not to confuse this. I had a different author in mind (it's actually a surprisingly large number of authors who suggest the acting out), who used the argument in the way I used it in my first post regarding this topic. I still haven't remembered who exactly this was, and I seem to use the wrong search terms in Google. That specific line of arguments fits gMark best. My word of caution that the differences to other gospels may not be that pronounced comes simply from the point that we find Mark in the other synoptics.
Whether gMark specifically resembles a Greek drama is a different, though somewhat connected question that just happens to include the assumption that acting took place.
Secret Alias wrote:And when you mention Secret Mark it is worth noting that the story about the resurrected naked man seems to be related to some sort of initiation rite that was ritually reenacted in some way:[snip]
That's certainly a possibility. And even if you don't think Secret Mark is it, John21 (or rather a version thereof) makes sense in this way. You have secrets (e.g. 153 fish) and initiations.
Michael BG wrote:It is very unlikely that what we have as John 21 would ever have been in Mark’s gospel. Even if the theory was modified and it was only the story of Jesus appearing to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias it is still unlikely as you have pointed out. It is much more likely that the author of John 21 created the story from Luke 5:1-11 the miraculous catch of fish and entwined it with Johannine themes.
Why is that the more likely trajectory? It would appear that such judgments are full of subjectivity; John Dominic Crossan, for example, writes on pages 407 & 410 of The Historical Jesus:
Recalling the chronological sequence of the Gospels from Mark to Luke to John, one might easily judge that 190 Fishing for Humans [2/3] developed from a non-miraculous saying of Jesus in Mark, to a miraculous symbolization in Luke, to be finally displaced into a more climactic post-resurrectional setting in John. All the internal evidence, however, points in exactly the opposite direction. The unit's trajectory is from John to Luke to Mark, and the miracle, far from a later insertion, is a later deletion. Notice, for example, that Peter's confession of his sinfulness in Luke 5:8 makes far less sense there than in a postresurrectional situation after he had denied Jesus during his trial. .... The complex 190 Fishing for Humans is therefore a companion piece to 128 Walking on Water [1/2] and carries exactly the same meaning and message. To row all night without Jesus is to get nowhere; to fish all night without Jesus is to catch nothing. But, of course, it is the leadership group of the disciples who are both rowing and fishing, and it is to them that Jesus' resurrectional assistance is forthcoming.
And B. H. Streeter had already argued in The Four Gospels:
The addition of a miraculous draught of fishes in the story of the original call of Peter in Luke v.4-7, and the addition, in Matthew xiv.29-31, to the story of the Walking on the Water of the incident of Peter leaving the boat to meet the Lord, are best explained as fragments of a story like that of Jn.xxi. current in oral tradition.
Their assessment of what is most likely, then, is exactly the opposite of yours, and I am left wondering which factors make your scenario most likely in your view.
Ben.
Many scholars have believed that John had access to his own sources different from the synoptic gospels. However many scholars have believed that John knew all the synoptic gospels and this is my present position. I don’t know if any scholars support my position on John 21 and Luke 5:1-11, but that should not be important.
From your quote from Crossan the only evidence he produces is the idea that Peter’s confession in Lk 5:8 only makes sense after Jesus’ trial. However John 21 does not have this confession and so Luke didn’t get it from there. It is just as possible that Luke created it and placed it here in his own version of the calling of Peter and the sons of Zebedee. I would be interested if he unpicks John 21 and Luke 5:1-11 to provide any other reasons for his theory.
Are not all decisions on each pericope a little subjective based on each person’s own conclusions regarding the sources of each gospel? We each have to make our own judgement based on the arguments presented.
