Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote: If you are going to consider Christian liturgy it has been suggested, I think, that if the Last Supper was a Passover meal, then we would expect Christians to celebrate it once a year at Easter, but this does not seem to have been the earliest practice. They celebrated it much more frequently than this.

I do not think it was a Passover meal. Among our extant gospels, only Mark and those following Mark turn it into a Passover meal.

We can both agree on that, but my point was that as the early Christians seemed to celebrate the Last Supper more often than once a year, this is further evidence that it was not a Passover meal.

(I think John used Mark, Matthew and Luke but I suppose he could have changed their accounts because his community had been taught that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. After all he changed lots of things.)

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Ben, one more comment without wanting to comment ---- I am not clear on how your proposed original text points to "a source" of any particular kind. It points to the original using a certain day as the day of handing over and crucifixion, of course -- but where does "a source" come in here?

It points to a story in which the day of the crucifixion immediately precedes the Passover meal, right? (Even though the version of the story in Mark has the crucifixion come after the Passover meal.) That story is the "source", whether it be imagined as written or oral or even liturgical (id est, the order and timing in which the church celebrated the Eucharist and the Crucifixion).

I still don't think I'm clear on what you mean by a source or use of a source.

When you say "it points to a story" do you mean that the original Mark you are proposing points to another earlier story or are you saying that the original Mark you are proposing is another story from our canonical one?

I don't know why we need assume that Mark's original story had to be derived from another written story/document of sorts, or from oral tradition.

If he wanted to create a narrative to give a meaning to a liturgical practice, then the liturgy could be said to be his inspiration or the reason for his story, but I would not have thought we need assume the liturgy itself was a "source" for the narrative unless it already was connected with teaching it reflected the events Mark is writing about.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
I am not understanding. Are you suggesting that Mark wrote a story that identified the Last Supper and the Passover meal (which is what we have in canonical Mark), but also salted that story with clues that the Last Supper was "really" held on the night before the Passover meal?

No, I'm only having difficulty understanding why you appear to be suggesting Mark "used a source" for the story you propose to be Mark's original one.

Ben C. Smith wrote:All I am suggesting, at least for now, is that, so far as the timing of the crucifixion is concerned, a story similar to the one we find in John or in Peter (or in the Talmud, for that matter) came before the story that we find in Mark. The Last Supper was recounted as having occurred on the eve of Passover before Mark got hold of the story and changed it.

To be clear, are you suggesting that Mark was in fact responding to another view about the timing of Christ's crucifixion?

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Ben, one more comment without wanting to comment ---- I am not clear on how your proposed original text points to "a source" of any particular kind. It points to the original using a certain day as the day of handing over and crucifixion, of course -- but where does "a source" come in here?

It points to a story in which the day of the crucifixion immediately precedes the Passover meal, right? (Even though the version of the story in Mark has the crucifixion come after the Passover meal.) That story is the "source", whether it be imagined as written or oral or even liturgical (id est, the order and timing in which the church celebrated the Eucharist and the Crucifixion).

I still don't think I'm clear on what you mean by a source or use of a source.

Let us use Matthew as an example again. On the hypothesis of Marcan priority, which you and I appear to share, whence did Matthew get the story of the healing of two blind men outside of Jericho in Matthew 20.29-34? From Mark, right? (Mark 10.46-52, to be exact.) But Mark has only one blind man. So my notion is that Matthew found a story about Jesus healing one blind man just outside of Jericho, and he made a change to it. Make sense? The story as we have it in Mark is Matthew's source. The extra blind man is Matthew's creative innovation.

Likewise, with the Passover and Last Supper in Mark, I think that canonical Mark got this stretch of the passion narrative from a source. In that source, the Last Supper occurred on Passover Eve. But Mark changed the story and turned the Last Supper into a Passover meal, making it take place on Passover proper. I am suggesting that Mark found this part of the passion narrative in some source, just as Matthew found the story of a blind man in a source (our Mark). And I am suggesting that Mark made a change to the story (equating the Last Supper and Passover, unlike in the story he had found), just as Matthew made a change to the story of the blind man (adding another blind man).

When you say "it points to a story" do you mean that the original Mark you are proposing points to another earlier story or are you saying that the original Mark you are proposing is another story from our canonical one?

Either is possible. I have been using the term "Mark" to mean our canonical Mark, in which case Mark added the parts equating the Last Supper with the Passover meal to the story that he found from a source. But it would be possible to use the term "Mark" to mean the original text, whatever that may be, in which case the parts of the story that equate the Last Supper with the Passover meal are interpolations. My analysis of the two layers in the story is of no help at all in sorting out that terminology. All it can do is suggest that certain parts are additions to a story which originally lacked them.

(However, using "Mark" to designate the original text might tend to gloss over the fact that we do not yet have any real notion of what the original text looked like overall beyond the timing of the Last Supper and the related narrative points that went into supporting our view on that. Was it basically the gospel of Mark minus a couple of interpolations? Was it just a Passion Narrative as a standalone text? Was it some completely different gospel from which canonical Mark borrowed stuff? I have no idea.)

I don't know why we need assume that Mark's original story had to be derived from another written story/document of sorts, or from oral tradition.

If by "Mark's original story" you mean the layer in which the Last Supper precedes the Passover by a full day, then I completely agree. Maybe it is completely made up from imagination and LXX references. But whoever is responsible for the story as we have it now in canonical Mark received a story (probably written, as I have said, but I am not committed to that) and retold it with modifications.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:I am not understanding. Are you suggesting that Mark wrote a story that identified the Last Supper and the Passover meal (which is what we have in canonical Mark), but also salted that story with clues that the Last Supper was "really" held on the night before the Passover meal?

No, I'm only having difficulty understanding why you appear to be suggesting Mark "used a source" for the story you propose to be Mark's original one.

This appears to be the source of the confusion. I am making no claims at all about sources for the version of the story in which the Last Supper does not equal the Passover. That would be another investigation. My claim is merely that the passion narrative as we now find it in Mark is a retelling, not an original composition. We might envision that retelling as the original story (pretty much as it was written) plus additions, or we might envision it as a more thoroughgoing rewrite (like Matthew did to Mark most of the time, changing the wording quite a bit). That investigation (how much was copied straight, as a good scribe might do it, versus how much was reworded, more like an editor or an author) is further down the path than we currently are.

Ben C. Smith wrote:All I am suggesting, at least for now, is that, so far as the timing of the crucifixion is concerned, a story similar to the one we find in John or in Peter (or in the Talmud, for that matter) came before the story that we find in Mark. The Last Supper was recounted as having occurred on the eve of Passover before Mark got hold of the story and changed it.

To be clear, are you suggesting that Mark was in fact responding to another view about the timing of Christ's crucifixion?

Well, yes, if I understand you correctly. I am using "Mark" of our canonical version, so yes, Mark received a story with one view of the timing, and he retold that story with a different view of the timing. If that is what you mean, then yes.

My view of the layers is as simple as the following diagram, really:

Later in Time	Story B: a retelling of story A, but the Last Supper is now a Passover meal	= Canonical Mark
Earlier in Time	Story A: origins unknown, but the Last Supper precedes the Passover meal	= Some Lost Source or Ur-Mark

If you think you hear me arguing for something that is not on that diagram, then you are probably mishearing me (or I am miscommunicating).

Okay, I may have been thinking you were using "Mark" as shorthand to refer to the author of the "original" gospel of mark (original insofar as it has the earlier last supper timing). We need to use fancy abbreviations like CGMark and UGMark, and ACGMark and AUGMark to keep communication 'simple', no?

I am suggesting that Mark found this part of the passion narrative in some source, just as Matthew found the story of a blind man in a source (our Mark). And I am suggesting that Mark made a change to the story (equating the Last Supper and Passover, unlike in the story he had found), just as Matthew made a change to the story of the blind man (adding another blind man).

Okay. Presumably ACGMark was working on behalf of some who had come to a different understanding of Christ and the Passover, and was either "fixing" the story as he saw fit or relied on some other oral or written account.

Where is this suggestion leading? What do you see as its significance?

neilgodfrey wrote:Okay, I may have been thinking you were using "Mark" as shorthand to refer to the author of the "original" gospel of mark (original insofar as it has the earlier last supper timing). We need to use fancy abbreviations like CGMark and UGMark, and ACGMark and AUGMark to keep communication 'simple', no?

Maybe, but I am not sure that UGMark and AUGMark are good ways to label the lost source, since I have no idea whether it resembled our gospel of Mark in any way other than its overlap here. If it did not, then Ur-Mark might be a tendentious label.

Okay. Presumably ACGMark was working on behalf of some who had come to a different understanding of Christ and the Passover, and was either "fixing" the story as he saw fit or relied on some other oral or written account.

Where is this suggestion leading? What do you see as its significance?

It proves that Jesus existed and worked miracles.

Totally joking.

Finding layers in the texts/traditions can sometimes help us trace trajectories through early Christianity. This case, just as one example, makes me wonder about the relationship between 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 and Mark 14.22-25:

1 Corinthians 11.23-26

Mark 14.22-25

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Was the author of canonical Mark aware of this Pauline version of the eucharistic words of institution? There is no shortage of exegetes on this very forum who would affirm that s/he was. So my question is this: given that the Last Supper is a Passover meal in canonical Mark, and adding on the distinct possibility or probability explored on this thread that our author actually and deliberately made it a Passover meal, why did s/he simultaneously get rid of or avoid the appeal to memory, the clearest possible link to the Passover, which is specifically framed in the Hebrew scriptures as a memorial feast (Exodus 12.14)? I have to admit that I can more easily imagine canonical Mark making the link to the Passover first, and then the eucharistic passage (or its source) in Paul exploiting that link by adding the memorial words, fitting for a Passover setting. I have never regarded the case for interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 as particularly strong, but this sort of question gives me pause.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Okay, I may have been thinking you were using "Mark" as shorthand to refer to the author of the "original" gospel of mark (original insofar as it has the earlier last supper timing). We need to use fancy abbreviations like CGMark and UGMark, and ACGMark and AUGMark to keep communication 'simple', no?

Maybe, but I am not sure that UGMark and AUGMark are good ways to label the lost source, since I have no idea whether it resembled our gospel of Mark in any way other than its overlap here. If it did not, then Ur-Mark might be a tendentious label.

Now I'm confused again, sorry. My half-facetious UGMark is meant to refer to your postulated pre-redacted Mark that we can read today. Are you referring to our canonical Mark minus the versus that you suggest have been added by a redactor as the "source" of our current canonical Mark? I thought by source you meant some other document or tradition that is now lost to us.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Okay. Presumably ACGMark was working on behalf of some who had come to a different understanding of Christ and the Passover, and was either "fixing" the story as he saw fit or relied on some other oral or written account.

Where is this suggestion leading? What do you see as its significance?

It proves that Jesus existed and worked miracles.

Totally joking.

Finding layers in the texts/traditions can sometimes help us trace trajectories through early Christianity. This case, just as one example, makes me wonder about the relationship between 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 and Mark 14.22-25:

1 Corinthians 11.23-26

Mark 14.22-25

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Was the author of canonical Mark aware of this Pauline version of the eucharistic words of institution? There is no shortage of exegetes on this very forum who would affirm that s/he was. So my question is this: given that the Last Supper is a Passover meal in canonical Mark, and adding on the distinct possibility or probability explored on this thread that our author actually and deliberately made it a Passover meal, why did s/he simultaneously get rid of or avoid the appeal to memory, the clearest possible link to the Passover, which is specifically framed in the Hebrew scriptures as a memorial feast (Exodus 12.14)? I have to admit that I can more easily imagine canonical Mark making the link to the Passover first, and then the eucharistic passage (or its source) in Paul exploiting that link by adding the memorial words, fitting for a Passover setting. I have never regarded the case for interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 as particularly strong, but this sort of question gives me pause.

Ben.

I'm not in a position to comment on this sort of suggestion at this point. (For one thing, I want to learn more about memorial meals and eating with the dead and in their memory in the ancient world first, and I have some reading lined up with that in mind.)

But as for the original question about form criticism -- it seems to me that there is a conflict between viewing the gospels as consisting of "pearls on a string" as distinct from narrative units. The former would deny the latter, I think. That is the conflict I had in mind. I don't believe literary criticism is opposed to redaction criticism -- quite different. Unless, of course, the critic is deliberately choosing to do a criticism of the final form. But not even Dennis MacDonald does that. He relies at times of redaction analysis to identify original layers of the narrative details.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Okay, I may have been thinking you were using "Mark" as shorthand to refer to the author of the "original" gospel of mark (original insofar as it has the earlier last supper timing). We need to use fancy abbreviations like CGMark and UGMark, and ACGMark and AUGMark to keep communication 'simple', no?

Maybe, but I am not sure that UGMark and AUGMark are good ways to label the lost source, since I have no idea whether it resembled our gospel of Mark in any way other than its overlap here. If it did not, then Ur-Mark might be a tendentious label.

Now I'm confused again, sorry. My half-facetious UGMark is meant to refer to your postulated pre-redacted Mark that we can read today. Are you referring to our canonical Mark minus the versus that you suggest have been added by a redactor as the "source" of our current canonical Mark? I thought by source you meant some other document or tradition that is now lost to us.

I am simply not committing to the form of Story A at this stage. Maybe it was a standalone passion narrative. Maybe it was the passion narrative for some other gospel that in other ways resembles Mark as little as John does. Maybe it was a set of liturgical readings or enactments designed for passion week. Maybe it was strictly oral (though I doubt it). Maybe it was an Ur-gospel to which stuff was added to create our canonical Mark.

I would use the term Ur-Mark only of that last option, whereas the term "lost source" could apply to most or all of them.

When I asked you to imagine Mark without certain verses, I was not postulating an actual recension; I was just pinpointing the verses responsible for changing the story. I cannot tell how much other redaction was done in other parts of the narrative: that is, whether removing those verses leaves a text which actually existed at some point.

But I definitely think room ought to be left open for the possibilities. We ought not to simply assume that canonical Mark was freewheeling from LXX themes and nothing more, or that Mark was the first gospel merely because earlier ones are not extant. We ought to be willing to dissect the story as well as treat it as a whole.

But as for the original question about form criticism -- it seems to me that there is a conflict between viewing the gospels as consisting of "pearls on a string" as distinct from narrative units. The former would deny the latter, I think.

What if some parts of Mark originated as pearls on a string, while other parts originated as larger narrative units? Is there a rule that the entire gospel must share only one kind of origin?

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:We ought not to simply assume that canonical Mark was freewheeling from LXX themes and nothing more, or that Mark was the first gospel merely because earlier ones are not extant. We ought to be willing to dissect the story as well as treat it as a whole.

This has never been my position -- "simply assuming" from "LXX and nothing more" (there are evidently a range of other sources literary criticism itself points to, and that's before we even look in Homer's direction). Or assuming it was the first "merely because earlier ones are not extant" -- that's never been my argument at all. On the other hand, nor do I think we can simply assume Mark used sources the same way we can see Matthew using Mark. Literary criticism is one means of examining the text to assess probabilities for that sort of thing, along with redaction criticism.

But the question that started this discussion, as I recall it (for better or worse) was form criticism. That's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

But as for the original question about form criticism -- it seems to me that there is a conflict between viewing the gospels as consisting of "pearls on a string" as distinct from narrative units. The former would deny the latter, I think.

What if some parts of Mark originated as pearls on a string, while other parts originated as larger narrative units? Is there a rule that the entire gospel must share only one kind of origin?

Ben.

No one has said anything about a rule. The answer comes down to how authors work, the character of the text, its unity or otherwise, and what evidence it is that we are left with. If we lack evidence for X then we are quite free to speculate in that direction but nothing more. But there are no rules as you put it. Everything is always tentative and open to new questions and lines of inquiry. I take that as a given.

it also comes down to the sources and external circumstances surrounding the composition of the text ..... these sorts of questions are all useful for understanding the text's origins. It's not a black and white either it's a literary unity or a string of pearls. There is much more to literary criticism than that for a start -- and as I've pointed out, literary critics by no means toss out redaction criticism. That would be madness -- unless they are wanting to work exclusively on the finished product for aesthetic as distinct from historical reasons.

I've posted many times on situations were "redacation criticism" works hand in glove with "literary criticism" -- in both the gospels (especially in relation to Luke-Acts) and letters of Paul.

Do you have any examples of instances where you think form criticism might be accommodated with literary criticism?

If we assume oral tradition we have a very different model for how the gospels came about than when we work with literary criticism. I suspect the main strength of the oral trad assumption is that it is the key to the solution of how we got the gospels such as they are given their distance from the historical events they supposedly narrated and that were passed down. That is, it is a model that is necessary as a result of a problem that is raised by what is essentially a circular argument.