Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4703RE: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Jan 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: L M Barré
      On: pMark
      From: Bruce

      LMB: I have to say that I think you err not to conclude that we have in
      euthus and marker of the Markan redaction.

      EBB: Euthus is characteristic of Mark, but whether of redaction (editing of
      prior material) or composition (authorial material) I think we cannot say.
      There is also the question, not separately examined, of whether euthus is
      equally typical of the later material in Mark. The answer according to my
      own investigation is: not as much so. But there are also themes and modes in
      what I take to be original mark where euthus (immediacy in narrative) would
      not apply in any case, and if late Mark is turning to those questions (eg,
      how soon will the Second Coming be), then the style change is simply an
      artifact of the topic change. The continuing authorship or proprietorship of
      the single author (call him Mark or whatever) is not precluded.

      LMB: . So also is the much repeated "amazement" motif, which I take as
      another indicator of Markan redaction.

      EBB: Again, I sort of agree, and have used that test myself, following Dwyer
      1996 (though I think it is possible to refine his data set). But again,
      there are types of material in Mark that do not invite that motif. It would
      take more precision to make "amazement" an indicator of Markan vs
      post-Markan material.

      LMB: but also with typical repetition (another Markan stylistic marker), the
      thrice predicted passion, death and resurrection.

      EBB: I agree with Yarbro Collins that the triplets (and I would add,
      including the Passion Predictions) are late in Mark. I would not call them
      non-Markan, but they are a device of style which occurred to the late Mark,
      and were not present in the relatively straightforward early Mark.

      LMB: Let me here add that I think that the ending of Mark is indeed lost and
      that the current ending in 16:8 is not deliberate. The reason why it is
      noted that the women said nothing, is to prepare for the Great Astonishment,
      that Jesus was alive. This would be all the more shocking because they were
      unaware of the empty tomb "information" due to the women's silence.

      EBB: I agree that 16:8 was not meant to be the end of Mark, and that our
      text is artificially abbreviated. Matthew's supplied ending owes details to
      other texts, and does not come from his seeing a more complete version of
      Mark (there was none in his time), but is a good normal guess at what the
      ending might have contained, at least on the circumstantial level.

      LMB: In the logic of the story of Mark's redaction, the predicted appearance
      in Galilee is not particularly freighted. Where else would they go but home?
      Where more appropriate for Jesus to meet up with them?

      EBB: I think weight must be given to the pair of interpolations I mentioned
      earlier: 14:28 and 16:7. These predict that the disciples will see Jesus in
      Galilee. What if the story had continued without those predictions?
      Evidently in the way that the insertions predict: they would see Jesus in
      Galilee. What then do the predictions add? Simply this: Jesus's
      foreknowledge of that event. Without that element, Jesus's appearance would
      have been a surprise, not only to the disciples, but to Jesus himself. The
      prediction puts him back in control, has him fully anticipating, and thus
      fully accepting, the end of his life and its sequel.


      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Show all 44 messages in this topic