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

Counting Mark (4)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic (GPG) From: Bruce Well, I would hate to see the experiment end without including Mk4, which is important for several reasons. Then: 19 (4:1-9) The
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 3, 2011
      To: Synoptic (GPG)
      From: Bruce

      Well, I would hate to see the experiment end without including Mk4, which is
      important for several reasons. Then:

      19 (4:1-9) The Parable of the Sower. 16.6
      20 (4:10-12) The Purpose of the Parables. 4.25
      21 (4:13-20) The Parable of the Sower Explained. 16.25
      22 (4:21-25) Light Under a Bushel. 8.15
      23 (4:26-29) The Parable of the Growing Seed. 6.9
      24 (4:30-32) The Parable of the Mustard Seed. 6.9
      25 (4:33-34) The Use of Parables. 3.25
      26 (4:35-41) The Calming of a Storm. 13.7

      Oops, almost ran over. The Healing of the Gerasene [sic] Demoniac, #27
      (5:1-20) is one of the very long ones I earlier mentioned; 38 lines.

      For Mk4, the consecutive numbers are:

      3.25, 4.25, 6.9, 6.9, 8.15, 13.7, 16.25, 16.6 (Total: 8 UBS pericopes)

      Of course from my point of view all this is compromised by including both
      early layer and late layer material. It is very possible that the late Mark
      is inclined to write longer than the early Mark. That seems to be supported
      by the late intrusions #20-21 (really one pericope, whatever UBS thinks),
      total 20.5 lines, and their coordinate, #25 (3.25 lines, grand total 23.75
      lines). The miracle story at the end (#26) is also a late included myth, the
      kind of think Peter liked to tell once you got him going. Scratch another
      13.7. What does this leave, as the style of the Mark who first wrote the
      story of Jesus? Roughly this:

      6.9, 6.9, 8.15, 16.6 (4 parables)

      In which the Parable of the Sower stands out as emphatically long (There is
      that same pattern again, more or less). Is there some reason the young Mark
      would want to stress this one? We can also ask, Is there some reason the
      later Mark would want to counteract the meaning of this one, as his point of
      attack on the Davidic Messiah concept in the old text? At this point,
      perhaps, we begin to have an interesting question. The puzzle with this
      intrusive explanation is that it is very like what any modern churchgoer
      would think anyway; for such a person, the explanation is superfluous and
      this puzzling. This cannot have been the case for Mark's first readers. But
      I promised not to be literary, and I guess that should include, not
      theological either. Maybe later.

      E Bruce Brooks
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • David Mealand
      http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 This should put you on Mark 1.1 with options for enlargement of display and
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 4, 2011
        http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

        This should put you on Mark 1.1 with
        options for enlargement of display
        and provision of translation.

        In haste

        D


        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.