Re: [Synoptic-L] A case for pMark
- LM Barré wrote:
> The literary evidence that an underlying narrative has beenLM,
> expanded is strong and probable.
This hypothetical underlying narrative seems to me to lack credibility
because there is no patristic mention of such a document, it has no
distinguishable literary style (as you appear to have admitted), and (I
suspect) no clear Sitz im Leben. In these respects it resembles the
> ..... It is also the dominant view in Passion Narrative research.No doubt this is true. But the dominant view in synoptic research accepts
the existence of Q, yet it is not difficult to show (if we acknowledge
significant Lukan creativity) that this dominant view is incorrect.
> ..... we also have the PN portrayal of Jesus as a "non-Christian" Tragic HeroI fully accept that Mark was presenting a Christianized picture of the early
> as a means of identifying Markan, Christian expansions .....
Jesus movement. But the evidence for this is spread throughout his gospel in
summaries, miracles, parables and adaptations of aphorisms, as well as in
the passion narrative. The simplest explanation is that the imaginative
author of Mark's gospel was responsible for the Christianizing.
Of course the gospel story is built on a core of historical events, but as I
see it the evidence indicates that Mark had only one written source document
originating in the first century, namely a collection of aphorisms
attributed to Jesus. This collection has a patristic mention, a
distinguishable literary style, and a clear Sitz im Leben.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- To: Synoptic
In Response To: L M Barré
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
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