10933Arnal Re: [XTalk] Mark
- Oct 3, 2002At 12:39 PM 10/03/02, you wrote:
>...I do think that no one so far has even come close to answering the...which is why I was seeking a clarification.
>I had in mind, but that's at least partly due to the vagueness of my
>What I meant was, why THAT, why THAT WAY, why THEN? In other words,Good clarification! Thanks.
>I was not asking at all "why write about Jesus?" to which the variousMuch more so. Thanks!
>responses serve as adequate amswers (i.e., because he was impressive,
>because someone asked him to, because memory was fading or deemed unreliable
>in the long term, etc.). Folks wrote about Jesus before Mark: Paul does, Q
>does, Thomas does, and so do the various sources that MUST be postulated
>behind Mark (miracle catenae, etc.). But I am assuming that Mark was the
>first to write a connected, more or less sequential, "story of Jesus" that
>tried to embrace and mingle the various ways of viewing him; and I am
>assuming that in doing so, he created the pattern which subsequent "stories
>of Jesus" followed.
>So my question was: why did he do *when* he did it (as opposed to it having
>been done earlier, or later, or not at all)? Why this form as opposed to
>some other form (e.g., a compilation of lists of sayings, lists of miracles,
>etc.)? Why include a passion narrative and why give it such prominence? And
>so on. I want to stress that the way GMark talks about Jesus (and I mean in
>broad outline, not just in terms of redactional niceties) is not the only
>way possible. So again, simply citing motives to "preserve" the Jesus
>traditions does not at all explain Mark -- it only explains why some
>Christians may have written *something*. I hope this is clear.
> >Mark did not set out to write a biography, if we take him at his word:Me, too. I don't think Mark meant "gospel" as a genre, but rather as a
> > * 1:1 identifies Mark as "the beginning of the gospel" of Jesus Christ.
> >It does not say "the biography" of JC.
>But I doubt very much that "gospel" is here intended as a literary generic
simple description of what he intended to write about.
> The "gospel" is presumably ANY announcement about Jesus andGood question. Maybe part of the message was the messenger?
>salavtion through/from him. Why would "the gospel" take the form of a
> >being forgotten, or distorted. I note with interest that Mark >identifiedThanks. Nice point.
> >his subject as the "beginning" of the gospel. Do you suppose he meant >the
> >*original* gospel?
>This is an interesting point -- "arche" in v.1 makes it sound like
>"euangelion" is indeed intended as a genre, but I think it can't be. So to
>what does "arche" refer? In a way, it places the sequential or chronological
>element front and centre from the very first word of the text.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>