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

Inclusion in Mark

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Horst
    On Monday, December 28, 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote: F. Neirynck sets out 36 instances of Inclusion in Mark ( Duality in Mark pages 131-133). As far as I
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 28, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On Monday, December 28, 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

      F. Neirynck sets out 36 instances of "Inclusion" in Mark ("Duality in
      Mark" pages 131-133). As far as I can see, however, he does not say what
      an "Inclusion" is supposed to be. I imagine it is a technical term in
      redaction/literary criticism?

      Would anyone on Synoptic-L, please, happen to have a definition of
      "Inclusion" in this context?


      I am not familiar with the Neirynck work. So I can not say whether he is
      referring to the common rhetorical device called inclusio. I do not
      remember the term inclusion from my form, redactional and literary criticism
      studies decades ago. An inclusio is a device that frames a pericope with a
      word or phrase. It was used in both Greco/Roman literature and Hebrew
      literature. Amos has some particularly clear examples, c. f. Amos 1.3-5,
      1.6-8 and many others. You can see the device clearly here with the "Thus
      says the LORD .... Says the LORD GOD" wrapping.

      I do not remember Mark having anything like the inclusio in its structure.
      It could be more subtle than the Amos pericopes. If you could give a few
      examples from Neirynck, I would be interested in investigating it more. I
      will try to get a hold of the Neirynck on my own.

      Regards,
      D. C. Horst

      e-mail: dchorst@...
      Location: D. C. Horst
      1820 Keeney
      Evanston, IL 60202 USA
      --------------------------------
      Life forgives its depredations;
      New-shaped by loss, goes on.

      Wendell Berry
    • Mark Matson
      ... Neirynck does, indeed, refer here to the inclusio, a rhetorical term which denotes a framing phrase which opens and then ends a unit of text. It serves to
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 29, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        > On Monday, December 28, 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
        >
        > F. Neirynck sets out 36 instances of "Inclusion" in Mark ("Duality in
        > Mark" pages 131-133). As far as I can see, however, he does not say what
        > an "Inclusion" is supposed to be. I imagine it is a technical term in
        > redaction/literary criticism?
        >
        > Would anyone on Synoptic-L, please, happen to have a definition of
        > "Inclusion" in this context?
        >
        To which Douglas Horst replied:

        > I am not familiar with the Neirynck work. So I can not say whether he is
        > referring to the common rhetorical device called inclusio. I do not
        > remember the term inclusion from my form, redactional and literary criticism
        > studies decades ago. An inclusio is a device that frames a pericope with a
        > word or phrase. It was used in both Greco/Roman literature and Hebrew
        > literature. Amos has some particularly clear examples, c. f. Amos 1.3-5,
        > 1.6-8 and many others. You can see the device clearly here with the "Thus
        > says the LORD .... Says the LORD GOD" wrapping.
        >
        > I do not remember Mark having anything like the inclusio in its structure.
        > It could be more subtle than the Amos pericopes. If you could give a few
        > examples from Neirynck, I would be interested in investigating it more. I
        > will try to get a hold of the Neirynck on my own.
        >

        Neirynck does, indeed, refer here to the inclusio, a rhetorical term
        which denotes a framing phrase which opens and then ends a unit of
        text. It serves to round off the text and bring completion to the
        text. A good example, from Neirynck's list, is Mk 3:22 and 30, where
        the initial reference is to "They said that he is possessed by (lit.
        has) Beelzebul," and the concluding statement in v. 30 restates that
        with "They said that he had an unclean spirit." What transpires in
        between is the response by Jesus about a house divided. The final
        phrase of the inclusion serves to complete, to round off, the
        preceding pericope and remind one of the initial phrase.

        It is interesting that Neirynck differentiates this from Sandwich
        Arrangements, which in his mind clearly deal with different narrative
        units that are connected. So, under the latter, he also lists
        3:20-21 and 3:31-35 as framing the story in 3:22-30. In other words
        the accounts of the family coming with the crowd that sets up the
        story, and the concluding story of the family of Jesus then calling
        to him, frame the interior story of the Beelzebul controversy.

        Both of these examples are inclusio, but Neirynck makes a distinction
        between short narrative ties and more extensive linked stories.

        What is interesting for this discussion list is how Neirynck's
        argument on duality works for the synoptic relationship. According
        to Neirynck, precisely these framing phrases (inclusio) and stories
        (sandwich arrangement) are a part of Mark's compositional strategy
        and his style. They are pervasive and perhaps even unconsious.

        So what do we find in Mt and Lk? Both Matthew and Luke leave out the
        framing story of the family. The saying to his family follows,
        disconnected from the Beelzebul story, in Mt (Mt 12:46-50); it
        precedes in Luke (Lk 8:19-21), also disconnected from the Beelzebul
        story. In addition, the final phrase of the inclusio (Mk 3:30) is
        absent in Mt and Lk.

        However Mt and Lk contain additional material not in Mk:
        the longer phrase "..if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do
        your sons cast them out..." (Mt 12:27-28 / Lk 11:19-20) and the
        phrase "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
        gatehr with me scatters." (Mt12:30 / Lk 11:23).

        So the question is, Is it likely that Mark has discarded this longer
        reference to "your sons" and recast the reference to "who is not
        with me is against me" into a narrative framing of the family of
        Jesus as representing his opponents? Or is it more likely that Mark
        is following his normal compositional style in constructing this
        pericope from oral sources, and that Matthew has added his additional
        material (vv 27-28) and removed the negative references to the family
        that are implicit in the framing story? Which fits better in our
        understanding of the literary processes of these evangelists?

        This, it seems, is the burden which Neirynck has placed for those who
        oppose Markan priority -- to explain how these pervasive Markan
        stylistic features come to be inserted so smoothly and consistently
        into pre-existing Matthean units.

        Mark Matson
        Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
        Asst. Director, Sanford Institute of Public Policy
        Adjunct Professor of New Testament
        Duke University
        Durham, NC 27713
        (919) 613-7310
      • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
        ... I don t have Neirynck at hand where I m working right now but I am puzzled by the statement above. As I read the text of Mark I find a number of examples
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 29, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:23 PM 12/28/98 -0600, Douglas Horst wrote (in part):

          >I do not remember Mark having anything like the inclusio in its structure.
          >It could be more subtle than the Amos pericopes. If you could give a few
          >examples from Neirynck, I would be interested in investigating it more. I
          >will try to get a hold of the Neirynck on my own.

          I don't have Neirynck at hand where I'm working right now but I am puzzled
          by the statement above. As I read the text of Mark I find a number of
          examples of inclusio in the structure, from the opening scene, where I take
          the references to "gospel" in Mark 1:1 (the beginning of the gospel of Jesus
          Christ) and Mark 1:13 (Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee,
          preaching the gospel of God) to be such a structure, on. Indeed, many
          pericopae
          or sections of Mark are framed in this fashion. I am presently working with a
          team of colleagues on a commentary on Mark. We have developed quite a list of
          examples of Mark's use of inclusio already.

          And the child said, "Look! The emperor isn't wearing any clothes."

          Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
          Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
          Colby College
          Waterville, ME 04901
          Email: t_longst@...
          Office phone: 207 872-3150
          FAX: 207 872-3802
        • Jim Deardorff
          ... The opinion also exists that the inclusio is a fairly distinctive Aramaism. This was the opinion of B. C. Butler (1951, p. 150), who referred back to
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 29, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:08 AM 12/29/98 +0000, Mark Matson wrote:

            >Neirynck does, indeed, refer here to the inclusio, a rhetorical term
            >which denotes a framing phrase which opens and then ends a unit of
            >text. It serves to round off the text and bring completion to the
            >text. A good example, from Neirynck's list, is Mk 3:22 and 30, where
            >the initial reference is to "They said that he is possessed by (lit.
            >has) Beelzebul," and the concluding statement in v. 30 restates that
            >with "They said that he had an unclean spirit." What transpires in
            >between is the response by Jesus about a house divided. The final
            >phrase of the inclusion serves to complete, to round off, the
            >preceding pericope and remind one of the initial phrase.
            >
            >It is interesting that Neirynck differentiates this from Sandwich
            >Arrangements, which in his mind clearly deal with different narrative
            >units that are connected. So, under the latter, he also lists
            >3:20-21 and 3:31-35 as framing the story in 3:22-30. In other words
            >the accounts of the family coming with the crowd that sets up the
            >story, and the concluding story of the family of Jesus then calling
            >to him, frame the interior story of the Beelzebul controversy.
            >
            >Both of these examples are inclusio, but Neirynck makes a distinction
            >between short narrative ties and more extensive linked stories.
            >
            >What is interesting for this discussion list is how Neirynck's
            >argument on duality works for the synoptic relationship. According
            >to Neirynck, precisely these framing phrases (inclusio) and stories
            >(sandwich arrangement) are a part of Mark's compositional strategy
            >and his style. They are pervasive and perhaps even unconsious.
            >
            >So what do we find in Mt and Lk? Both Matthew and Luke leave out the
            >framing story of the family. The saying to his family follows,
            >disconnected from the Beelzebul story, in Mt (Mt 12:46-50); it
            >precedes in Luke (Lk 8:19-21), also disconnected from the Beelzebul
            >story. In addition, the final phrase of the inclusio (Mk 3:30) is
            >absent in Mt and Lk. [....]

            The opinion also exists that the inclusio is a fairly distinctive Aramaism.
            This was the opinion of B. C. Butler (1951, p. 150), who referred back to
            Lagrange. Butler found 11 of Lagrange's 13 examples of inclusio to be
            impressive. Of these 11, 7 occur in passages having parallels in Mark.
            However, of these 7 parallels in Mark, only 1 contains the Matthean
            inclusio. The tentative conclusion I come to, from a neo-Augustinian
            approach, is that the writer of Mark did not much care to replicate
            Matthew's uses of the inclusio, but that in writing and editing its use
            comes naturally, so that Mark does contain inclusios of its own.

            Jim Deardorff
            Corvallis, Oregon
            E-mail: deardorj@...
            Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Douglas Horst wrote - ... This is very helpful to me, Douglas. Many thanks. The following are some of the 36 examples of Inclusion listed by F. Neirynck in
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 29, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Douglas Horst wrote -
              >An inclusio is a device that frames a pericope with a word or phrase.
              >It was used in both Greco/Roman literature and Hebrew literature. Amos
              >has some particularly clear examples, c. f. Amos 1.3-5, 1.6-8 and many
              >others. You can see the device clearly here with the "Thus says the
              >LORD .... Says the LORD GOD" wrapping...
              >
              >I do not remember Mark having anything like the inclusio in its
              >structure. It could be more subtle than the Amos pericopes. If you
              >could give a few examples from Neirynck, I would be interested in
              >investigating it more...

              This is very helpful to me, Douglas. Many thanks.

              The following are some of the 36 examples of Inclusion listed by F.
              Neirynck in "Duality in Mark" (Leuven) page 131 -

              Mk 1.21, 29 KAI EUQUJ...EISELQWN EIJ THN SYNAGWGHN
              --- KAI EUQUJ EK THJ SUNAGWGHJ ECELQONTEJ

              Mk 3.22, 30 ELEGON OTI BEEZEBOUL EXEI
              --- OTI ELEGON PNEUMA AKAQARTON EXEI

              Mk 15.1, 15 KAI PAREDWKAN PILATW
              --- O DE PILATOJ ... PAREDWKEN TON IHSOUN

              Best wishes,
              E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
              10 York Close, Godmanchester,
              Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote - ... The commentary sounds fascinating. Please say more about it. I would be very grateful if you could let me know the
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 29, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote -
                >
                >I am presently working with a team of colleagues on a commentary on
                >Mark. We have developed quite a list of examples of Mark's use of
                >inclusio already.
                >
                The commentary sounds fascinating. Please say more about it.

                I would be very grateful if you could let me know the working-definition
                of "inclusio/inclusion" you are using.

                How would I recognize one in, say, Matthew or Luke ? Or is it only in
                Mark in the synoptic gospels that we find instances of inclusio ?

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
                10 York Close, Godmanchester,
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.