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

[Synoptic-L] Narrative Structure of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Shawn Kelley
    ... I hadn t noticed the 1:1/1:15 frame. It s a good point and I ll have to think about it some. I still think that there is a frame between 1: 16-20 and 10:
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Ron wrote:
       
      The idea that the call of disciples is a frame for 1:14 to 10:52
      is highly artificial. It is true that Bartimaeus ends up following
      Jesus. But this is presented as the result, not the purpose, of Jesus'
      power and compassion. Also Jesus says hUPAGE (10:52) which means "Go",
      so Mark didn't see it as a call to follow Jesus. Furthermore it is
      refuted by a clear structural frame, namely  "gospel" in 1:1 and 1:15,
      which marks out the opening section to Mark's **gospel**, 1:1-15.


      I hadn't noticed the 1:1/1:15 frame.  It's a good point and I'll have to think about it some.

      I still think that there is a frame between 1: 16-20 and 10: 46-52.  I see 1:15 as the programmatic statement that sets the theme for the first half: the response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom.  The section opens with the call of a disciples ("Follow me" 1:17; "and they...followed him" 1:18).  The Bartimeaeus scene is similar, as he too follows Jesus (10:52).  The same verb (akoloutheo) is used in both instances.  The Bartimeaus scene also includes a number of themes that have been developed in the first part of the Gospel: he asks for and receives his sight (10:51), which contrasts nicely with the blindness of the disciples (8:17); and follows Jesus on the way/road (hodo), as do the disciples (10:32, although note that they are afraid).  He is good soil to their rocky soil.

      Shawn Kelley
      Daemen College

       

    • Jeffrey Krantz
      Hello! As a newcomer to the list, I ve been watching this thread for a bit before jumping in, but thought that Shawn s most recent post suggesting the presence
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 8, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello!

        As a newcomer to the list, I've been watching this thread for a bit
        before
        jumping in, but thought that Shawn's most recent post suggesting the
        presence of structure in Mark seemed an opportune moment to suggest one
        of
        my pet theories. It's my opinion that the Gospel's narrative structure
        is
        very carefully worked out so as to emphasize at least two major themes
        1)
        contrast between the response of "all the people" to the message of John

        about the coming "mighty one" and the message of Mark's community
        (exemplified by the "young man" or "neaniskos") concerning the crucified
        and
        risen Son of Man ("and they said nothing to anyone, for they were
        afraid")
        and 2) The (polemic) transfer of the cosmic battle between Satan and
        Jesus
        to the human realm, now between Mark's followers and the authorities.

        Mark, I believe has laid the gospel out in an extended "concentric
        parallelism" (Joanna Dewey's term, though I've not seen her apply it
        this
        way) or chiasm that pairs segments of narrative throughout the text.

        The diagram of this arrangement looks like this:

        A Beginning - John points to Jesus 1:4-8
        B Jesus' baptism - The splitting of the heavens, "You are my son,"

        1:9-11
        C Jesus is tested in the wilderness 1:12-13
        D The parable of the sower 4:1-9
        E Raising of the young girl 5:21-43
        F The death of John the Baptist 6:14-29
        G Stilling of the second storm (exorcism
        of

        the deep) 6:45-52
        H Peter's confession 8:27-30
        I - Jesus' first passion
        prediction

        8:31-33
        H' Transfiguration 9:2-10
        G' Exorcism of possessed boy 9:14-29
        F' Appearance of the rich (young) man 10:17-22
        E' Raising of the young man in Secret Mark (followed


        Mark 10:34)
        D' Parable of the vineyard 12:1-11
        C' Jesus is tested in the temple 12:13-27
        B' Jesus dies, the temple veil is split "Truly this was God's son."


        15:33-39
        A' The "post-runner" the young man, points to Jesus 16:1-8

        In the same way that Mark linked the opening and closing pericopes of
        Jesus'
        baptism and death with the use of schizomenous and eschisthe (not to
        mention
        the naming of Jesus as "Son.") he has used linking language in the other

        pairs, some more obvious than others, but all nonetheless there.

        The structure confronts the reader/hearer with a radical choice between
        images of the Messiah, while demonizing the communities opponents. A
        more
        thorough working out of this pattern can be seen in the full paper,
        available at
        http://www.agapenetwork.org/paper1.htm

        I'm still working out some of the kinks in it all though, so I look
        forward
        to your comments.

        Jeff K.



        --
        Jeffrey H. Krantz
        Church of the Advent, Westbury, NY
        Mercer School of Theology, Garden City, NY
        Homepage http://www.agapenetwork.org
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Thanks for this. After reading the piece, I remain wary of chiastic theories of the Gospels for the following reasons: (1) The old problem that it is
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 9, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On 8 Jul 99, at 21:36, Jeffrey Krantz wrote:

          > Mark, I believe has laid the gospel out in an extended "concentric
          > parallelism" (Joanna Dewey's term, though I've not seen her apply it
          > this
          > way) or chiasm that pairs segments of narrative throughout the text.

          Thanks for this. After reading the piece, I remain wary of chiastic
          theories of the Gospels for the following reasons:

          (1) The old problem that it is surprising that no-one has spotted this
          before and that, if so, Mark has failed in what he was attempting to do.

          (2) The parallels between Greek expressions are entirely what one
          would expect in taking any two sections from the Gospel at random.
          I once did a test not on a chiastic theory but on Aileen Guilding's
          lectionary theory of John (in Chapter 6 of my Oxford M.Phil. thesis)
          in which I took a random selection of passages and actually found
          more, not less, correspondences than she had in her carefully worked-
          out pattern, and this in spite of her claims that "This cannot be
          accidental" etc.

          (3) Michael Goulder once argued strongly for a chiastic structure in
          Luke's Central Section (1957?) with correspondences in the Greek
          etc. only to abandon the theory not long afterwards. This similarly
          reinforces the gut feeling that theories like this are pictures in the fire.

          (4) More specifically, I am concerned about the unevenness of the
          scheme here proposed. Sometimes one part of a pair follows on
          straight away from one part of another pair and sometimes there are
          large gaps left unaccounted for. Most clearly, there is a problem with
          ABC all covering just Mark 1.4-13 where C'B'A' is comprised of
          12.13-27, 15.33-39 and 16.1-8.

          (5) Similarly, some of the links are inevitably strained. For example,
          re. pair F:

          > Were their presences at the beginning and end of the gospel not enough
          > to tie them together as matching characters, the fact that the death
          > of one is mirrored by the reader's first encounter with the other
          > should suffice.

          I think that the parallel between "death" and "reader's first encounter"
          is not strong.

          (6) The theory requires one to accept that the earliest version of the
          Gospel = Secret Mark, a matter that is not of course consensus.

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          New Testament Web Resources
          Mark Without Q
          Aseneth Home Page
        • Jim Deardorff
          ... Mark, Your points (2)-(6) to Jeffrey Krantz seemed very strong and sufficient. Hence it is your point (1) above I d like to discuss briefly. If there is a
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 9, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:55 AM 7/9/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:

            >Thanks for this. After reading the piece, I remain wary of chiastic
            >theories of the Gospels for the following reasons:
            >
            >(1) The old problem that it is surprising that no-one has spotted this
            >before and that, if so, Mark has failed in what he was attempting to do.

            Mark,

            Your points (2)-(6) to Jeffrey Krantz seemed very strong and sufficient.
            Hence it is your point (1) above I'd like to discuss briefly. If there is a
            very strong reason why past NT literature has not reported on what may seem
            to certain investigators to be an obvious point, then (1) does not hold.

            The example I have in mind is one of the arguments favoring Mark being
            secondary to Matthew: it was Matthew's anti-gentile statements that provided
            the chief impetus for AMk, in Rome, to write his gospel. In so doing, AMk
            not only removed these anti-gentile irritants, but retaliated in kind by
            portraying the Jewish disciples and friends of Jesus as being extra dumb,
            discourteous and fearful. This is nasty business that hardly any NT journal
            editor would want to have published in his journal, nor book publisher would
            wish to have pubished within his line of books. They would no more want this
            than the 19th-century theologians wanted to face up to the full implications
            of the Augustinian tradition; thus, primacy of Mark was much to be preferred.

            However, no such strong reason of theological commitment exists for NT
            scholarship to have avoided earlier reporting of Jeffrey Krantz's
            argumentation, so your point (1) may still be relevant there.

            Jim Deardorff
            Corvallis, Oregon
            E-mail: deardorj@...
            Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.