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

[Synoptic-L] Narrative Structure of Mark

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jul 8 6:36 PM
    • 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 2 of 4 , Jul 9 3:55 AM
      • 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 3 of 4 , Jul 9 9:23 AM
        • 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.