Missing text in Mark 1?

[Jair]

I’m not nearly as knowledgeable about these topics as the average person on these boards, so a lot of my observations will inevitably be from my own speculation more than not. That being said, Mark 6:17 and following, now that you mention it, has also always seemed extremely clunky in the text to me. Is it possible that it was added later? Because it really interrupts the flow.

It might help our discussion if I had a better idea what you feel is wrongly crafted either at 1:14 or its fulfillment in chapter 6.

For example, is it artless that something be narrated to fill the "gap" between the dispatch of the six apostolic missionary pairs and their return in order to mark the passage of time? As to the death-of-John story itself, could you expand a bit on what clunky means to you?

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this. Where it really feels clunky to me is going from verse 29 to 30 (Mark 6). Verse 30 is a very natural follow up to verse 13, and if you were to cut out 14-29, it reads very smoothly I think.

[Paul the Uncertain]

... Where it really feels clunky to me is going from verse 29 to 30 (Mark 6). Verse 30 is a very natural follow up to verse 13, and if you were to cut out 14-29, it reads very smoothly I think.

So how would you dramatize the passage of time between the dispatch of the disciples (6:11) and their return (6:30)? Where would you put the information about John's death and that his disciples buried him (as Jesus's will not)?

Just trying to understand your view.

[Jair]

... Where it really feels clunky to me is going from verse 29 to 30 (Mark 6). Verse 30 is a very natural follow up to verse 13, and if you were to cut out 14-29, it reads very smoothly I think.

So how would you dramatize the passage of time between the dispatch of the disciples (6:11) and their return (6:30)? Where would you put the information about John's death and that his disciples buried him (as Jesus's will not)?

Just trying to understand your view.

It’s more a hunch than a view, per se. But I guess my line of thinking is that such a dramatization to pass the time isn’t necessarily essential for the text there.

As for the info on John’s death, I wonder if it might go towards the beginning of the document. Relating to my op.

[Paul the Uncertain]

It’s more a hunch than a view, per se. But I guess my line of thinking is that such a dramatization to pass the time isn’t necessarily essential for the text there.

As for the info on John’s death, I wonder if it might go towards the beginning of the document. Relating to my op.

Thank you for that. I think I understand better now.

My own orientation is that Mark is an elite storyteller. Storytelling (as opposed to report writing) works by rationing information disclosure. For example:

Reporter: In palace news today, Lord Antipas celebrated his birthday by beheading his prisoner, John, known on the street as the Dunker. That should put an end to John's complaints about his Lordship's divorce, eh? Mrs Antipas is keeping John's head as a souvenir, associates buried the rest of him in a private ceremony. Up next, sports ...

Storyteller: John is introduced ... [stuff happens] ... John is arrested ... [stuff happens] ... Antipas is introduced, he disagrees with John's teaching on divorce, he reluctantly kills John, John's disciples bury most of John's corpse ... [stuff happens] ... Jesus teaches more strongly against divorce just as Jesus leaves Antipas's jurisdiction ... [stuff happens ] ... Pilate reluctantly kills Jesus, Jesus's disciples let somebody else bury Jesus ...

There's no question that there's a place for good reportage in the world, but there's also no question that there's a place for engaging storytelling, too.

Dramaturg stuff: Performance works often have an "act" structure. John's burial makes a fine first act curtain in a three-act presentation, and doing that makes the passage of time between 6:11 and 6:30 indefinite. Of course, 6:30 makes a great opening for the second act. Another analyst might designate 6:12-29 as an "entr'acte." Either way, it would be the point of the incident to "interrupt the flow" of the main narrative.

In my opinion as always, and other views are possible.

[Charles Wilson]

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html

NOTES
14: Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

v14, "Jesus came into Galilee" without any hint that Jesus is returning (v9) is often seen as a continuity error. Indeed, some have seen in this the real beginning of the Gospel, arguing that the earlier verses are later interpolations, up to and including "Now after John was arrested....

Part of the Markan Puzzle is the identity of the Author(s)-by-Chiasms. For example, Mark carries the Empty Tomb Motif within his/their Chiastic Format, indicating the Empty Tomb Material was given before the Author created the story in Chiastic Form.

Here, the verses are given in Chiastic Form but it is an oddity of Text that the "split" occurs on Chiasrtic Boundaries. The Form is there but the difference in the posited 2 Subjects points to something else.

My Vote goes for the "Re-Written Story" Idea: John, as Teeple suggests, was amalgamated from Materials worked over by 4 or 5 different Greekies from different Backgrounds in regards to Arthrous and Anarthrous Names. Mark appeared to beput together by one Main Author who attempted to write in Chiastic Structures. Which implies:

Two different written Strands "on the table" => written into a much less sophisticated "Bare" Chiastic Structure for the beginning of Mark. We should be able to isolate some of the Behide-the-Scenes story from the Original.

Remember, "John Confessed..." that he was NOT the Messiah. John was arrested and probably tortured in the Original. Take it from there.
I take it then that there WAS something the Mark wrote FROM and that Paul the Uncertain's supposition is True.

CW

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I wonder if material went missing from Mark chapter 1. This is purely speculation from looking at an English translation. I don’t know enough about the Greek to really look into that, but the verses I’m looking at are 13 and 14.

Mark 1:14 (NASB20) Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

The mention of the arrest comes out of nowhere. What arrest?

"Taken into custody" and "arrest" are rather "interpretative" translations. Verbatim it's "the giving over", "the giving away" (παρα-δοθῆναι). Young's Literal Translation and Berean Literal Bible use "delivering up".

And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came into Galilee ...

For example:

Reporter: In palace news today, Lord Antipas celebrated his birthday by beheading his prisoner, John, known on the street as the Dunker. That should put an end to John's complaints about his Lordship's divorce, eh? Mrs Antipas is keeping John's head as a souvenir, associates buried the rest of him in a private ceremony. Up next, sports ...

Storyteller: John is introduced ... [stuff happens] ... John is arrested ... [stuff happens] ... Antipas is introduced, he disagrees with John's teaching on divorce, he reluctantly kills John, John's disciples bury most of John's corpse ... [stuff happens] ... Jesus teaches more strongly against divorce just as Jesus leaves Antipas's jurisdiction ... [stuff happens ] ... Pilate reluctantly kills Jesus, Jesus's disciples let somebody else bury Jesus ...

Dramaturg stuff: Performance works often have an "act" structure. John's burial makes a fine first act curtain in a three-act presentation, and doing that makes the passage of time between 6:11 and 6:30 indefinite. Of course, 6:30 makes a great opening for the second act. Another analyst might designate 6:12-29 as an "entr'acte." Either way, it would be the point of the incident to "interrupt the flow" of the main narrative.

In my opinion as always, and other views are possible.

I really like that.

I'm not sure, but an alternative could be that only the theologically relevant information is reported in Mark 1:14.

Radio Heaven 7: As Archangel Michael informed today, according to the Eternal's counsel, John completed his mission and immediately Jesus was sent forth (*all angels rejoice*)

[Paul the Uncertain]

I'm not sure, but an alternative could be that only the theologically relevant information is reported in Mark 1:14.

Radio Heaven 7: As Archangel Michael informed today, according to the Eternal's counsel, John completed his mission and immediately Jesus was sent forth (*all angels rejoice*)

[RandyHelzerman]

Part of the Markan Puzzle is the identity of the Author(s)-by-Chiasms. For example, Mark carries the Empty Tomb Motif within his/their Chiastic Format, indicating the Empty Tomb Material was given before the Author created the story in Chiastic Form.

Interesting....I've never heard an argument like that before, and I probably don't understand all the factors which would make it persuasive...can you help me explore it a bit?

History is pretty messy, unpredictable, and random, so if anything, if all the story elements fit into a nice, well-known literary structure, wouldn't that instead be evidence that the story was a literary creation?

As far as I know, nobody has written a largely historical biography of any charismatic leader---Billy Graham, or MLK, say, and structured their account chiastically. If you read a history of the civil war, or even Josephus, its just (as Churchill said after writing his histories) "one damn thing after another."

So its puzzling to me that somebody would argue from the chiastic structure of a story that it must be composed of pre-existing pericopes.

[Charles Wilson]

Some Background --

The Empty Tomb is found in all four Gospels but since...JESUS!..., this must be seen as evidence for "Oral Tradition" since there are contradictions in the descriptions of the four versions. Joe Atwill's Caesar's Messiah ( https://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah- ... 1461096405 ) examines the Empty Tomb Motif from a different angle: Suppose that there was an Original Story that was dismembered and reassembled into four parts, each part distributed into the four Gospels. Can an "Original" be put back together?

Our old Poster Adam put all of the verses into an order that suggests that an Original could be found.

There is an Objective Marker in the Texts that allows such a re-assembly: The Rising Sun.
The entire Tableau begins at the beginning of the Dawn and ends with the Rising Sun. Assembled in this manner, the contradictions disappear.
People come and people go and there are no explicit contradictions in their movements. It is a Unified Story.

So: Each part of the Empty Tomb Motif was given to the Authors of the four Gospels and Mark was no exception. Teeple solves the Authorships of John. Mark stands apart here but the point is in his use of Chiasms. You even get Clues to Interpolations from text that does not follow Chiastic Formulas.

The Empty Tomb is given in Chiastic Form in Mark. This implies that the Original was split apart and the Part that "Mark" had was rewritten in Chiastic Form. So too with Mark 1.
***
Thank you very much for this important question!
FWIW, I believe the Empty Tomb Story was written around the death of Otho at Brixellem ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207 ).

[Jair]

I wonder if material went missing from Mark chapter 1. This is purely speculation from looking at an English translation. I don’t know enough about the Greek to really look into that, but the verses I’m looking at are 13 and 14.

Mark 1:14 (NASB20) Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

The mention of the arrest comes out of nowhere. What arrest?

"Taken into custody" and "arrest" are rather "interpretative" translations. Verbatim it's "the giving over", "the giving away" (παρα-δοθῆναι). Young's Literal Translation and Berean Literal Bible use "delivering up".

And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came into Galilee ...

For example:

Reporter: In palace news today, Lord Antipas celebrated his birthday by beheading his prisoner, John, known on the street as the Dunker. That should put an end to John's complaints about his Lordship's divorce, eh? Mrs Antipas is keeping John's head as a souvenir, associates buried the rest of him in a private ceremony. Up next, sports ...

Storyteller: John is introduced ... [stuff happens] ... John is arrested ... [stuff happens] ... Antipas is introduced, he disagrees with John's teaching on divorce, he reluctantly kills John, John's disciples bury most of John's corpse ... [stuff happens] ... Jesus teaches more strongly against divorce just as Jesus leaves Antipas's jurisdiction ... [stuff happens ] ... Pilate reluctantly kills Jesus, Jesus's disciples let somebody else bury Jesus ...

Dramaturg stuff: Performance works often have an "act" structure. John's burial makes a fine first act curtain in a three-act presentation, and doing that makes the passage of time between 6:11 and 6:30 indefinite. Of course, 6:30 makes a great opening for the second act. Another analyst might designate 6:12-29 as an "entr'acte." Either way, it would be the point of the incident to "interrupt the flow" of the main narrative.

In my opinion as always, and other views are possible.

I really like that.

I'm not sure, but an alternative could be that only the theologically relevant information is reported in Mark 1:14.

Radio Heaven 7: As Archangel Michael informed today, according to the Eternal's counsel, John completed his mission and immediately Jesus was sent forth (*all angels rejoice*)

WOAH… hang on… “delivering up”… could this be implying an original layer that gave John the “Elijah exit”?