Missing text in Mark 1?

[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 1:13-14 (NASB20) 13 And He was in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild animals, and the angels were serving Him. 14 Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

Is there missing context here? It certainly feels like it. We have no information about John the Baptist’s arrest (until much later in the book, with a very awkward and clunky flashback). But here we go from verse 13 of Jesus in the wilderness to after John’s arrest. The mention of the arrest comes out of nowhere. What arrest?

[rgprice]

Yes, its a good observation. I've posted threads on this issue as well. I don't feel like searching them down at the moment, but...

I've also argued that this is potentially a case of harmonizing Mark with Matthew after the fact. The framework I work with is that there was some original version of what we call the Gospel of Mark. What we have today is very close to the original, but not exactly. The original Mark was not an "orthodox" work. When Mark was put into a collection with the other four Gospels in the middle of the 2nd century, whoever did that engaged in some relatively minor revision of Mark to more closely align it with the rest of the proto-orthodox material.

That is conjecture, but I suspect that is what happened. A few things that I suspect may be examples of these types of revisions are exactly what you cite here, as well as the naming of Jesus relatives, Mary and his brothers. That's because his mother is not named in John or the core of Luke nor presumably in Marcion's Gospel. I think all of those Gospel derive from Mark, so the fact that they don't name the mother of Mary seems to indicate they were working from a version of Mark in which she was not named.

Here, this looks like a statement that may have been added after the fact, to align Mark with Matthew and Luke since the way it is written implies that this is information the reader should already know, so it is just being glossed over here. Why would they already know it? Because they read it in Matthew. But that wasn't the case in the original Mark, only the version of Mark that was in the collection.

But, alas, this is all speculation.

[Peter Kirby]

Ben Smith wrote about it as one of several indications of reader knowledge being presumed (and don't forget "Let the reader understand"):

viewtopic.php?t=3818

That knowledge could have come in different ways (as Ben outlines). Or, as you suggest, the text may have changed.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Ben Smith wrote about it as one of several indications of reader knowledge being presumed (and don't forget "Let the reader understand"):

viewtopic.php?t=3818

That knowledge could have come in different ways (as Ben outlines). Or, as you suggest, the text may have changed.

Or verse 1:14 is a garden variety "forward," as the ubiquitous sturytelling device has been called since David Ball's Backwards and Forwards (searchable).

A forward is a reference within a performance (for example, that John has been arrested at 1:14) to something that will be explored with more detail later in the same performance (John dies in custody, 6:17 and following).

It is often (typically) the case that the earlier reference "comes out of nowhere" to some extent. In the example, by verse 1:14 we have been introduced to John, and we know that he is a public figure. All that comes out of nowhere is that his activity interests law enforcement. As to what happens next ... well, you'll just have to remain in your seat in order to find out.

This particular forward is also informative: it shows us (not tells us) that what Jesus is about to do is dangerous. He, too, might get arrested. To find out whether he does or not, you'll have to return to your seat after intermission.

Although the brief explanation above is written from the perspective of a naive audience member (someone who doesn't know the story already), the presence of a forward is not especially informative about what the audience already knows about the plot. There are people, after all, who might experience more than one performance of the work. If the device simply wasted their time ("Yes, yes, he dies in custody, let's go on with it, shall we?"), then it would be difficult to explain why the device is ubiquitous. It's not just about "suspense," for some it is about recollection and reflection on what will (now) inevitably unfold.

An audience member has a legitimate gripe if they never find out more about John (= his arrest both comes from nowhere and then goes nowhere). Otherwise, Mark's still in print, has been translated into uncounted languages, and is the patent basis for at least two other best sellers, maybe three, in the same genre. Maybe Mark knew what he was doing. IMO, as always. Your mileage may differ.

[Peter Kirby]

Ben Smith wrote about it as one of several indications of reader knowledge being presumed (and don't forget "Let the reader understand"):

viewtopic.php?t=3818

That knowledge could have come in different ways (as Ben outlines). Or, as you suggest, the text may have changed.

Or verse 1:14 is a garden variety "forward," as the ubiquitous sturytelling device has been called since David Ball's Backwards and Forwards (searchable).

A forward is a reference within a performance (for example, that John has been arrested at 1:14) to something that will be explored with more detail later in the same performance (John dies in custody, 6:17 and following).

Good point.

[John2]

What arrest?

My guess is that this refers to the arrest of John that Josephus mentions. Even before Josephus wrote about it, it appears to have been common knowledge.

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion ... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner ... the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod ...

[rgprice]

My guess is that this refers to the arrest of John that Josephus mentions. Even before Josephus wrote about it, it appears to have been common knowledge.

No, just no.

The "common knowledge" claim is entirely unsupportable. Even if it were "common knowledge" one wouldn't write an account like this.

Either, as PtU said, this is just part of the style of Mark, or as I said, it results from editing Mark in the presence of the other Gospels in the four Gospel collection.

[John2]

The "common knowledge" claim is entirely unsupportable.

It is my take of what Josephus says. For another example, in addition to the large crowds that John attracted, the passage begins with, "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God," which I take to mean that other Jews were aware of what happened to John and didn't think that the destruction of Herod's army came from God. In other words, Jews of various stripes appear to have been aware of what happened to John, to such a degree that Josephus found it notable (assuming it's not an interpolation, and I don't think it is, but if you or anyone else does, feel free to disregard it).

[Jair]

Ben Smith wrote about it as one of several indications of reader knowledge being presumed (and don't forget "Let the reader understand"):

viewtopic.php?t=3818

That knowledge could have come in different ways (as Ben outlines). Or, as you suggest, the text may have changed.

Or verse 1:14 is a garden variety "forward," as the ubiquitous sturytelling device has been called since David Ball's Backwards and Forwards (searchable).

A forward is a reference within a performance (for example, that John has been arrested at 1:14) to something that will be explored with more detail later in the same performance (John dies in custody, 6:17 and following).

It is often (typically) the case that the earlier reference "comes out of nowhere" to some extent. In the example, by verse 1:14 we have been introduced to John, and we know that he is a public figure. All that comes out of nowhere is that his activity interests law enforcement. As to what happens next ... well, you'll just have to remain in your seat in order to find out.

This particular forward is also informative: it shows us (not tells us) that what Jesus is about to do is dangerous. He, too, might get arrested. To find out whether he does or not, you'll have to return to your seat after intermission.

Although the brief explanation above is written from the perspective of a naive audience member (someone who doesn't know the story already), the presence of a forward is not especially informative about what the audience already knows about the plot. There are people, after all, who might experience more than one performance of the work. If the device simply wasted their time ("Yes, yes, he dies in custody, let's go on with it, shall we?"), then it would be difficult to explain why the device is ubiquitous. It's not just about "suspense," for some it is about recollection and reflection on what will (now) inevitably unfold.

An audience member has a legitimate gripe if they never find out more about John (= his arrest both comes from nowhere and then goes nowhere). Otherwise, Mark's still in print, has been translated into uncounted languages, and is the patent basis for at least two other best sellers, maybe three, in the same genre. Maybe Mark knew what he was doing. IMO, as always. Your mileage may differ.

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.

[Paul the Uncertain]

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?