In addition to the proposed purpose(s) put forward by Eszter Andorka (fairly
well 'sanctioned' purposes, I should add), there is also the possibility
that Mark was written as a satirical polemic against both the Jews/Jerusalem
community, on the one hand, and this new Jewish sect (Jesus/Christianity),
on the other. The striking similarities between Mark and the Mennipian
Satire (first pointed out by Bahktin; cf. also the stylistic similarities
between the GMark and Petronius' Satyricon, particularly the Cena or Dinner
episode), and its subsequent canonical demotion by the Christian community
(i.e., its 'place' between Mt. and Lk.), as well as many other things (e.g.,
its controversial content and organization, evidenced by Papias' rather poor
apology that Mark is not a fictional account, or misleading, and so forth,
as well as the outright rejection of GMark by Epiphanius in the 4th century,
who believed that the GMark was written by an apostate Christian, as well as
similarities between some of Celsus' critiques of Jesus/Christianity and
certain polemics found in GMark [most notably the notion of 'secret
knowledge/passages,' very much like our present 'Secret Gospel of Mark,' and
so on), all this suggests that the purpose of Mark may not have been to
promote Christianity, but rather to sabotage it through subtle satire and,
in some instances, outright mockery. I realize this is a departure from the
canonical explanations of Mark's purpose (I also admit that attempts to
determine the 'purpose' of Mark are inherently tenuous; after all, can we
really know the Mind of Mark?), but it is a hermeneutical departure that
seems to make more sense to me.
George W. Young, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
Queen's College Faculty of Theology
Dear Phil:
Its always nice to hear from 'down under.' I agree that sometimes the
distinction between the ironic and the satirical is hard to differentiate,
and the ironic clearly has a place in Mark - including the coronation scene.
Yet my focus carries me into more acrid terrain, where the narrator's
pleasure teeters over from the serio-comical (irony) into one of ridicule
(satire). My interests spring from a continued dissatisfaction with the
endless stutter of the BIOS school, i.e., those who frame all three
synoptics (and John) as some mutation of the 'Life' genre. And, as you know,
any 'frame' cannot but hide the margins, or, in my view, the satirical
side(s) of Mark. Currently, I'm drawing from the insights of Northrop Frye
(Anatomy), M. Bakhtin (Doestovesky's Poetics), and many others' discussions
of the ancient Menippean Satire. Both Frye and Bakhtin argue effectively
(in my opinion) that the Menippean Satire was one of the most influential
literary experiments of the ancient world. First attributed, or given
'form,' by Menippus, but then 'nurtured' by Varro, Lucian, and many others
to follow, and finding a special place in early and medieval Christianity,
and, still more, (as Bakhtin argues) perfected in Doestovesky. Anyway, the
paucity of secondary literature concerning satire in Mark (as defined
above), suggests that maybe there is still more canvas under that annoying,
ugly, old frame which that B(i)os(sy) school keeps handing us!
George Young
Queen's College
Philip Lewis wrote:
> Several authorities have, specifically LaGrange, have identified the
Walking
> on Water tradition (less vs.52) as a resurrection appearance. As such,
the
> "phantasm" is the figure of the Risen Lord, according to the tradition,
whom
> the disciples assume was dead! That is to say, Mark had sources to which
he
> turned for his material. One was the resurrection appearance in a Passion
> Source which we find here. Mark had a USE for the story namely, to
present
> Jesus as the Angelos who goes before us, just as the Angelos of Exodus
went
> before Israel to lead them to the place God had prepared for them. This
> "mythical role", Mark is saying, was beyond the understanding of the
> disciples. They "could not understand about the loaves," thus tying the
> apparition account with the Bread Theme Mark is developing.
This is a fascinating suggestion that has always piqued my interest. The
argument was presented anew by Patrick D. Madden in his recently published
PhD dissertation _Jesus Walking on the Sea_(1997), and the "mythical role"
which you cite seems to have parallels with Rudolf Otto's "phantom-like
apparitio" ("Charismatic 'Apparitio': Christ's Walking on the Sea" in _The
Kingdom of God and the son of Man, 1938). However, one objection to viewing
the sea-walking narrative as a 'displaced resurrection appearance' is the
pre-gospel connection to the feeding of the five thousand - something
highlighted by the narrators aside in v.52 - which seems to link the
sea-walk with Jesus' pre-death ministry. If you don't mind, how would you
respond to this pre-gospel connection? (NB: by 'pre-gospel' I mean prior to
canonical Mark)
George W. Young, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
Queen's College Faculty of Theology
Young wrote a book relating to the topic:> Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
>
> I've just read quickly through yesterday's digest and was rather surprised
> at the discussion on the above topic. I really think that most of the
> speculation about the young man who escaped naked from the scene of the
> arrest in Mark's gospel is rather worthless.
I agree, insofar as we are seeking obscure symbolic meanings that, from a
hermeneutical point of view, can logically go on forever, i.e., we can
continually assign new symbolic meanings to NEANISKOS and SINDONA. But
these will always lack an original narrative context.
> While admitting that I don't
> know with any confidence whatsoever what it means, I don't think it was
> left in as a remnant of Secret Mark
Why not? Secret Mark explicitly refers to the NEANISKOS (4x) and the SINDONA
(1x). While there may be problems with the acceptance of Secret Mark within
the Guild, the text does provide a *narrative context* for the young man's
appearance within the canonical Gospel of Mark. Should we ignore this?
After all, despite many attempts to discredit Secret Mark, it has not gone
away nor has it been proven to be a forgery. Furthermore, it is interesting
that Jesus discloses the mystery of the Kingdom to the NEANISKOS, the
same(?) NEANISKOS who is 'with Jesus' at the garden (14:51-52) and first at
the tomb (16:5) -- "But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to
beseech him that he might be with him [always]" (S.M.).
George W. Young, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
Queen's College Faculty of Theology
https://books.google.com/books?id=t54Dz ... &q&f=false
Is there anything to "the possibility that Mark was written as a satirical polemic against both the Jews/Jerusalem community, on the one hand, and this new Jewish sect (Jesus/Christianity), on the other"?
Is there reason to believe "the purpose of Mark may not have been to promote Christianity, but rather to sabotage it through subtle satire and, in some instances, outright mockery"?