Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:38 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:20 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:47 pm This is not an argument concerning sources in gMark, but I do think there is a discernable difference between gMark and the other two synoptics, that shows that gMark is different when it comes to incorporating possible sources. Which either shows that Mark didn’t use sources or that he used them in a different way.
I would be interested in an elaboration of this: a concrete example or two of what you mean about this discernible difference.
Mark4: 36 - 41 (RSV):

[36] And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him.
[37] And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.
[38] But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?"
[39] And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
[40] He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?"
[41] And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?"

"But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" "

Compare with Matthew 8: 24 - 27 (RSV):

[24] And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep.
[25] And they went and woke him, saying, "Save, Lord; we are perishing."
[26] And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O men of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
[27] And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"

This is a slap-you-in-the-face "discernable difference". Fr. Fitzmyer calls Mark's description "unessential detail". It's not necessary, therefore it should not be there! All that matters is the "Miracle Story"! Screw the possible Historical Datum here!

Mark has rewritten from a Source - a Source that is describing an entirely different Set of Circumstances.

CW

PS: Very impressive Thread discussion.
I'd say those "unessential detail" are important clues that help draw in meaning to this passage from other places, both inside and outside of gMark itself. The "cushion" I'd argue is to make a connection with Jacob's ladder (cf. Gen 28:11,18).

Could you give me the place where Fitzmyer calls it "unessential detail"?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:34 pmCould you give me the place where Fitzmyer calls it "unessential detail"?
I think Charles is referring to Fitzmyer's article in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, which Peter Kirby quotes as follows (pages 38-39, underlining mine):

When the argument is left on the theoretic level, as it often is, the priority of Mark appears to be more of an assumption than a conclusion. But the retort is made that the priority of Mark over Matthew and Luke depends as well on the concrete comparison of individual texts and on the complex of subsidiary questions related to it that must be answered. For instance, in the case of the latter one [that Mark is intermediate but not primary, on the Augustinian or Griesbachian hypotheses] one may ask a series of questions: (1) Why would anyone want to abbreviate or conflate Matthew and Luke to produce from them a Gospel such as Mark actually is? (2) Why is so much of Matthew and Luke omitted in the end-product? Why is so much important Gospel material that would be of interest to the growing and developing church(es) eliminated by Mark? Why, for example, has he omitted the Sermon on the Mount and often encumbered narratives in the retelling with trivial and unessential detail (for example, the cushion on the boat in Mark 4:38; the "four men" in Mark 2:3 and so on)? In other words, given Mark, it is easy to see why Matthew and Luke were written; but given Matthew and Luke, it is hard to see why Mark was needed in the early Church. (3) How could Mark have so consistently eliminated all trace of Lukanisms? If he were a modern practicioner of Redaktionsgeschichte, the elimination might be conceivable. But was he so inclined? (4) What would have motivated Mark to omit even those elements in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke that are common? His alleged interest in narratives, rather than teaching, would have led him instead to present a conflated and harmonized infancy narrative. (5) Mark's resurrection narrative, even if it be limited to 16:1-8, is puzzling. Can it really be regarded as an abbreviation or conflation of the Matthean and/or Lukan accounts?

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you, Ben!!!

You are correct!

BTW, I agree that the fragment, "But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" is a very important clue. The question is, to what does the Clue refer? To me, before going to the extreme Metaphysics, a simple assignment of Symbolism ("Boat" <=> "Fortress Antonia") renders a more readable story. "The Squall" symbolizes the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE. Josephus tells the external story of Archelaus putting down the Coup that was to be directed at his father. Many Stories of the NT tell of the INTERNAL Battle that raged.

To get back on point, Mark's version leaves in the Symbol. Matthew has "Master, we are perishing", covering over the Datum. Mark also gives us something that is hidden elsewhere: "Are we to perish, FOR ALL YOU CARE?"

This is quite a "Discernable Difference". It is therefore possible to see that the "Elijah-Elisha" has been mapped onto the Story. The Original was focused on Priestly Concerns - The Mishmarot Priesthood, especially. This was hidden, with great success. One thing leads to another: The first to appear will foreshadow the One who follows: That would be Titus. This "Ur-Sign's Gospel" deifying Titus does not allow for Domitian and the whole is rewritten after his death and Damnatio Memoriae, into the NT. By this time, circa 110, the original Symbolism has been forgotten or ignored and is left in.

Fr. Fitzmyer sees, along with many others, the purpose of the NT as the explication of the Jesus stories. He was "blind", so to speak to another alternative, a "Discernable Difference".

Thnx, Ben

CW
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:23 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:34 pmCould you give me the place where Fitzmyer calls it "unessential detail"?
I think Charles is referring to Fitzmyer's article in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, which Peter Kirby quotes as follows (pages 38-39, underlining mine):

When the argument is left on the theoretic level, as it often is, the priority of Mark appears to be more of an assumption than a conclusion. But the retort is made that the priority of Mark over Matthew and Luke depends as well on the concrete comparison of individual texts and on the complex of subsidiary questions related to it that must be answered. For instance, in the case of the latter one [that Mark is intermediate but not primary, on the Augustinian or Griesbachian hypotheses] one may ask a series of questions: (1) Why would anyone want to abbreviate or conflate Matthew and Luke to produce from them a Gospel such as Mark actually is? (2) Why is so much of Matthew and Luke omitted in the end-product? Why is so much important Gospel material that would be of interest to the growing and developing church(es) eliminated by Mark? Why, for example, has he omitted the Sermon on the Mount and often encumbered narratives in the retelling with trivial and unessential detail (for example, the cushion on the boat in Mark 4:38; the "four men" in Mark 2:3 and so on)? In other words, given Mark, it is easy to see why Matthew and Luke were written; but given Matthew and Luke, it is hard to see why Mark was needed in the early Church. (3) How could Mark have so consistently eliminated all trace of Lukanisms? If he were a modern practicioner of Redaktionsgeschichte, the elimination might be conceivable. But was he so inclined? (4) What would have motivated Mark to omit even those elements in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke that are common? His alleged interest in narratives, rather than teaching, would have led him instead to present a conflated and harmonized infancy narrative. (5) Mark's resurrection narrative, even if it be limited to 16:1-8, is puzzling. Can it really be regarded as an abbreviation or conflation of the Matthean and/or Lukan accounts?

Thanks for the reference, both of you! :cheers:
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:29 pmParker's theory seems to solve some problems in textual criticism. But it also seems to create alot of problems, but I havn't read his work. I think the text of gMark as we have it, with all the variant readings taken into account (most of them are not really important for the meaning), has such coherence of meaning on the deeper level that I find it hard to regard it as some sort of collective effort, if that is the theory.
To my mind, Parker's approach neither solves old problems, per se, nor poses new ones. Rather, it explains why those old problems may ultimately be inexplicable on a close analytical level.
For me the object is the meaning in the text itself. But that's also because I think it is impossible to actually separate what is Mark's own stuff and what is tradition, at least in any way that's meaningful for the purpose of tradition history. I wish we could know more precisely what traditions Mark was familiar with, but I think we just need to uncover the whole network of theological meaning beneath the text before we do anything else. And I don't think we have done that quite yet.
To put literary and theological meanings of a text before text and source criticism seems to me to be perfectly backwards. Theological and literary readings are powerful: too powerful. They can usually make sense of whatever is there. The trick is to make sure that whatever is there was there originally. Otherwise, we may be deriving theological and literary meanings from passages which did not pour from the same pen. With a bit of care this can be okay when the topic is early Christianity as a whole, but when the topic is Mark or Paul or any other specific author from antiquity it behooves us to be reasonably sure of what Mark or Paul originally wrote.
Regarding the thing about assumptions, all I meant was that we all bring preconceptions to our reading of a text. Of course we want our preconceptions to be as informed and refined as possible, but when we ask complex questions of this text we must always build on a lot of assumptions all the time (maybe assumption is a bad term here). For this sort of text our understanding of it will always be the result of an ongoing interplay of preconceptions (or assumptions) and deductions, I'm sure you agree.
Well, sort of, I think. We can continually test our assumptions. I, for example, used to work on the assumption that NA27 was basically correct about the original texts of Mark and Paul, but I have come to question that assumption, and am in the process of trying to figure out whether certain texts might not be layered, as opposed to being singular compositions from a single mind. This approach does not multiply assumptions; it eliminates them. Now any given piece of Mark's gospel may or may not derive from Mark himself (whoever we imagine that to be), from tradition (redacted by Mark, of course), or from later interpolation. This approach certainly complicates things, because each and every pericope and piece of a pericope now has to be analyzed on its own merits. There is no way such an approach can get at the underlying literary or historical reality right away; it is a matter of creating a model based on limited study and range of facts, then refining that model based on further research, and so on. The model may never be perfect, but it can consistently get closer and closer than it was before.

Without this approach we are left either with the assumption that Mark is a random assortment of pericopes (as some of the more extreme form critics would have it) or with the assumption that Mark is a unified whole written by a single author (a common trend these days). Remove these assumptions and we have created more work for ourselves, but at least we have not prematurely eliminated options that we have never actually mounted cogent arguments against.
Again, we want to ask different questions of the text. I guess you could say that you want to answer historical questions, I want to answer semantic questions.
Not true, so far as my own intent is concerned. I also wish to answer semantic questions. And literary questions. And theological questions. And of course historical questions. I am greedy. I want it all.
I think there are some fundamental traits that gMatt and gLuke share against gMark.

The main argument is like I write: The deeper meaning in gMatt and gLuke are often repetitive, simple, clumsy or seem abit unmotivated, I would argue. In some cases even there isn't a deeper meaning which happens only very rarely in gMark (maybe just 7:19b and 10:10-12). In gMark, on the other hand, almost everything flows neatly on the deeper level. And likewise, on the surface level gMark seems alot more messy and clumsy with 'unnecessary details' where the other two are much more tidied and clean all the way through. So gMark has more weird details but more deeper meaning, and gMatt and gLuke vice versa. I give two examples of this (the Feedings and the Epileptic Boy), but in order to argue this, of course, it must be shown how the deeper level of meaning in gMark is indeed much more coherent network ideas than the other two synoptics, and I believe it can be done. That's my favorite pet right now.
What about those times when, say, Matthew is the one who is adding details, and those details bear theological meaning? For example, only Matthew has Peter trying to walk on water. He tries (which is a positive thing), but he fails (which is a negative thing), and Jesus has to step in and rescue him. Not only does this extend in a very consistent and logical way the "personality" of Peter as we know it from Mark, but it also has a lot to say about Jesus' role as savior. Or, as another example, what about the way in which Matthew has enhanced Jesus' role as a Moses figure throughout his gospel, from the massacre of the innocents and the flight to Egypt through his fasting, like Moses, for 40 days and nights in the wilderness to, notably, his Mosaic role in the Sermon on the Mount and in the four other main discourses which Matthew presents, each one ending with the same formula so as to mark them off as special (five discourses, perhaps mimicking the five books of Moses)? His presentation is fairly thoroughgoing, but he is (according to both of us) using and modifying sources. For example, he turns the temptation in Mark, during which Jesus is being ministered to by angels much like Elijah was by ravens, into a period of fasting, right in line with Moses on the mountain in Exodus 34.28. A subtle change, but one which furthers Jesus' status as a new Moses (while not losing his status as a prophet like Elijah, since Matthew still has the angels coming to minister to him, but after the 40 days and nights). Why can Mark not have modified sources in the same way, bringing them in line with his own deeper theological truths?

If you wish to suggest that Mark's theological meanings are even deeper than Matthew's, so be it. You may be right. But why can that not simply mean that Mark was better at modifying sources than Matthew was? Why would that have to mean that Mark is freely composing his own story while Matthew is not?
So I'd say that either Mark didn't use sources, or he used other forms of sources, or he used them in a different way from his two fellows, Matthew and Luke.
My examples above involving Matthew appear to me to be of a similar nature to what I see Mark doing. Maybe Mark does it better, and that is fine. But it still makes me question your distinction about Mark using his hypothetical sources differently than Matthew. To me, the difference (if there is one) is one of competence, perhaps, but the game both are playing seems to be the same. Or what am I missing?
I think questions like these, then, are valid here (perhaps you disagree): If Mark used sources in the same way that Matthew and Luke did, why didn't he tidy them up in the same way?
What if he did? What if his sources were actually even less tidy than we find in Mark, and he did a great deal to tidy them up? And then Matthew and Luke continued the process and did even more tidying up? How would we know? If you are imagining a certain kind of source available to Mark before you even start to investigate it, then you are making assumptions. I think we have to read the contours (and they can probably never be any more than that) of his potential sources from the limited evidence we can scrape together from individual pericopes. We cannot assume their size, shape, and character in advance.

In short, when I look at Mark, I see a handful of passages that I think (after much study and careful consideration) he himself invented wholesale, a few passages that I think (after much study, again, and careful consideration) he derived and modified from tradition, a few passages that I think (after yada yada yada) were interpolated (by scribes) into his work after the gospel was circulating. Then there are a lot of passages that I simply am unsure about as of yet. I get the impression, though, that things are different for you. When you look at Mark, you see by far most of the passages as having been created by Mark or reworked (from tradition or other sources) so very thoroughly that they may as well have been. You do not even try to see what may lie behind the text on the table. Your approach, then, is laden with a very heavy assumption or two right from the outset, while mine eschews those assumptions and tries to take each line on its own merits. For some purposes, there is absolutely no harm in making your assumptions. For others, they would be fatal to any fair inquiry. As long as you are limiting your inquiries to the former kind, there is not real issue; but you should be aware of the assumptions you are making (and I am not claiming that you are not) in case you ever find yourself asking even slightly different questions, or dealing with someone of my ilk, someone who does not make those same assumptions.
Perhaps you get the main idea, but of course it would take alot to build my case properly. I'm working on it, though!
I genuinely look forward to reading to whatever you produce along those lines. :cheers: I find your stuff to be very interesting and thought-provoking.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:34 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:29 pmFor me the object is the meaning in the text itself. But that's also because I think it is impossible to actually separate what is Mark's own stuff and what is tradition, at least in any way that's meaningful for the purpose of tradition history. I wish we could know more precisely what traditions Mark was familiar with, but I think we just need to uncover the whole network of theological meaning beneath the text before we do anything else. And I don't think we have done that quite yet.
To put literary and theological meanings of a text before text and source criticism seems to me to be perfectly backwards. Theological and literary readings are powerful: too powerful. They can usually make sense of whatever is there.
The same can be said with source criticism. For the record, I'm not of the opinion that textual criticism is not extremely important, I'm just pretty content with NA27 (or NA28). But can't we agree, that more than a century of source- and redaction criticism of gMark has gotten us: nowhere. At least in terms of anything resembling a consensus about anything at all concerning sources in gMark. On the contrary, I would guess that there have been produced more differing theories concerning sources and tradition-material in the text of gMark, than there have been produced imaginative literary readings.
The trick is to make sure that whatever is there was there originally. Otherwise, we may be deriving theological and literary meanings from passages which did not pour from the same pen. With a bit of care this can be okay when the topic is early Christianity as a whole, but when the topic is Mark or Paul or any other specific author from antiquity it behooves us to be reasonably sure of what Mark or Paul originally wrote.
I agree, I suppose, but I'm not sure when you're talking about text criticism and when you're talking about sources criticism. When it comes to text criticism, I'm not really familiar with the arguments of a position such as yours (or Parker's), and like I said, I'm fairly content with the critical apparatus of NA27 or NA28. I think that in NA27/28 we most likely have what is perhaps a 95% accurate version of some final composition that went into circulation (roughly speaking).
Regarding the thing about assumptions, all I meant was that we all bring preconceptions to our reading of a text. Of course we want our preconceptions to be as informed and refined as possible, but when we ask complex questions of this text we must always build on a lot of assumptions all the time (maybe assumption is a bad term here). For this sort of text our understanding of it will always be the result of an ongoing interplay of preconceptions (or assumptions) and deductions, I'm sure you agree.
Well, sort of, I think. We can continually test our assumptions. I, for example, used to work on the assumption that NA27 was basically correct about the original texts of Mark and Paul, but I have come to question that assumption, and am in the process of trying to figure out whether certain texts might not be layered, as opposed to being singular compositions from a single mind. This approach does not multiply assumptions; it eliminates them. Now any given piece of Mark's gospel may or may not derive from Mark himself (whoever we imagine that to be), from tradition (redacted by Mark, of course), or from later interpolation. This approach certainly complicates things, because each and every pericope and piece of a pericope now has to be analyzed on its own merits. There is no way such an approach can get at the underlying literary or historical reality right away; it is a matter of creating a model based on limited study and range of facts, then refining that model based on further research, and so on. The model may never be perfect, but it can consistently get closer and closer than it was before.
Yes, creating a model and then refining that model (or even changing or discarding it, if need be). That is also what I meant. My understanding comes on the back of more than 10 years of reading and writing and discussing with the scholars at my university. This doesn't mean that I'm correct (far from it!), but just to say that we're on the same page, by 'assumptions' I'm not talking about guessing.
Again, we want to ask different questions of the text. I guess you could say that you want to answer historical questions, I want to answer semantic questions.
Not true, so far as my own intent is concerned. I also wish to answer semantic questions. And literary questions. And theological questions. And of course historical questions. I am greedy. I want it all.
:cheers:
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:34 am
I think there are some fundamental traits that gMatt and gLuke share against gMark.

The main argument is like I write: The deeper meaning in gMatt and gLuke are often repetitive, simple, clumsy or seem abit unmotivated, I would argue. In some cases even there isn't a deeper meaning which happens only very rarely in gMark (maybe just 7:19b and 10:10-12). In gMark, on the other hand, almost everything flows neatly on the deeper level. And likewise, on the surface level gMark seems alot more messy and clumsy with 'unnecessary details' where the other two are much more tidied and clean all the way through. So gMark has more weird details but more deeper meaning, and gMatt and gLuke vice versa. I give two examples of this (the Feedings and the Epileptic Boy), but in order to argue this, of course, it must be shown how the deeper level of meaning in gMark is indeed much more coherent network ideas than the other two synoptics, and I believe it can be done. That's my favorite pet right now.
What about those times when, say, Matthew is the one who is adding details, and those details bear theological meaning? For example, only Matthew has Peter trying to walk on water. He tries (which is a positive thing), but he fails (which is a negative thing), and Jesus has to step in and rescue him. Not only does this extend in a very consistent and logical way the "personality" of Peter as we know it from Mark, but it also has a lot to say about Jesus' role as savior. Or, as another example, what about the way in which Matthew has enhanced Jesus' role as a Moses figure throughout his gospel, from the massacre of the innocents and the flight to Egypt through his fasting, like Moses, for 40 days and nights in the wilderness to, notably, his Mosaic role in the Sermon on the Mount and in the four other main discourses which Matthew presents, each one ending with the same formula so as to mark them off as special (five discourses, perhaps mimicking the five books of Moses)? His presentation is fairly thoroughgoing, but he is (according to both of us) using and modifying sources. For example, he turns the temptation in Mark, during which Jesus is being ministered to by angels much like Elijah was by ravens, into a period of fasting, right in line with Moses on the mountain in Exodus 34.28. A subtle change, but one which furthers Jesus' status as a new Moses (while not losing his status as a prophet like Elijah, since Matthew still has the angels coming to minister to him, but after the 40 days and nights). Why can Mark not have modified sources in the same way, bringing them in line with his own deeper theological truths?
Those are good examples of Matthew adding or strengthening theological meaning in his sources. But they are not examples of "weird details" or "unnecessary details" (actually the opposite), the way we find such in gMark.

You ask: "Why can Mark not have modified sources in the same way, bringing them in line with his own deeper theological truths?" I think that's exactly what he did (some of the time). Except not entirely in the same way: Because the end-results differ. If Mark took sources and brought them in line with his own deeper theological truths, then his end-result is different from that of Matthew and Luke. And why might that be? I don't know, but like I wrote: "he used other forms of sources, or he used them in a different way".

Mark's end-result, i.e. his text, is what I think we must describe as ultra-cryptic, though it has been described as consistently 'clumsy' or 'primitive' or even 'historical', jam-packed with 'strange' details, and all the way through from start to finish characterized by frustrating briefness. This distinctiveness of gMark is remarkably consistent throughout the whole text. And it is different from Matthew's and Luke's 'end-results', who both end up with much more stream-lined texts, where they break the 'clumsyness' (=crypticness) of their source, Mark's text, by inserting all kinds of explanations (e.g. the Temptation) and storytelling details (e.g. Luke 4:20b).

I'm not at all contesting that we should try to find the sources in gMark. If you're saying that we might be able to discern the sources in gMark, alright, maybe we can. But if you're saying that we need to find the sources within gMark, as one of the first steps for understanding it's meaning, I disagree. And it's not just an assumption, it's a conviction of my own which comes from years of studying, just like you, and I have lots of arguments to mount of course. Not that I'm not ready to change my mind, I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that I'm correct, far from it! But sometimes the desire to look for sources comes from the desire to understand something historical behind the text. This I can understand. But often it comes from the desire to explain something in the text, before really trying to exhaust the interpretive possibilities, and it is this, popular, approach from which I depart (at least depart 90%). I'm not really talking about your approach, at least not from the way, I can see, you read gMark.

Maybe it's just because we disagree about the text of NT27, that it can meaningfully be approached as a coherent literary unit, which is what I believe?
If you wish to suggest that Mark's theological meanings are even deeper than Matthew's, so be it. You may be right. But why can that not simply mean that Mark was better at modifying sources than Matthew was? Why would that have to mean that Mark is freely composing his own story while Matthew is not?
I don't think Mark was composing it all freely. I think sometimes he was, sometimes he wasn't, sometimes he probably used some form of source, oral or written, just like Matthew and Luke. If Mark was better at modifying his sources, then don't you agree with me, like I wrote, that he used them in a different way?
I think questions like these, then, are valid here (perhaps you disagree): If Mark used sources in the same way that Matthew and Luke did, why didn't he tidy them up in the same way?
What if he did? What if his sources were actually even less tidy than we find in Mark, and he did a great deal to tidy them up? And then Matthew and Luke continued the process and did even more tidying up? How would we know? If you are imagining a certain kind of source available to Mark before you even start to investigate it, then you are making assumptions. I think we have to read the contours (and they can probably never be any more than that) of his potential sources from the limited evidence we can scrape together from individual pericopes. We cannot assume their size, shape, and character in advance.
Well, if he did tidy them up, then you also agree with me, with what I wrote above: Mark used different kinds of sources from Matthew and Luke (i.e. very, very 'messy' sources)?

And it's not like I imagine it, before I start to investigate it. I can see that I was definately being too cocky when I wrote:
I don't infer from the coherence of the passages that the text must be Mark's own creation. I just take it as my starting point that the text is Mark's own creation. Why shouldn't we do that?
That was not to be taken literally, more like a provocation, sorry for that confusion! It was part of the whole discussion about form criticism. But instead of discussing the broader theoretical questions of methodology, I'd really rather discuss with you the actual contents of gMark!
In short, when I look at Mark, I see a handful of passages that I think (after much study and careful consideration) he himself invented wholesale, a few passages that I think (after much study, again, and careful consideration) he derived and modified from tradition, a few passages that I think (after yada yada yada) were interpolated (by scribes) into his work after the gospel was circulating. Then there are a lot of passages that I simply am unsure about as of yet.
I think it is this third category, the interpolations inserted when in circulation, which really separates us? What do you mean by that?
When you look at Mark, you see by far most of the passages as having been created by Mark or reworked (from tradition or other sources) so very thoroughly that they may as well have been.
Yes, that is a close enough description of my understanding of gMark! However: "so thoroughly reworked" as in reworked to create new meaning, yes. But "so thoroughly reworked" as in reworked to delete all traces of editing, no, not necessarily.
... You do not even try to see what may lie behind the text on the table. ...
I have tried alot through the years, believe me. I think by far most of the source- and tradition-theories in the history of Markan research are completely nonsense, sometimes I think they make sense but I disagree, and sometimes they move my point of view. Atm I have simply lost interest in trying to find sources in gMark, because 1) I think it is too uncertain, and 2) I have come to be fairly convinced that it's not helpful for finding the meaning of the text.
Perhaps you get the main idea, but of course it would take alot to build my case properly. I'm working on it, though!
I genuinely look forward to reading to whatever you produce along those lines. :cheers: I find your stuff to be very interesting and thought-provoking.

Ben.
Thanks! :cheers: I'm actually working on what will hopefully be a peer-reviewed article (cross fingers) about this subject sort of, so it is very interesting and helpful to get to discuss these things with people here that know about this (and often more than I do). You're welcome to read my only other peer-reviewed article, all you have to do is learn Danish :D (and it's not about Mark though)
Post Reply