Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 06, 2017 4:22 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:29 am Well, the form critics would explain strings of pericopes like this as arranged according to catch words (if unsophisticated) or by themes and concepts (if more sophisticated). Also, catch words and themes can be added to a pericope or to a cluster in order to make it cohere, as may be the case when Mark adds that bit about people having done to Elijah what was predicted of him; now it coheres with the passion predictions (as a foreshadowing), but it hardly does so naturally; the connection is artificially constructed. Whether it was constructed de novo by a single author or on top of traditional Christian materials is another question, but that is precisely my point; in practice, there can be little difference in the end result between an author spinning completely new materials and a fastidious editor arranging traditional materials in a thoroughgoing fashion. It takes a lot of analyzing individual clues to tell the difference, I think.

ETA: IOW, I completely agree that Mark intended pericopes to be read in light of each other, and the OP even has some examples of this stretching across the entire gospel (like the baptism and death parallels). But I disagree that this automatically means that the author was writing new stuff, if that is what you are saying. (If not, then please ignore.)
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?
Because it is an assumption, and assumptions can be wrong.
But I also do think that the degree of coherence to be found at the deeper level of the text, according to my way of reading it, is good evidence that the text has been created by one single author. But really, the sensible thing to do with any given text is to regard it as a coherent unit by a single author – unless any good evidence to the contrary can be put forward. And it hasn't, imo.
Does this approach work for Matthew and Luke? Maybe we are speaking past each other and I am misunderstanding you, but my approach is to look for clues within a text as to the sources it uses. My question for you is: if Mark no longer existed (that is, if it had been lost to the ravages of time), would your way of approaching the remaining synoptics (Matthew and Luke) enable you to discover that neither of them was creating the basic materials from scratch, that in fact both were modifying a previous text? (This question assumes Marcan priority; let me know if you do not operate from that perspective or something near it.)
Of course, it seems very unlikely that the narrative of gMark wasn't based on known Jesus-traditions to some degree, because otherwise it could hardly have gained currency, even to the extent of inspiring a whole generation of early Christians including in the end its biggest fan, the author of gMatt.
This is what makes me suspect that we are speaking past each other. On the one hand, I seem to hear you saying that Mark was creating materials from scratch; on the other, here you seem to be saying that he was working with traditional materials. So perhaps what you are actually saying, and I am not hearing as clearly as I ought, is that we should view Mark's text as a whole authorial enterprise rather than merely as the artless juxtaposition of traditional units in the manner of a compilation for posterity. If that is all you are saying, well, I agree. Not from any assumptions on my part (since going into Mark for the first time there is no way to tell immediately that it is not a mere compilation); rather, that is the conclusion based on much reading and rereading and research and reflection.
Why couldn't the author of gMatt have been the one to invent the Our Father (Matt 6:9-13)? Somebody did, why on earth not him?
He certainly could have. But that supposition is still merely an assumption until some work has been done. Going back to my hypothetical example of Mark being missing from our list of extant texts, you could easily find yourself asking why Matthew could not have invented the baptism at the Jordan or the entire passion narrative or whatnot.

Perhaps you feel that the odds are against there being any lost texts which may undergird our extant gospels (this would be the only way, I think, to disarm my example of Mark being nonextant). I personally feel the odds cut exactly in the opposite direction. Based on patristic quotations and papyrus scraps, there are more ancient gospel texts missing in action than have survived the years, which means on a simple mathematical calculation that our odds of possessing the very first one are less than 50%, unless good reasons can be given for supposing otherwise. I also believe internal evidence to point in the same direction: our extant gospel of Mark has secondary features (that is, the same indications that Luke and Matthew evince that they are following Mark as one of their main source texts can also be found in Mark, suggesting that he too was working with previous texts and/or traditions).
And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did.
I agree. He could have. That does not mean he did, at least without mounting the argument.
It is true that there is no place in Scripture that reasonably suggests that the eschatological Elijah was to suffer, but there really is no place either in Scripture where any 'son of man' or Messiah is reasonably said to suffer.
We know that Isaiah 53 was applied to Jesus at an early stage, and the figure described therein is not called the Suffering Servant for nothing. The only such passage for Elijah would seem to be his turmoil at Horeb (as Kunigunde pointed out above), but this is in no wise as clear a reference as Isaiah 53.

The reference to Elijah suffering coheres very well with the passion predictions; that was never the issue. The question is how well it coheres with the rest of the Elijah material in the gospel. Mark seems to have had to reach a bit to connect Elijah to the passion at all, but there is no reaching whatsoever in, say, the miracle stories which bear the stamp of the Elijah/Elisha cycle. This suggests to me that the author inherited the equation of Elijah/Elisha with John/Jesus, but created the connection between Elijah and the passion, because that was his real focus. This has nothing to do with the miracle stories being so natural, either; it has to do with the two maneuvers (comparing John/Jesus to Elijah/Elisha, adding a passion element to Elijah/Elisha) not looking like they derive from the same person. This is the same impression given by the passion story itself compared to the miracle stories. Mark appears to be most interested in revealing Jesus' messianic identity through his passion, to the point where the miracles are subjected to the awkward and not always effective "messianic secret" device running throughout the first half of the gospel in order to keep them from being the means of revelation; this suggests to me that Mark inherited the miracle stories but had to suppress them in some way in order to retain the passion as the real revelation of Jesus' nature. Mark is not Paul, who has nothing about dominical miracles and everything about the passion.

That said, this particular example is not the best one for demonstrating that Mark was working with already extant stories. The evidence is not as clear-cut here as in other cases.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Roger Waters When Jewish Pigs Fly

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:43 am I find that the intercalations (almost?) always involve an interplay of past and future. In the one about the family of Jesus and the controversy over Beezebul, the past is the traditional family; the future is the surrogate family preached by Jesus, later known as the church. In the one about the daughter of Jairus and the hemorrhaging woman, the past is the womanhood of the old woman; the future is the womanhood of the young girl. (I suspect that these figures together are meant to represent both the demise of the old covenant and its renewal with Jesus, but this speculation of mine may be misguided.) In the one about the mission of the twelve and the imprisonment and death of John the baptist, the past is the ministry of John; the future is the ministry of Jesus and his apostles. In the one about the cursing of the fig tree and the temple incident, the past is the temple and associated rites and rituals; the future is the community of faith which with a word can cast a mountain (the temple mount?) into the sea. In the one about the plot to kill Jesus and the anointing of Jesus, the past is Judas Iscariot and the authorities of Judaism (though one can also see the earthly ministry of Jesus as part of the past here); the future is the preaching of the gospel, not forgetting the memory of the anointing woman. In the one with Peter at the fire and Jesus before the high priest, the past is the now fulfilled prediction that Peter would betray Jesus; the future is the brief recap before the high priest of the Olivet predictions, whose fulfillment the three Petrine denials focus and guarantee.
I must say I really like the way you read gMark here! :)
I find that the intercalations (almost?) always involve an interplay of past and future.
I think you're right and I think the reason for this is the deep theological importance of the world-historical time-line, i.e. salvation history. This is also why I'm convinced that Mark wanted his narrative to be understood as historical events (in some way). Mark wanted to write a little, but hugely important, piece of world history, because that is a continuation of the narrative which is in the Scriptures. Even though the important part of the plot of Mark's story plays out on a plain of reality invisible to the human senses (the war against Satan and the corrupted human flesh).

Theology in Scripture is dominantly in the form of world history, in that world history, or reality as it were, is understood as a narrative, which means there is an established plot, controlled by God, and the main characters in the narrative are God, Israel and humanity at large. And in Christianity and Judaism (as opposed to the OT) another main character is of course Satan.

The way I see it is that the plot is centered around the basic idea of the world as an order based upon the real-life concept of ideal peace and prosperity known to the ancients: the perfect patron/client-society in sync with ever-fertile nature. The world as the perfect, hierarchical cosmic order, which means that God sits as the ultimate, ideal 'patron' (lord) who gives life and good things to his ideal, loyal 'clients', his perfectly loyal servants (everything within his creation). His servants have more concrete functions in their servanthoods: Humanity must rule over and take care of the created world beneath the heavens (Gen 1:26-28), and Israel is selected for special service and must function as the priesthood among humanity (Ex 19:4-6) thus making sure that God's life-force, or "blessings", flows freely to all humanity (who of course ackowledge their creator-lord). Israel's special servanthood is concretely in the form of the Sinai covenant including the temple cult. The whole of Israel must obey the law obediantly and the tribe of Levi which is selected for special service must obediantly take care of the temple service, God's actual house on earth. In that way, the perfect order of service to God is in place, where God's life-force flows freely to all Israel and all humanity and all creation, and all is good.

But the order is of course in disorder because of the disobediance and disloyalty of the clients, but it will be restored somehow, and the conceptions of this varied much, even within the NT, as we know, but the basic idea is the same: the order is God as the ultimate lord and everything else as his ideal servants. The plot unfolds throughout the Scriptures both in past history but also in projected future history, cryptically through the prophets. As far as I can see one of the main concerns of Mark is to explain the great Christian plot-twist: why and how this world-history plot involved the rejection of Israel by God and the inclusion of gentiles. But this world-historical event didn't take place just within the time-span of the earthly ministry of Jesus, but Mark wants to attach the explanations for this to the earthly Jesus, and thereby to God, for authority: God meant to include the gentiles and reject Israels special service and this is evident in the events that happened around Jesus, God's son. But only for those with "ears to hear", those on the inside, i.e. his Christian readers. So therefore alot of passages in Mark's story is about the past and future.

So I think the main character in Mark's narrative is not Jesus but God (or rather God and Jesus in tandem). Mark (and after him the other gospel writers) has Jesus do and say all these things in the narrative in order to explain what God is doing and thinking, so the Jesus character in the gospels is an instrument of controlling the character of God in the master-narrative of reality. But Mark hides his main character, God. He has the narrator say "there was a voice from heaven" instead of for example "And God spoke and he said". Mark hides alot of things, between the lines, very consciously. He has a very consistent way of writing his narrative, which to me is one of the major signs that he is the creator of the material in his story.

I think Mark is basically concerned with two things in his story:
1. 'Ethical' teachings: the Christian teachings about God's will (one must serve one's neighbor etc.)
2. Historical teachings: the Christian teachings about salvation history, the great narrative plot of world-history.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:24 pm

And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did.
I agree. He could have. That does not mean he did, at least without mounting the argument.

FWIW John Meier in Marginal Jew volume Five presents a detailed case that the Good Samaritan is a Lukan creation.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:24 pm
And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did.
I agree. He could have. That does not mean he did, at least without mounting the argument.
andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:26 pm FWIW John Meier in Marginal Jew volume Five presents a detailed case that the Good Samaritan is a Lukan creation.
I understand the parable of the "good Samaritan" fits a cultural context where Samaritans are not expected to be good, i.e. they're the "lowest rung" on the social ladder who have poor relations with Jews, which is why the story of a Samaritan doing the "right thing" when a priest and a Levite, people who are held in high esteem, did not.

Did Luke use of 2 Chronicles 18:8-15 in which the people of Samaria treat the warriors of Judah kindly because they are also children of YHWH and thus kindred?
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 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:26 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:24 pm

And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did.
I agree. He could have. That does not mean he did, at least without mounting the argument.

FWIW John Meier in Marginal Jew volume Five presents a detailed case that the Good Samaritan is a Lukan creation.
Thanks. :)
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: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:24 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:22 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:29 am Well, the form critics would explain strings of pericopes like this as arranged according to catch words (if unsophisticated) or by themes and concepts (if more sophisticated). Also, catch words and themes can be added to a pericope or to a cluster in order to make it cohere, as may be the case when Mark adds that bit about people having done to Elijah what was predicted of him; now it coheres with the passion predictions (as a foreshadowing), but it hardly does so naturally; the connection is artificially constructed. Whether it was constructed de novo by a single author or on top of traditional Christian materials is another question, but that is precisely my point; in practice, there can be little difference in the end result between an author spinning completely new materials and a fastidious editor arranging traditional materials in a thoroughgoing fashion. It takes a lot of analyzing individual clues to tell the difference, I think.

ETA: IOW, I completely agree that Mark intended pericopes to be read in light of each other, and the OP even has some examples of this stretching across the entire gospel (like the baptism and death parallels). But I disagree that this automatically means that the author was writing new stuff, if that is what you are saying. (If not, then please ignore.)
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?
Because it is an assumption, and assumptions can be wrong.
But I also do think that the degree of coherence to be found at the deeper level of the text, according to my way of reading it, is good evidence that the text has been created by one single author. But really, the sensible thing to do with any given text is to regard it as a coherent unit by a single author – unless any good evidence to the contrary can be put forward. And it hasn't, imo.
Does this approach work for Matthew and Luke? Maybe we are speaking past each other and I am misunderstanding you, but my approach is to look for clues within a text as to the sources it uses. My question for you is: if Mark no longer existed (that is, if it had been lost to the ravages of time), would your way of approaching the remaining synoptics (Matthew and Luke) enable you to discover that neither of them was creating the basic materials from scratch, that in fact both were modifying a previous text? (This question assumes Marcan priority; let me know if you do not operate from that perspective or something near it.)
Of course, it seems very unlikely that the narrative of gMark wasn't based on known Jesus-traditions to some degree, because otherwise it could hardly have gained currency, even to the extent of inspiring a whole generation of early Christians including in the end its biggest fan, the author of gMatt.
This is what makes me suspect that we are speaking past each other. On the one hand, I seem to hear you saying that Mark was creating materials from scratch; on the other, here you seem to be saying that he was working with traditional materials. So perhaps what you are actually saying, and I am not hearing as clearly as I ought, is that we should view Mark's text as a whole authorial enterprise rather than merely as the artless juxtaposition of traditional units in the manner of a compilation for posterity. If that is all you are saying, well, I agree. Not from any assumptions on my part (since going into Mark for the first time there is no way to tell immediately that it is not a mere compilation); rather, that is the conclusion based on much reading and rereading and research and reflection.
Why couldn't the author of gMatt have been the one to invent the Our Father (Matt 6:9-13)? Somebody did, why on earth not him?
He certainly could have. But that supposition is still merely an assumption until some work has been done. Going back to my hypothetical example of Mark being missing from our list of extant texts, you could easily find yourself asking why Matthew could not have invented the baptism at the Jordan or the entire passion narrative or whatnot.

Perhaps you feel that the odds are against there being any lost texts which may undergird our extant gospels (this would be the only way, I think, to disarm my example of Mark being nonextant). I personally feel the odds cut exactly in the opposite direction. Based on patristic quotations and papyrus scraps, there are more ancient gospel texts missing in action than have survived the years, which means on a simple mathematical calculation that our odds of possessing the very first one are less than 50%, unless good reasons can be given for supposing otherwise. I also believe internal evidence to point in the same direction: our extant gospel of Mark has secondary features (that is, the same indications that Luke and Matthew evince that they are following Mark as one of their main source texts can also be found in Mark, suggesting that he too was working with previous texts and/or traditions).
And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did.
I agree. He could have. That does not mean he did, at least without mounting the argument.
It is true that there is no place in Scripture that reasonably suggests that the eschatological Elijah was to suffer, but there really is no place either in Scripture where any 'son of man' or Messiah is reasonably said to suffer.
We know that Isaiah 53 was applied to Jesus at an early stage, and the figure described therein is not called the Suffering Servant for nothing. The only such passage for Elijah would seem to be his turmoil at Horeb (as Kunigunde pointed out above), but this is in no wise as clear a reference as Isaiah 53.

The reference to Elijah suffering coheres very well with the passion predictions; that was never the issue. The question is how well it coheres with the rest of the Elijah material in the gospel. Mark seems to have had to reach a bit to connect Elijah to the passion at all, but there is no reaching whatsoever in, say, the miracle stories which bear the stamp of the Elijah/Elisha cycle. This suggests to me that the author inherited the equation of Elijah/Elisha with John/Jesus, but created the connection between Elijah and the passion, because that was his real focus. This has nothing to do with the miracle stories being so natural, either; it has to do with the two maneuvers (comparing John/Jesus to Elijah/Elisha, adding a passion element to Elijah/Elisha) not looking like they derive from the same person. This is the same impression given by the passion story itself compared to the miracle stories. Mark appears to be most interested in revealing Jesus' messianic identity through his passion, to the point where the miracles are subjected to the awkward and not always effective "messianic secret" device running throughout the first half of the gospel in order to keep them from being the means of revelation; this suggests to me that Mark inherited the miracle stories but had to suppress them in some way in order to retain the passion as the real revelation of Jesus' nature. Mark is not Paul, who has nothing about dominical miracles and everything about the passion.

That said, this particular example is not the best one for demonstrating that Mark was working with already extant stories. The evidence is not as clear-cut here as in other cases.
This is a complex matter, and I have not expressed myself clearly, I’m sure. We are in really close agreement, perhaps 90%! I'm not of the opinion that Mark actually invented all of his story himself. But from narrative analyses I think it has been shown that whether or not he incorporated more or less established traditions or written sources, and in so far we want to understand the text itself, the text is best treated like a fully coherent unit. Indeed like a fiction by a single author. The search for sources is the search of redaction criticism for inconsistencies and incoherence, but that is not fruitful if we want to understand the meaning of this particular text. The concrete wording throughout the text is surely the work of a single mind. It’s like you say, there is little difference in the end result. But you’re also right, that it would most likely be just as difficult to detect Matthew’s sources or Luke's if we hypothetically didn’t know gMark.

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. But this is only interesting because it has to do with finding the meaning of the text, which is my concern in this case (and not its composition or the traditions behind the text or some other historical things).

Now, all three synoptics are ‘messy’ at the narrative level. One could never get away with writing such a messy narrative today. But gMark seems to be the most messy one of the three, and the other two have clearly tidied up alot of his mess. But: it also seems to me that this is what is going on only at the narrative level, i.e. the surface level. Like I said, I believe we can speak about two distinct levels to the text throughout the narrative, and at the deeper level, the one with the actual teachings, this is where the real difference is, imo. Because to me, gMark seems much more coherent, logic and smooth at the deeper level than the other two. It seems to me that Mark was so concerned with communicating his real message on the deeper level, that the surface level had to suffer. But likewise, when the other two synoptics clean up Mark’s mess on the surface level, then the deeper level suffers.

The reason that the narrative of gMark is so primitive, strange, succinct and messy is because it is a neatly coded text. Why does he mention the seven baskets just like that? Why does he mention the twelve baskets? Why are there two almost identical miraculous feedings? Surely this is just a messy author who forgot to clean up his tradition? No: it is strange and messy exactly because it is a code. Mark has his main character explain that it is a code straight up in this particular case (Mark 8:19-21).

Another example: Why is the story about the epileptic boy so strange and messy (Mark 9:14-29)? There are some weird things in that passage. Because it is also a code. The boy is some sort of type for the resurrected Christ or the spirit-imparted apostles that can go and preach to the world or whatever. It can only be understood in light of the preceding context. But when Matthew cleans this passage up (Matt 17:14-20), he also removes the code in the process (it is no longer about resurrection and preaching) and it becomes another story where the deeper meaning is another, much more simple, teaching about faith, explained explicitly by Jesus in the end (17:20). The deeper meaning in gMatt and gLuke are often repetitive, simple, clumsy or seem abit unmotivated, I would argue. In gMark, on the other hand, almost everything flows neatly on the deeper level.


Just to clarify my perspective which I should’ve done from the beginning: I’m a subscriber of the Farrer-hypothesis. So I think gMark is the earliest of the synoptics, and Matthew used gMark, and Luke used both gMark and gMatt. I don’t think it is necessary to posit that Matthew or Luke incorporated any other existing written material into their stories than gMark and their own stuff, but perhaps they did. Although I also believe Luke most likely knew gJohn, but that’s another matter. I also hold a masters degree in theology from the University of Copenhagen, specialized in NT exegesis. Furthermore I think Mark knew some of Paul’s letters, most likely including Ephesians and Colossians (both of which I consider pseudo-pauline), and that the theology to be found in gMark to a great extent can be said to be ‘pauline’ theology known from these letters.

I don’t subscribe to any theory that Mark wrote his story as polemic, to address some inner-Christian conflict of his time. E.g. to try to combat some family dynasty of Jesus in Jerusalem, or to combat ‘false prophets' intruding in his community that were preaching some sort of 'Son of Man theology of glory', or to combat Petrine Christianity, etc. etc. I think every theme and motif concerning conflict in gMark is a calculated, integrated part of the whole theological message. Mark wants to address an important conflict alright, but it is the universal conflict between Satan and Jesus (or Satan and man). It is a deeply theological theme, a dualism that plays out in almost every sphere of the narrative.
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 06, 2017 5:24 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:22 pm It is true that there is no place in Scripture that reasonably suggests that the eschatological Elijah was to suffer, but there really is no place either in Scripture where any 'son of man' or Messiah is reasonably said to suffer.
We know that Isaiah 53 was applied to Jesus at an early stage, and the figure described therein is not called the Suffering Servant for nothing. The only such passage for Elijah would seem to be his turmoil at Horeb (as Kunigunde pointed out above), but this is in no wise as clear a reference as Isaiah 53.

The reference to Elijah suffering coheres very well with the passion predictions; that was never the issue. The question is how well it coheres with the rest of the Elijah material in the gospel. Mark seems to have had to reach a bit to connect Elijah to the passion at all, but there is no reaching whatsoever in, say, the miracle stories which bear the stamp of the Elijah/Elisha cycle. This suggests to me that the author inherited the equation of Elijah/Elisha with John/Jesus, but created the connection between Elijah and the passion, because that was his real focus. This has nothing to do with the miracle stories being so natural, either; it has to do with the two maneuvers (comparing John/Jesus to Elijah/Elisha, adding a passion element to Elijah/Elisha) not looking like they derive from the same person. This is the same impression given by the passion story itself compared to the miracle stories. Mark appears to be most interested in revealing Jesus' messianic identity through his passion, to the point where the miracles are subjected to the awkward and not always effective "messianic secret" device running throughout the first half of the gospel in order to keep them from being the means of revelation; this suggests to me that Mark inherited the miracle stories but had to suppress them in some way in order to retain the passion as the real revelation of Jesus' nature. Mark is not Paul, who has nothing about dominical miracles and everything about the passion.

That said, this particular example is not the best one for demonstrating that Mark was working with already extant stories. The evidence is not as clear-cut here as in other cases.
About the suffering Elijah, aren’t you forgetting that this miracle maker was also persecuted by the authorities of his own people (1 Kings 19)? So his miracles was a sign of his special standing with God, but so was his persecution. These two things go well hand in hand, miracle making and suffering (persecution). They are two sides of the same coin, if you ask me, instead of two conflicting aspects of Jesus (or Elijah). There is even the motif about the persecuted prophets that Mark can tap into with his Elijah redivivus, which pops up with the parable of the Evil Tenants. John, i.e. Elijah, is clearly intended as the penultimate prophet in this line of persecuted prophets (see the preceding context, Mark 11:32). And when Elijah is being persecuted, God’s response is: Go anoint Elisha as your successor prophet (1 Kings 19:16). So also the persecution of Elijah seems connected to the succession of Elisha, in a like manner of John’s persecution and Jesus’ succession. On a side note, Elijah is also told here to anoint Israel’s king, which is Jehu, and he is the one for whom they spread their cloaks on the ground like for Jesus at the triumphal entry (cf. 2 Kings 9:13; Mark 11:8). Don’t know if that’s a coincedence.

When Jesus says that “they” did to John/Elijah all the things “they” wanted (Mark 9:13), when in fairness it was only Herodias, this is perhaps a reference to Elijah’s persecution: It is Jezebel that wants to try and kill Elijah, after her husband has killed all the other prophets, and Elijah complains to God and says that it is “Israel", “they have forsaken your covenant and killed your prophets with the sword, and they are seeking my life” (1 Kings 19:10,14). They are the evil tenants, the wicked generation, in the form of Jezebel/Herodias. In this way I don’t think the suffering Elijah is that far of a reach for Mark. And the statement that this is “written” about Elijah is, I think, because the context in Mark 9:9-13 is exactly about the true understanding of Scripture, which the scribes don’t have. So they have never understood that the Messiah must suffer or that Elijah also was to suffer. You say that Isaiah 53 had been applied to Jesus, but what I meant was the suffering Messiah, not a suffering servant. A suffering Elijah redivivus is not found in the OT (Scripture), but a suffering Messiah is also not found in the OT. Although the Christians say it is! Luke has Jesus explain the whole suffering Messiah thing from Scripture in Luke 24:26-27, but of course Luke forgot to write the actual explanation..!
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: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:47 pmThis is a complex matter, and I have not expressed myself clearly, I’m sure. We are in really close agreement, perhaps 90%! I'm not of the opinion that Mark actually invented all of his story himself. But from narrative analyses I think it has been shown that whether or not he incorporated more or less established traditions or written sources, and in so far we want to understand the text itself, the text is best treated like a fully coherent unit.
Thank you for clarifying. And I completely agree that, insofar as we want to understand the text itself (by which I understand you to mean the text as a literary whole, on its own merits), we ought to treat it as a coherent unit.

But I have two caveats along these lines.

First, text criticism always comes first. Our extant manuscripts have plenty of textual variants for the gospel of Mark, and we really ought to decide which ones are original to the text and which are scribal additions. This principle is generally agreed upon across the board among scholars of all stripes, and ought not to be very controversial. But I myself, along with a growing number of researchers into the topic, go even further. I suggest that the gospels (pretty much all of them) are the kind of literature that snowballs, so to speak. We are not necessarily talking about discrete texts; rather, these texts may have multiple layers of interplay between them. I have been influenced by David Parker in this regard, though I was definitely moving along these lines long before encountering his book. If this latter, more thoroughgoing approach is anywhere near correct, then the business of text criticism still has a long way to go; one cannot simply rely on NA27 and leave it at that.

Second, even if my foregoing views about a more thoroughgoing text criticism are completely misguided, it remains the case that, while I often wish to evaluate what Mark has to say, I also often prefer to trace the origins of Christianity, using Mark as an aid in doing so. When my object is to trace those origins, it becomes vital to evaluate whether something is original to Mark or whether Mark took it over and altered it. A good example is the tracing of the history of the eucharistic meal. It makes a difference whether Mark himself took an existing ritual and wrote it up as the Last Supper between Jesus and his disciples or whether it was already a Last Supper before Mark put plume to parchment. (I myself suspect the former, but I do not assume that; I am required to defend it as a proposition.) Another good example is the feeding of the 5000, which you happen to mention:
The reason that the narrative of gMark is so primitive, strange, succinct and messy is because it is a neatly coded text. Why does he mention the seven baskets just like that? Why does he mention the twelve baskets? Why are there two almost identical miraculous feedings? Surely this is just a messy author who forgot to clean up his tradition? No: it is strange and messy exactly because it is a code. Mark has his main character explain that it is a code straight up in this particular case (Mark 8:19-21).
I agree that there may be a coded message in the numbers of loaves in these stories (and, if so, my current money is on Kunigunde's suggestion). But that does not answer certain questions that I have about the feedings, one of which is whether there were two of them right from the start (in the text of Mark, most probably) or whether there was originally just one feeding which was doubled for various reasons. In this case, incidentally, I think that there was only one feeding originally, and that it was doubled. I do not think this from any a priori considerations; rather, I am persuaded by some very closely observed and argued phenomena having to do with the nature of the Bethsaida section in Mark. But, whether I am right or wrong, my point here is that the symbolic meaning behind the numbers of loaves does nothing to answer this question of mine. If there was a single original feeding, for example, there is no reason not to explore the option that the number of loaves was unspecified in it, or that it was originally some number other than 5 or 7, and Mark changed it. Just as authors are capable of spinning new stories replete with deep symbolic meaning, so too they are capable of imbuing old stories with deep symbolic meaning.
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.
Just to clarify my perspective which I should’ve done from the beginning: I’m a subscriber of the Farrer-hypothesis.
Thanks for that. I used to (mostly) subscribe to the Farrer hypothesis, but have since gone full tilt in the direction outlined in that link above to the paragraphs by David Parker: the texts (and traditions) are too intertwined to settle on any single solution to the synoptic problem, whether of the simple variety (like Farrer), the slightly more complex variety (like Streeter), or the extremely complex (like Boismard). I also suspect (again, for very specific reasons) that some kind of proto-Luke preceded both our canonical Luke and the Marcionite gospel.

That said, I still think that something which looked similar to our canonical Mark preceded the texts which we now call Matthew and Luke. And I still have no problem with our canonical Luke knowing something of our canonical Matthew, though I do not rule out other intermediate sources.

Like you, I also think that our canonical Luke knew something of what is now our canonical John. I agree that Mark probably knew some Pauline letters, but I would not classify Mark's theology as (strictly) Pauline; I think Mark's theology is a hybrid one which combines Pauline theology with other Christian influences. I am undecided as yet on your following views:
I don’t subscribe to any theory that Mark wrote his story as polemic, to address some inner-Christian conflict of his time. E.g. to try to combat some family dynasty of Jesus in Jerusalem, or to combat ‘false prophets' intruding in his community that were preaching some sort of 'Son of Man theology of glory', or to combat Petrine Christianity, etc. etc. I think every theme and motif concerning conflict in gMark is a calculated, integrated part of the whole theological message. Mark wants to address an important conflict alright, but it is the universal conflict between Satan and Jesus (or Satan and man). It is a deeply theological theme, a dualism that plays out in almost every sphere of the narrative.
Possibly in line with your last two sentences there, I think that Mark is very much about answering the question: Who was Jesus?

You may be correct about me underplaying the suffering Elijah connections between Mark and his source material in 1-2 Kings. As I said, this particular example is not the best one for demonstrating that Mark was working with already extant stories. The evidence is not as clear-cut here as in other cases. However, you also add:
You say that Isaiah 53 had been applied to Jesus, but what I meant was the suffering Messiah, not a suffering servant.
But that is my point. I am saying that Isaiah 53 was already being interpreted as applying to a suffering Messiah (= Jesus) before Mark wrote. I think it was already being interpreted that way in Paul. So, while I agree with you that the Hebrew scriptures themselves lack a suffering Messiah, I think Mark himself would disagree with us both, and would read that chapter explicitly as applying to a suffering Messiah.
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 »

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.
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 09, 2017 6:20 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:47 pmThis is a complex matter, and I have not expressed myself clearly, I’m sure. We are in really close agreement, perhaps 90%! I'm not of the opinion that Mark actually invented all of his story himself. But from narrative analyses I think it has been shown that whether or not he incorporated more or less established traditions or written sources, and in so far we want to understand the text itself, the text is best treated like a fully coherent unit.
Thank you for clarifying. And I completely agree that, insofar as we want to understand the text itself (by which I understand you to mean the text as a literary whole, on its own merits), we ought to treat it as a coherent unit.

But I have two caveats along these lines.

First, text criticism always comes first. Our extant manuscripts have plenty of textual variants for the gospel of Mark, and we really ought to decide which ones are original to the text and which are scribal additions. This principle is generally agreed upon across the board among scholars of all stripes, and ought not to be very controversial. But I myself, along with a growing number of researchers into the topic, go even further. I suggest that the gospels (pretty much all of them) are the kind of literature that snowballs, so to speak. We are not necessarily talking about discrete texts; rather, these texts may have multiple layers of interplay between them. I have been influenced by David Parker in this regard, though I was definitely moving along these lines long before encountering his book. If this latter, more thoroughgoing approach is anywhere near correct, then the business of text criticism still has a long way to go; one cannot simply rely on NA27 and leave it at that.
Parker'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.
Second, even if my foregoing views about a more thoroughgoing text criticism are completely misguided, it remains the case that, while I often wish to evaluate what Mark has to say, I also often prefer to trace the origins of Christianity, using Mark as an aid in doing so. When my object is to trace those origins, it becomes vital to evaluate whether something is original to Mark or whether Mark took it over and altered it. A good example is the tracing of the history of the eucharistic meal. It makes a difference whether Mark himself took an existing ritual and wrote it up as the Last Supper between Jesus and his disciples or whether it was already a Last Supper before Mark put plume to parchment. (I myself suspect the former, but I do not assume that; I am required to defend it as a proposition.)
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 dont that quite yet.

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 alot 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.
I agree that there may be a coded message in the numbers of loaves in these stories (and, if so, my current money is on Kunigunde's suggestion). But that does not answer certain questions that I have about the feedings, one of which is whether there were two of them right from the start (in the text of Mark, most probably) or whether there was originally just one feeding which was doubled for various reasons. In this case, incidentally, I think that there was only one feeding originally, and that it was doubled. I do not think this from any a priori considerations; rather, I am persuaded by some very closely observed and argued phenomena having to do with the nature of the Bethsaida section in Mark. But, whether I am right or wrong, my point here is that the symbolic meaning behind the numbers of loaves does nothing to answer this question of mine. If there was a single original feeding, for example, there is no reason not to explore the option that the number of loaves was unspecified in it, or that it was originally some number other than 5 or 7, and Mark changed it. Just as authors are capable of spinning new stories replete with deep symbolic meaning, so too they are capable of imbuing old stories with deep symbolic meaning.
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.
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.
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. To show how extremely sophisticated and coherent the theology of gMark is, more than is usually believed, I think. What you would argue to be secondary features in gMark, I'd probably argue were important details that supply meaning to the deeper level.

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. 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? Why don't the texts of the other two evangelists show the same weird details as Mark's text? How come Mark was so much better at embedding a deeper coherent network of theological ideas and conceptions than they were? Why was he so much more concerned at hiding the teachings of the text than them?

Perhaps you get the main idea, but of course it would take alot to build my case properly. I'm working on it, though!
Last edited by Stefan Kristensen on Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply