Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:19 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:29 amBefore this turns into a very interesting discussion about Paul and Rom 1:3-4, I’d say that my main point concerning gMark and Paul here is that I think we should regard the prose literature of gMark (and all other early Christian literature) in the same way that we regard the epistle literature. The epistle literature is mainly concerned with delivering theological messages that are directly relevant for the intended audience. This is very explicit in most of these texts, even Hebrews. They might talk about ‘historical’ matters such as OT stories (e.g. the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, 1 Cor 10) or Jesus stories (e.g. the crucifixion and resurrection) or non-historical matters such as christological conceptions (e.g. Jesus and God the Father, 1 Cor 8:6). But these things are always brought up because they are relevant in that they can tell us (or, the intended audience) something about
ourselves. So, christology for the sake of christology is hardly found anywhere in the NT, it is always shaped and formulated in such a way as to be ‘relevant’ to the intended audience. I mean that we must always keep in mind that christologty is part of an interplay between the relevant message that the author wants to deliver and then the christology that usually goes with in order it to back up that message. It is in this context we find the christology within the epistle literature, I think. I hope it makes sense!
It makes sense to some extent, but it opens up some questions on my part. For example, what about just plain old fashioned good storytelling techniques? You seem to move from pole to pole pretty quickly (either it is historical detail or it is there for theological purposes), but there are other options in between, I think, which you have not explicitly ruled out. Why can some of the colorful details in Mark not be there simply because they are colorful and enrich the story in that way? Even the most theologically laden stories can sometimes offer details just for the sake of the story.
True, this is an important reminder for my kind of approach. Eager to find hidden meaning in every detail of the narrative of gMark, I can forget that a detail can be there for the sake of storytelling. But as Mark must rightfully be celebrated for his storytelling abilities, in my view he wrote his story for the sake of teaching. Indeed I think he was really, really concerned with teaching. One could even argue that his story is not about Jesus but about a teaching: the "Jesus Christ gospel". A story about a message. A saving message sent from God, a teaching (concerning Jesus) in the form of Jesus' sayings and deeds and witnessed firsthand by elected "learners" ("disciples", μαθηται), through whom it is then eventually witnessed to the whole world. I think Mark regarded himself as being in the 'sowing' business (Mark 4) doing the good work of the Lord, helping "the gospel" get a good hold since its arrival in this world.
I think he definately wanted to create a story that had suspense, surprise and drama, but I also think he wasted no chance to embed theological teaching in every single passage. A seemingly random detail such as for example the "large room upstairs" for the Last Supper (Mark 14:15) can plausibly be ascribed to rich storytelling. But I'm insistent that we have more than enough evidence to show what kind of shrewd, clever and sophisticated codifier we're dealing with here. And this means that we are
obligated to try very, very hard to think of all possible ways that such a detail might be symbolic for something (or it could be both symbolic and rich storytelling, I suppose).
Historical and theological are not two poles in my approach (if that is what you mean), but two sides of the same coin. With 'historical' I mean that Mark meant his whole story to be understood as historical in some sense. In that way I regard gMark and also the other gospels as pious frauds, since I believe that they fabricated (some) material freely and passed it off as a form of real historical data. For the sake of the gospel and soul-saving. I leave aside for now the question concerning what things in their stories might in fact
be historical.
So you could say that I think everything in gMark is 'historical'
and everything is symbolic! It's because my hypothesis involves that there is a logic and a system to Mark's story, far more consistently than what is usually ascribed to it.
Mark has created a rock solid, internally coherent narrative universe. And it is 'realistic' and chronologically sensible, i.e. historically realistic within a Christian (and Jewish) understanding of things. What do I mean by this? I mean that the Christ event hasn't happened yet at the time of the events narrated in the story, and therefore there are certain 'rules' Mark must abide by, and he does this painstakingly. So there is no possible way that anybody in the story can have "faith" in any Christian sense of the term. Nor is anybody saved. Nor is anybody converted. Etc. Not Bartimaeus, not anybody. How could they, the Christ event hasn't happened yet. Mark keeps his surface narrative clean. So if Mark wants through his narrative to convey his Christian teaching which is anachronistic in relation to the narrative's universe, he either has to:
1. make the narrator speak directly and openly to the reader, which he doesn't (except 1:1-3 and 7:19b)
2. have someone in the narrative to speak about it as some sort of prophetic break-in from the heavenly sphere, which Jesus does in just two places where it also is a specific point: 8:31 and 14:62.
3. use transposed meaning from the surface level narrative. Which is what he does.
When Mark read Scripture he believed he was reading about historical events that also had a deeper meaning, in various ways, according to the specific story he was interpreting. Interpreting Scripture was in this way an exercise in interpreting the deeper meaning of reality itself. From the Scriptures the Christians and Jews would get a whole, coherent narrative about world history. Which means that history and therefore reality was for them a
narrative. So, reality has a plot and main characters! In Mark's case the characters are God, Israel, humanity (or Gentiles) and Satan, but also with the Christian plot-twist, the Messiah as God's special son. And the plot? Well, God had made humanity as his special servant and vice-ruler over creation and put him in paradise, but after they became disloyal they were exiled from his presence which involves a hard, mortal life. Later on God chooses Israel as his special servant and vice-ruler over the nations and put them in 'paradise' (the promised land of fertility and peace), but same thing, they become disloyal and then exiled from his presence which involves a hard life in diaspora among the faithless Gentiles. This was the current situation. But the plot had a continuation according to Scripture, through 'the promises to the fathers', i.e. God's promise that he would return his special servant from the exile. The prophets elaborate on this, and some of them speak of a Davidic king involved in this return and restoration of order, the 'messiah'. But what special servant did the promise actually concern...? Was it Israel, now, or humanity?
Mark's story is a 100% fully integrated part of this larger narrative. It is the same plot and the same characters.And as far as Mark is concerned, it is all 'historical', all reality. There is of course the great Christian 'plot-twist', this suffering-son-of-God-Messiah figure. It is a plot-twist, because until the Christ event itself, nobody had realised that this was part of the plot all along, foretold in Scripture. And the reason that nobody understood this except the Christians, is that the scribes of Israel don't understand Scripture the right way - like the Christians do. And the reason the scribes don't do that and reject the Christian truth is of course because they are corrupted, perverted, self-centered assholes! It is quite the brutal character assassination by Mark in 12:38-40 which follows upon the passage about the ignorant scribes in 12:35-37...
But I think the same applies to the prose literature of the NT. Mark’s christology is always part of another, bigger message for his audience. We cannot be content with defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes, which I think we are very often guilty of, because then we ignore the very meaning of the text. Mark meant to say something through his christological conceptions. That is why he shapes his story about Christ the way he does. So when he has Bartimaeus call Jesus ‘son of David’, this must in some way be part of a bigger message that is directly relevant to intended audience.
This part is more opaque to me. Can you give a concrete example of somebody being guilty of what you are talking about ("defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes")?
Well, maybe "historical purposes" was a bad term to use. I'm talking about the fact that for Christians christology has implications, and that it is these implications of the christology, not the chistology itself, that are of interest to the NT writers, including Mark (in my opinion). When Christians read the text, they instinctively ask the question: What does this mean for me? If Bartimaeus is right in calling Jesus 'son of David', what does this mean for me? And this is one question we don't ask as historical-critics. But for sure this is the single most important question which the text is trying to answer. So we should always remember also to ask this question (in a historical-critical manner): If this is the christology of Mark, then what did he think were the implications of this? When I make my mind up about some christological aspect in gMark, for example, I feel happy about it. But when I go on and persue this other question, then new avenues open up that very often completely changes my mind about the original issue.
I read an article by Vernon K. Robbins, ”The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) in the Marcan Theology”,
Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 224-243. The article should be something about Marcan "theology", but he concludes that Mark places the Bartimaeus story where he does so that he can connect Jesus' identity as son of David, which point forward to all his temple actions, with Jesus' identity as son of God, which has to do with his healing powers. And so I ask: where's the theology? I mean, didn't Mark think that this had some further implications? Implications for his audience. Of course he did. But what are they? Robbins stops asking too soon.
If you are suggesting that one should never read Mark for insight into early Christian history (even literary history or theological history), then I cannot disagree in terms strong enough to express my full feelings on the matter. I do not think you are saying that; but, if you are not, then I am not 100% sure what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying. Of course I believe that gMark is an historical source for all kinds of things, not least pertaining to early Christian history. I absolutely love the subject of early Christian history, that's one of the reasons I come here
What I'm saying is that I have very little confidence that we can use gMark as a source to say something detailed about the historical development of Christian tradition and teaching, such as the eucharist. Instead I think there is another thing we can do with gMark, which is to use it as a source to say something historical about this particular Christian, the author of gMark. Because in my view his narrative is such a coherent story, that it is too uncertain and speculative to try and locate the sources within it. I simply don't believe in tradition criticism when it comes to gMark. And I also don't think that we are finished with understanding his story in the full picture. But I don't believe that finding sources is a useful approach to finding the meaning of the text. Mark was so in control of his story, that even if he sometimes were a little clumsy with his editing, he made sure that his story was still fully coherent and logical when it comes to the
real meaning of the text, which I believe always lies at the deeper level.
Not that I necessarily want to go into it fully here and now, but maybe I can offer an example. I think that Mark's gospel and Paul's epistles disagree on a few points of christology; that is, both (sets of) texts evince differences sometimes on the answer to the question: "Who is/was Jesus?" I take this observation further and actively try to reconstruct the sequence of theological development. Which ideas are more primitive and which are more derivative? Which came earlier and which came later? Is Mark earlier or later than Paul? If later (as most think), then is Mark liberally developing what he found in Paul, or is he conservatively hearkening back to an earlier stage of christological development, before Paul came into the picture?
Do those questions I am asking constitute an example of "defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes" (theological history, in this case)?
No, they don't, I also find this approach extremely interesting. But in the end, I think we're not even close to uncovering Mark's story in exactly that way it was meant to be understood, so that is where my focus is. I mean, before we can make judgements about differences between gMark and 'Paul', we have to understand gMark (and Paul). In the end it is an interplay, of course. What I like to do with gMark is to try and see if any of the known Christian ideas fit into gMark. These ideas are found explicitly in the epistles. And I find that when we try to apply the ideas from the 'Pauline' epistles, we can make alot of pieces fit in gMark, taking care not to make circular reasonings of course.
On another note, I don't have so much time on my hands, so I come here and read all the posts and your replies, but atm I don't have so much time to write.