Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Martin Klatt wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:29 pmI am not convinced by your argument because you assume to much about what Mark knew about early Christian liturgies as you put it.
That is fine. I could be completely wrong about all of that and it would still not make Pilate more likely to be an otherwise unknown ancient title than a the well known Roman governor of Judea.
As far as I know Mark is the original source about anything that resembles the story about Jesus, whatever his later titles and identification. As far as I know Mark invented Jesus as a character in a novel or play of his own making. Whatever he decided to add as historical background to his story is not necessarily correct in all details, as he is not even claiming to write history.
This is part of what the OP is refuting. Mark is, rather, writing a story which he expects his readers to have at least partly heard before. The Pilate detail does not stand alone; it is part of a broader pattern of reader expectations. You may disagree with this point, and that is fine. But that is the main thrust of the OP. That is what is at stake.
BTW Herod was a king, at least in his own estimation and by genealogy so no need to bother with details.
Herod the Great was a king. Herod Antipas was a tetrarch. I am not sure what the rest of your statement means. (Genealogy is often required for kingship, but genealogy is no guarantee of kingship.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Martin Klatt

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Martin Klatt »

Last edited by Martin Klatt on Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Martin Klatt wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:37 pm Clearly the argument of foreknowledge is about to bite it's own tail called hindsight and then it is not as strong an argument any more.
I am not sure what you think my argument is, then.

As per the OP, Pilate and Simon (for example) are introduced in ways that sound like the author is presuming reader knowledge of those individuals. It is the same as, say, you and I sharing a mutual friend named Janet, and me then telling you, "I am on my way to Janet's house." That is how I might reasonably say such a thing to you, referencing Janet, if I am pretty certain that you will already know who I am talking about. If, on the other hand, I know that you do not know my friend Janet, nor do you even know who she is, then I would be more likely to say, "I am on my way to my friend Janet's house." I would, in other words, qualify Janet.

Pilate and Simon are introduced unqualified in the gospel of Mark; this suggests to me that Mark presumed his readers would know who Pilate and Simon are. Herod and Andrew, on the other hand, are introduced qualified ("king" and "brother of Simon"); this suggests to me that Mark bore no such presumption about those two as he did about Pilate and Simon.

That is the argument. It is simple and logical, working by analogy, even if it is not determinative in any final way (that is, it is possible that Mark is just a clumsy, unreflective writer).

How does hindsight come back to bite this presumption of reader knowledge in the tail, then? I can see how the argument might not be strong enough for everybody, but I am not sure I see how it is counterindicated by whatever you meant by that phrase.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Martin Klatt

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Martin Klatt »

Last edited by Martin Klatt on Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

That is the argument. It is simple and logical, working by analogy, even if it is not determinative in any final way (that is, it is possible that Mark is just a clumsy, unreflective writer).
Or he knows that one technique available to a storyteller is to disclose and withhold information for effect. He doesn't just drop the name Pilate into the story. He puts Jesus on trial, has him found worthy of death, beats him up, holds him overnight, binds him, convenes a meeting of all who are responsible for Jesus' fate, and only then tells us that the sense of the meeting is to ship Jesus to Pilate.

Of course, some of the audience probably did know who Pilate was. I have no problem with that part of your thesis. But for those who don't, they have just now learned that whatever a "Pilate" is, it is the deliberately chosen climax of being condemned to death, beaten and bound. Many will surmise that an interesting experience soon awaits Jesus, and find in this inference a reason to continue attending to the performance, or to attend more closely to the developing plot. Something seems to be about to happen.

Mark never does say who Pilate is. Mark just shows him conducting his own hearing, giving life and death orders, deciding whether the body can be released after summoning a military officer to report to him. It's almost as if Mark adopts a show, don't tell policy for Pilate. Could be. Other writers have been known to use that approach.

I think you may underestimate the skill displayed there.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:40 pmIt's almost as if Mark adopts a show, don't tell policy for Pilate. Could be. Other writers have been known to use that approach.
Do you have examples of what you are talking about? Preferably somewhat contemporary ones?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Do you have examples of what you are talking about? Preferably somewhat contemporary ones?
If your query was about the overall post, then I recommend Daniel Ball's Backwards and Forwards as explanation and introduction. It's well written, focused and short:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/ ... d_Forwards

Ball's chief worked example is Hamlet, a drama with a long documented production history that is frequently mounted in the contemporary theater.

If your query was specifically about the maxim show don't tell, then here's an entertaining example fest:

https://blog.reedsy.com/show-dont-tell/

I don't endorse the reedsy site for any purpose except that this blog entry appears responsive to your query.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

If your query was specifically about the maxim show don't tell, then here's an entertaining example fest:

https://blog.reedsy.com/show-dont-tell/

I don't endorse the reedsy site for any purpose except that this blog entry appears responsive to your query.
It was. But by "contemporary" I meant "contemporary with Mark." Literature is not the same across the centuries.

I am actually a solid proponent of the style of writing described at that link (and especially by Chekhov's dictum). But it has nothing intrinsically to do with whether a character is introduced qualified or unqualified.

I gave ancient analogies for virtually every point in the OP except for the ones under discussion (the introduction of Simon and Pilate); I ignored analogies for these examples simply because I thought they were so obvious. There are plenty of ancient analogies to be given, and I may add them to the OP for clarity.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

It was. But by "contemporary" I meant "contemporary with Mark." Literature is not the same across the centuries.
How about Galatians 2:9-14?

Paul's version:
[A]nd when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. They only asked us to remember the poor—which very thing I was also zealous to do.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?"

All tell version:

[A]nd when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, acted friendly enough. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. They asked that we should remember the poor, which very thing I was also zealous to do.

Later in Antioch, Peter took the side of some men from James in a disagreement with me over table fellowship with Gentiles. Barnabas did, too, along with the other Jews. I told Peter off to his face, in front of the others.

Mark-up of Paul's version: show, forward, resolution, and tell (i.e. plain exposition).
tell
[A]nd when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars,

show
gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship,

tell
that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

forward
They only asked us

resolution
to remember the poor—

tell
which very thing I was also zealous to do.

forward
But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.

resolution (to end of quote block)
show
For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

tell
But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News,

show
I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?"

But it has nothing intrinsically to do with whether a character is introduced qualified or unqualified.
The issue you raised was the hypothesis that Mark may have been clumsy and unreflective in not qualifying Pilate. I presented an alternative explanation to clumsy lack of reflection. That does strike me as "having something to do" with how Mark introduced Pilate.

You and I have no disagreement about the fact that Mark doesn't explain who Pilate is (before or after the character is introduced). We may disagree about Mark's competence in introducing Pilate that way, indeed in never explaining who Pilate is, which in turn bears on the topic.

So far as I can tell, it is uncontroversial that an author may omit an introduction or later identification because the author believes the audience already knows who the character is. You, not I, introduced a second possibility: that the author may omit such material because of unreflective clumsiness. Uncertainty about the matter thus established, I proposed a third possibility, where, like in your first hypothesis, Mark displays skill.
I gave ancient analogies for virtually every point in the OP except for the ones under discussion (the introduction of Simon and Pilate); I ignored analogies for these examples simply because I thought they were so obvious. There are plenty of ancient analogies to be given, and I may add them to the OP for clarity.
Apparently, you feel that the first hypothesis requires contemporaneous examples, and good for you to have provided them. However, your second hypothesis seems to have required no examples. I don't disagree: stupid is eternal. But since my third hypothesis is rebuttal to that unexampled second one, it's unclear how much example I owed. I claimed only something that is within the demonstrated expressive capability of human natural language, which capabilities are, so far as we know, as eternal as stupid; an inherent feature of our species, and not anything requiring craft innovation so late as historical times are in our species' existence.

No biggie; Paul furnished the requested example in his little short story.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:58 amSo far as I can tell, it is uncontroversial that an author may omit an introduction or later identification because the author believes the audience already knows who the character is. You, not I, introduced a second possibility: that the author may omit such material because of unreflective clumsiness. Uncertainty about the matter thus established, I proposed a third possibility, where, like in your first hypothesis, Mark displays skill.
Okay, I think you have completely misunderstood the main thrust of my argument. No, I do not think that Mark was clumsy or unreflective here. That is the hypothesis that runs counter to mine. I admit that it is possible, but I do not think it to be the case, and the OP is intended to run against it. Rather, I think that Mark did not qualify Pilate because of what you called uncontroversial in your statement above: he believed his readership already knew who Pilate was. Full stop; that, and nothing more, is my argument so far as Pilate's introduction alone is concerned.

Now, when one puts this probability about Pilate together with the other probabilities (of varying merits) which I pointed out in the OP, I think that the overall implication is that Mark was (re)telling a story that his readers, at least in part, already knew.

But, by itself, my point about the introduction of Pilate stands solely on what you have deemed to be uncontroversial.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply