Because it is an assumption, and assumptions can be wrong.Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:22 pmI 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?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.)
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.)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.
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.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.
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.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?
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).
I agree. He could have. That does not mean he did, at least without mounting the argument.And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did.
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.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.
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.