tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post1255796910732638101..comments2024-03-22T06:31:42.929-05:00Comments on Wry Thoughts About Religion: Exaggerations in the Gospel of MarkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-2953262665631198402022-07-04T09:51:16.443-05:002022-07-04T09:51:16.443-05:00Good Morning Bill,
I have a question on your third...Good Morning Bill,<br />I have a question on your third point. If one overlooks the historical character of the message (that is to say, its grounding in verifiable data), doesn't the divine message become unhistorical propaganda?<br />Cordially,<br />CharlieCharles Hedrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285420936166236724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-31915405982396527772022-07-03T11:16:25.095-05:002022-07-03T11:16:25.095-05:00Charlie,
It appears to me that Mark is propagand...Charlie, <br /><br />It appears to me that Mark is propaganda more than “history.” It uses exaggeration, “puffery,” hyperbole. The use of “olos” and “pas” in exaggerations are used in Mark as a propagandic technique, affiliation, in which the audience associates a person, product, even religion with a large group of people or important people. One example of affiliation is found in 1 Cor.15, with “famous” names, then the “500” and “12” to build the author up as better than those listed because he is “God’s agent,” and has worked harder than all (pantōn). In 2nd Cor. perissoterōs is used hyperbolically... and exceedingly excessively! (It is used to similar effect in Gal. 1.14 and a cognate very similar in meaning, (perissoteros) is used in 1 Cor.15.10 to describe Paul’s “work.”) One also finds hyperbole throughout Acts of the Apostles, to show how popular (or unpopular) the movement was, with none of the followers being needy, and its liberal use of olos & oxlos throughout the book, etc. Mark also used oxlos quite often, which also had the propagandic effect of affiliation, whether positive or negative.<br /><br />Hyperbole has another function. In Mark, along with the use of present tense, the amount of direct dialogue and words like “euthus,” hyperbole created an immediate image and emotion for the audience. It would have probably been performed (i.e., not read silently), intensifying this experience. “All the people” or “in the whole world” were akin in their ambiguity to leitwort the author used (like sea, mountain, the way, fear) in that each gave individual members of the audience a “ready” and clear image, because ambiguity creates (demands?) recall of a salient connection quickly in a way precision might or might not do. Humans stereotype in order to categorize efficiently. “The whole city” or “all of them are obvious exaggerations with an impact that catches the audience’s attention, giving them a “picture.”<br /><br />My question was whether Mark’s story was primarily meant to relate historical facts or tell a persuasive story. To me, it seems more the latter. The use of hyperbole was a rhetorical device used to facilitate the engagement of the audience, regardless of the purpose. It was probably effective, because it survived and proved the basis for other gospels. Before it turned into the holy Word of God, it was a story, not a forensic investigation of history.<br /><br />Dennis Dean CarpenterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-67517930241899896092022-07-02T19:35:34.760-05:002022-07-02T19:35:34.760-05:00Hi Charlie,
If it's apparent to us that certa...Hi Charlie,<br /><br />If it's apparent to us that certain statements are enthusiastic exaggerations, I'm pretty sure it's apparent to most who were and are exposed to them. I would say that anyone, including an evangelist, who exaggerates is human. We have to be careful to confuse apples with oranges. John baptizing Jesus is a far more complex question than the admittedly ridiculous statement that everyone in Jerusalem came for baptism.<br /><br />Gene Stecher<br />Chambersburg, Pa. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-72352210850816159372022-07-01T14:05:44.791-05:002022-07-01T14:05:44.791-05:00Another thought-provoking blog.
Questions similar ...Another thought-provoking blog.<br />Questions similar to yours arise when we read other parts of the Bible where exaggerations serve rhetorical purposes, such as reports on the size of conquered armies and cities (historical facts) and prophetic predictions of weal and woe (historical expectations).<br />Upon reflection I think I would slightly revise the implications of exaggeration in Mark and elsewhere in the Bible:<br />1. An exaggerated history is unreliable—as an accurate record of what happened in the past. It can be very reliable for other communicative purposes if we allow for different forms of history writing.<br />2. An evangelist that exaggerates is untrustworthy—if we expect that the evangelist’s primary communicative obligation is the unadorned conveyance of facts.<br />3. Is God responsible for the exaggerations, or is God simply forced to work through a flawed writer in this case? Or: is God pleased to be represented by a writer so effective in reaching his audience in ways that prompt them to give serious thought to the divine message?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-20628992532054835972022-07-01T13:59:15.634-05:002022-07-01T13:59:15.634-05:00The Anonymous comment above was from me, Bob Fowle...The Anonymous comment above was from me, Bob Fowler. Don't know why my name didn't show up.Bob Fowlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-70085358050103826332022-07-01T12:06:13.815-05:002022-07-01T12:06:13.815-05:00Thanks, Charlie! Love it, as I bet you could antic...Thanks, Charlie! Love it, as I bet you could anticipate coming from me. I'm a big fan of Mark's twists and turns, his puzzles and conundrums, his oddities and challenges. Here's one I don't think you mentioned: 16:8, the last verse of the gospel. "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." The NRSV translation here obscures the double negative in the Greek, which is OK to do in Greek, but usually avoided in English. So, "they said nuthin' to no one, cuz they were afraid!" So the story ends in fear and absolute silence, and thus the story of the empty tomb was never told to anyone, and is entirely unknown to this day! As I said once in print somewhere, Mark ends with the story of the story that was never told! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com