tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post4557898543113896875..comments2024-03-22T06:31:42.929-05:00Comments on Wry Thoughts About Religion: What about the Loaves? Secrecy and Mystery in the Gospel of MarkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-21294067395356427012017-11-15T08:45:45.413-06:002017-11-15T08:45:45.413-06:00Good Morning Gene,
I think that convincing evidenc...Good Morning Gene,<br />I think that convincing evidence for multiple authorship (i.e., for large chunks of text like Pentateuchal criticism, for example) would be difficult to establish, but it is clear to me that Mark has been edited in several obvious places--particularly if one allows the evidence from Secret Mark (or as Scott Brown insists "the Longer Gospel of Mark").<br />What you point out in Mark four may be (arguably) editorial emendations from a later hand on the basis of literary critical principles for which there is no manuscript evidence, however--similar to what I have argued for the Gospel of John.<br />Cordially,<br />Charlie <br />Charles Hedrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285420936166236724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-53956739962409894542017-11-14T13:12:00.521-06:002017-11-14T13:12:00.521-06:00Steve and Charlie.
Are you ruling out multiple au...Steve and Charlie.<br /><br />Are you ruling out multiple authorship as a possible reason for at least some of the inconsistency in Mark? For example: Mark 4:11-12, 34 cf. 4:33, these say opposite things about clarity for the public. Also, how about "who believe in me" (9:42) which seems to change an original message about child abuse to spiritually misleading others.<br /><br />Gene Stecher<br />Chambersburg, Pa.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-36055772326525901182017-11-14T10:37:32.840-06:002017-11-14T10:37:32.840-06:00Good rainy morning Steve,
Your two points are coge...Good rainy morning Steve,<br />Your two points are cogently and convincingly made. I agree that there are more deliberate obscurities (or sloppy writing) in Mark's narrative.<br />Thanks for posting.<br />Cordially,<br />CharlieCharles Hedrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285420936166236724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-41622429646125206132017-11-14T10:21:06.921-06:002017-11-14T10:21:06.921-06:00Good Morning Gene,
Second Paragraph: I will check ...Good Morning Gene,<br />Second Paragraph: I will check out Watson's book. On their face however what you describe in the paragraph appear to be reversals of social values.<br />Third paragraph: AS I read the narrative today Mark 8:15 appears to be nonessential to the narrative Mark 8:14-21. Could it be a gloss?<br />Fourth paragraph: I agree that the two figures are the same and that is a point made by Marvin Meyer in several articles.<br />Cordially,<br />CharlieCharles Hedrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285420936166236724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-4309693077791319222017-11-13T20:39:36.357-06:002017-11-13T20:39:36.357-06:00I think the more one reads Mark without presumptio...I think the more one reads Mark without presumptions, external information and assumptions of what Mark was aware of or not aware of, the less sense Mark makes and, accordingly, the less sense the Markan Jesus makes. Two examples: <br /><br />First, the Kingdom of God, which is probably a principal theme of Jesus' teaching in Mark's Gospel, is never defined even as to whether it exists here, or somewhere else, or now or at some other time, or both at once or neither. The Kingdom is for children. Why? It is not for the rich. Why not? And so forth. <br /><br />Second, if you note that Mark's Gospel's central section, wherein Jesus three separate times reveals why the son of man has come, begins after a blind-man-sees story with 8:27 and ends at 10:45 before a blind-man-sees story. Thus 10:45 is the culminating climax of that section of the Gospel if not of the Gospel as a whole. We have been hearing throughout the central section that the son of man will be killed. Now we hear that the son of man will give his life as a ransom for many. That absolutely key phrase is meaningless if you do not know what the ransom is and why it is required and who this giving of life is a ransom paid to, and who the people are who constitute the many. And you know none of those things from the Gospel of Mark. You can drag in Paul, and the other Evangelists, and the shining history of Christian theologizing for 2,000 years to answer those questions… but you won’t find the answers in Mark. <br /><br />So I'd say that the kingdom of God is undefined and incomprehensible as presented in Mark's Gospel (possibly quite deliberately cf. 4:11-12) and that the single most crucial line is incomprehensible as well. Unless... of course... you import whatever ideas you picked up in Sunday School or Seminary study that leave you convinced that you are entitled to import notions of what Jesus must have been aware of or what is likely to be meant to be understood and so on. I suppose it is not unreasonable wishfully to assume that Mark’s audience was so familiar with ideas of kingdom and ransom that the Gospel can just allude to them with the expectation that they would be immediately understood. But it is clear in the Gospel of Mark that those who did receive the secret, which we blithely assume was the correct understanding of the Kingdom wound up, all of them, having betrayed Jesus or denied Jesus or run off deserting Jesus and showing no sign of having advanced beyond the dead ignorance Jesus noted at 8:17-21. The secret of the Kingdom didn’t do the intimate followers much good and everybody else gets parables to keep them in the dark. <br /><br />I think that the more one ponders Mark's gospel as it stands without importing clarifying presumptions and wishes into it, the more one understands why Matthew and Luke felt compelled to produce revised and clarified versions of it.<br />Steve Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06002202380215770659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-1518094593182100422017-11-13T19:36:51.281-06:002017-11-13T19:36:51.281-06:00Hi Charlie,
A very challenging essay, indeed. Alt...Hi Charlie,<br /><br />A very challenging essay, indeed. Although I’ve seen the passages which you comment on treated individually, I don’t remember ever seeing this type of comprehensive analysis that might identify Mark as a type of Greco-Roman “mystery religion gospel.” Other possibilities for some of the passages include:<br /><br />On "silencing directives": “Mark repetitively portrays Jesus as acting in ways that subvert traditional understandings of the components of honor.” Jesus also reshapes honor in the following teachings: greatness and service, carrying the cross, wealth, being a child, etc. (David Watson, ‘The Messianic Secret’, Journal of Theology: United Theological Seminary: Summer 2006, Vol. CVV, 38-39, 42). Watson’s book: Honor Among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic Secret, 2010.<br /><br />On the matter of the loaves miracles: the parable of the Leaven does not appear in Mark, but we have these two stories, which I call action parables, indicating that Mark was aware of Leaven teaching in the Jesus traditions. It is somewhat self-evident (8:15) that the stories are meant to show that Jesus’ Leaven is stronger than that of Herod and the Pharisees. This, of course, would not have become fully apparent until the resurrection. <br /><br />The young man in the linen cloth who escaped when Jesus was arrested is likely meant to be understood as the same young man dressed in a white robe who told the women at the tomb that Jesus would meet his followers in Galilee. It seems that he is thought of as the initiate who at first flees identifying with Jesus but then completes association with Jesus by announcing his resurrection. <br /><br />Why didn’t the women tell anyone of their experience at the empty tomb? Short answer: “The empty tomb is a later legend.” The women’s silence “gives an answer to the question why the women’s story of the empty tomb remained unknown for so long.” (Kris Komarnitsky, Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?, 2009, 16, 153; citing Bousset, Bultmann, Ludemann, Cook).<br /><br />Gene Stecher<br />Chambersburg, Pa.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-55617358455876585542017-11-13T01:08:32.159-06:002017-11-13T01:08:32.159-06:00Interesting indeed. I have often asked the same q...Interesting indeed. I have often asked the same question, "OK, Is there more?"Albertnoreply@blogger.com