Robert said
There’s little doubt that Jesus’ disciples would have not have understood all of his teachings, as this is a common experience with all teachers and students.

Personally, I would not appeal to independent attestation by all four gospels to prove this point. First, the extreme misunderstanding of the disciples with respect to Jesus’ identity and the necessity of his suffering, death, and resurrection, as portrayed in the gospel of Mark is widely understood to be a literary motif of the gospel that does not necessarily reflect the historical situation of Jesus and his disciples prior to his death. In addition, it is almost universally understood by critical scholars that both Matthew and Luke’s gospels were literarily dependent upon Mark’s gospel, thus not independently attested by their authors, who both tend to downplay this misunderstanding. Finally, it is disputed as to whether or not the gospel of John was literarily dependent upon Mark’s gospel or upon the other synoptic gospels, but there are no effective arguments that the fourth evangelist could not have been at least indirectly dependent upon post-synoptic oral tradition.   

Thanks for this response: that was very helpful.

My next question for everyone is this: are there any good reasons for thinking Mark’s portrayal is a literary motif? For Mark to adopt *that* as a literary motif, knowing it had no actual basis, would be for him to adopt something that anyone could see would be used against Christians in polemics with other groups — can you really trust news about Christ transmitted by disciples like that, the opponents would ask? Mark would have to be utterly blind to the embarrassment problem, and that is implausible. We seem to be attributing a severe lack of practical common sense to Mark with this idea.

I suggest that scholars who think this is merely a literary motif are probably motivated by a similar embarrassment factor: how can one explain the rise and origin of Christianity from the teachings of Jesus if his own disciples didn’t get what was going on?

Perhaps it will be said that Mark wanted to diminish the disciples’ standing in order to make room for Paul’s way of looking at things, which went against theirs; but if Mark succeeds in portraying the disciples as unable to comprehend the real, living Jesus in flesh and blood in front of them, how can he be sure that Paul was able to grasp whatever apparition it was he saw? That is what I would press on Mark and his community if I were  Jew or a pagan; after all, Jesus chose his disciples, and if the Son of God chose uncomprehending people for this role, he might have done the same with his supposed choice of Paul.

For Mark to adopt this as a literary motif would be for him to willingly place himself in a weak dialectical position with regard to his opponents (and opponents there definitely were). I can’t see that as a remotely rational thing to do, which is why I doubt this interpretation of Mark.

Thanks again!

I can agree that there may well be a basis in fact, and that Mark further develops it as a literary motif. I still rather doubt the idea that there is no basis in fact, and that Mark just comes up with it for purely literary reasons.

Even in works directed at believers, apologetic issues will be very much on the minds of religious authors — the believers in a community usually are affected to some degree or the other by opponents’ objections, and the opponents may well come to know of an author’s work, especially if it is meant for public reading and is circulated widely.

Warm Regards,

O.

Robert said

Omar6741 said
I still rather doubt the idea that there is no basis in fact, and that Mark just comes up with it for purely literary reasons.

No one has said that.

By the way, my previous post was in response to an earlier version of your post, a question that you deleted while I was responding:

Could you perhaps provide a brief summary of specific reasons as to why anyone should think the incomprehension of the disciples is merely a literary motif in Mark, rather than a reflection of historical reality?

After that, I should be happy to look at commentaries you recommend which develop such specific arguments in detail; the discussions I have seen so far just seem to assume the “literary motif” idea rather than defending it.

I highly recommend Joel Marcus’ two-volume Anchor-Yale commentary as well as Adela Yarbro Collins’ Hermeneia commentary. 

Omar6741 said

Even in works directed at believers, apologetic issues will be very much on the minds of religious authors — the believers in a community usually are affected to some degree or the other by opponents’ objections, and the opponents may well come to know of an author’s work, especially if it is meant for public reading and is circulated widely.

Mark’s work was never intended to be an enduring religious work for the centuries. Rather it was written for believers facing some persecution and expecting the arrival of the Kingdom of God.  Matthew and especially Luke would rehabilitate Mark’s work for more long-term purposes.   

The reality of that persecution is exactly why, I think, the second evangelist would have been sensitive to apologetic concerns; after all, persecution is already a grave challenge to faith, and yet many scholars are telling us that Mark willingly added to the challenge by giving his audience further reasons to doubt the very foundations on which their faith in Jesus rested, i.e. the testimony of those who actually met the Lord. Who would want to follow a faith that not only earns one persecution, but that rests on such unreliable witnesses? That is the question I would press on these early Christians if I were a Jew or a pagan opponent, with good hope of success in turning them away. 

Mark may not have thought of his work as being around for the long term; yet he intended it to be an authoritative account of Jesus. Given this, it is hard to believe that Mark lacked the very simple foresight needed to see the problems he was creating for his fellow Christians by inventing or exaggerating tales of the disciples’ incomprehension. 

Warm Regards,

O.

Robert said
You have misunderstood and not responded to what I’ve said.   

I have just responded to your statement that “There is a narrative in Paul that is earlier than Mark, and the narratives and sayings in Q are generally thought to be older than Mark”.

You wrote that in response to my claim that Mark is our “earliest narrative source”, and it struck me as irrelevant.

So I clarified what I meant — i.e. by stating that Mark is our earliest narrative source — in more detail as follows: this is our earliest extant connected narrative account of Jesus’ ministry.

Since you brought up the narratives you claim to have found in Paul and Q, let me ask you again, by way of clarification:  

      Could you please show me what you have found in Paul or Q that you think is an earlier “connected narrative account of Jesus’ ministry” than Mark’s?

       Warm Regards,

          O.

Robert said
Do you understand the difference between narrative and connected narrative? Paul and Q contain narrative about Jesus, not connected narrative?  

Indeed! In fact, I understand that difference as well as Richard Horsley does when he writes “The Gospel of Mark is usually considered our earliest narrative source….” (Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor, p.90, emphasis added).

Now do you think that, when Horsley calls Mark “our earliest narrative source”, he perhaps just means “our earliest connected narrative account of Jesus’ ministry”? If so, why did you not think the same about me when I called Mark “our earliest narrative source”? And if not, will you please write a brief email to Horsley and point out to him — as you did to me — that “There is a narrative in Paul that is earlier than Mark…”? 

(Looking forward to Horsley’s reply to you…this should be entertaining….)