I like to think of the four gospels as failed attempts to make it into the developing canon of the Jewish scriptures.
May we all fail so magnificently! Ha!
Robyn Faith Walsh made an important point in her book. We know more about Hellenistic pagan literature and educational praxis than we do about Hellenized Jewish literature, their practices and their education. We inevitably have to interpret the latter by way of the former. And there sit the gospels, texts without context. (But maybe that was what made them so ripe for interpretation. If we knew their complete provenance maybe a lot of the magic might be leached away?)
I’m sure you know of my high regard for Mark’s literary achievement.
It is well known that Mark’s wisdom ebbs and flows; what is hardly realized is that almost everyone has mistaken the ebb for the flow.
I wonder if there were any potential revisions Mark could have made to at least make it into peer-review without ruining the raw drama of the current work?
Mark had the courage to be misunderstood. He did not write a gospel. He left it to lesser lights to formulate the clichés. Mark’s message is self-annihilating. Horrified, Matthew and Luke created a genre – and a religion.
Are you saying that the so-called gospel of Mark was sui generis, that it did not fit into any known literary genre at the time?
Well nothing is without influence. Or context. That’s not really my point although Mark’s actual uniqueness is very much worth exploring. What I’m concentrated on here is the almost inevitable practice of reading Mark through the lens of the other gospels. As if he is doing exactly what they are doing, only he just happened to be first.
What exactly do you mean by self-annihilating in this context?
I am saying that if Mark had been the only such work composed it could not have been used as the basis of a religious movement, much less a world religion. It is insular rather than open. It stifles the attempt at outreach. Jesus claims that he teaches in parables to prevent understanding. His disciples are left confused and afraid. It was Matthew and Luke who created the gospel “genre” in their attempts to correct Mark. Mark doesn’t even mean the same thing when he uses the word.
Robert, I don’t disagree with what you say but the point I was trying to make is to highlight Mark’s inner contradictions (which i am willing to assume were conscious literary moves and not simply produced by confusion). Assuredly, the gospel must be preached but meanwhile Jesus tells everybody to shut up about who he is. And those he does command to speak remain silent. Jesus preaches to the crowds but raises the idea of an apocalyptic remnant, purified by judgmental fire rather than consumed by it, privy to a deeper understanding from which the crowds are excluded. Mark reveals and conceals.
What I’ve tried to do and what is almost impossible to do is read Mark as if that is all we have. I’ve tried to get the other gospels out of my head when I read it. Lacking that lens to look through (which was exactly the case for some indeterminate period of time) how would someone respond to Mark? We have to take the text on its own terms rather than interpret or look for intentions or motivations. Also nearly impossible.
I prefer to accept the contradictions as natural consequences of the work. In Mark I think we can detect a tension between two portrayals of Jesus and his mission. Early on you have the apocalyptic prophet announcing the coming Kingdom and encouraging repentance. The exorcist and healer. Then you have the suffering Messiah who must be defeated and who will rise. These two portrayals don’t rest entirely easily with one another. Perhaps this reflects the tension between the memory of the historical Jesus and the post-Easter gospel interpretations of his death. Maybe this tension is the ultimate source of the inner contradictions. They’re inherent in the material.
…the apocalyptic remnant…
I find it plausible that Mark was written for the internal use of a community rather than as an effort at evangelism. That community would have included both Jews and Gentiles. If it was indeed written 70ish then it could have well been a community full of an imminent apocalyptic fervor. Maybe we should interpret the call to go to Galilee where Jesus will appear literally?
Says here on page 30,
Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament Greek, by Daniel B. Wallace, ISBN 9780310218951;
Semitic/Vulgar.
Mark is in the Semitic/Vulgar category of NT literary level. There are 3 categories: Semitic/Vulgar, Conversational, Literary Koine. Mark is listed under the Semitic/Vulgar category so I’m going to use that from the book on page 30 that I have here as my answer to the question. I’m going to consider the literary level as being a genre in this context because it is Koine.
“I am saying that if Mark had been the only such work composed it could not have been used as the basis of a religious movement, much less a world religion.”
I don’t see it that way at all. Mark has all the elements needed to create a religion:
1. A prophet chosen by god (“You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”)
2. A message (repent because the end of the world is coming).
3. A promise to followers (eternal life).
4. Proof of his claims (came back from the dead).
Paul took just those things and started churches all around the Mediterranean. People bought it hook, line, and sinker because it sounded so good compared to what polytheism offered (vague promises of rewards during life for performing rituals).
ctsu,
Jesus commanded those who recognized his status to be silent.
Jesus indicated that there were inner teachings not to be shared with outsiders who were taught in parables so they would not understand.
The portrayal of the disciples in Mark is almost universally negative.
The women at the tomb respond to the resurrection with fear and told no one.
No great Commission.
It was because of these factors that Matthew and Luke felt the need to correct Mark.
Yes, Paul was instrumental in the development of the movement but Mark alone wouldn’t have done it. My point.
“Yes, Paul was instrumental in the development of the movement but Mark alone wouldn’t have done it. My point.”
If Paul could turn what was basically the message that is in Mark into a religion, why do you think no one else could have done so? There was even at least one church (Rome) which was created separate from Paul.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert