Also, there has been some comment on Mark. Thanks for all these comments too - it is great to provoke someone to putting fingers to keyboard. In reply to one of these I would say that I find it unlikely there were two feeding miracles although that is possible. But John, independently of Mark, only reports one and he is probably the best witness we have. Also, as a correspondent has pointed out, the idea of Mark an artless compiler is reinforced by what Papias has to say about him about 110AD:
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever heI would suggest this backs up the idea that Mark's Gospel is an effort to repeat everything he can remember with only a loose narrative structure thrown in. I cannot accept that he is the subtle writer for whom everything has a purpose and meaning. The text just doesn't support that contention.
remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or
deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But
afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions
to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular
narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing
some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not
to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the
statements.
John Nash did the interiors of Buckingham Palace.
ReplyDeleteI knew 'A Beautiful Mind' was typical Hollywood and changed the story of his life quite a bit, but even by Hollywood standards, that is too much. Why did they leave that out?
IMHO, Mark is a well organized chiasmus. I think this may account for Papias' saying. The GoM is not primarily a chronological writing. It's main organizing principle is not around the tick-tock of progressing time, but around the matching, interplay and progression of ideas. Papias is right then, IMO, to say, "Mark ... wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ ... ... with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them." What is needed here I think is the realization that Mark wrote using the ancient writing/organizing principle of chiasmus. EVerything then, IMO, falls into place. Mark didn't live in England in the 21st c. and to judge him according to our (linear, left to right, beginning to end) writing expectations is, I think, wrong. Reading a chiasmus in that manner will produce the idea that the GoM is "a hodge-podge of sayings and stories thrown together into a slightly coherent narrative by a man with no sense of art or editorial control whatsoever". Read correctly, however - as a chiasmus - Mark becomes exceedingly coherent, artful, and editorially controlled. All the best :-)
ReplyDeleteSince one of my articles was cited I felt obliged to give further comment. Not that I usually need such an excuse to offer my opinion on something.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that modern scholarship is all too eager to assume similar or related accounts/sayings in different gospels are the result of theologically motivated redaction, instead of giving some thought to the notion that there may have been varying accounts preserved among the early Church. Or, indeed, that there may have been varying accounts delivered by Jesus.
An example of the former is the Last Supper. Mark and Matthew's sayings differ from Luke's. Since Luke used Mark as a source it would be easy to assume that Luke simply rephrased the Last Supper narrative to suit his own purposes. Such an assumption would be overdone however because Luke appears to be drawing on another, independent tradition about the Last Supper--one that is very similar to Paul's. Thus, Luke likely found himself with two traditions about the Last Supper and went with the one that he thought was either most accurate or best served his purposes.
When it comes to the possibility of two miracle feeding stories, I think Bede is correct that Mark had before him two miracle feeding stories. I would disagree that Mark was simply two simplistic to recongize that perhaps they had evolved from the same account. It is certainly possible that he had his reasons for thinking they were independent traditions.
That John refers only to one, I do not think, changes the analaysis. John narrates only 7 significant miracles and weaves them into his Gospel very proficiently. He attaches unique significance to each and uses them demonstratively for his larger points. I'd be surprised if he used two miracles so similar to each other, even if he was aware of two such traditions.
John, independently of Mark, only reports one and he is probably the best witness we have....he wrote, with not a little hint of irony. After all, the historical Jesus people at whom Bede openly rolls his eyes consider John to be the least reliable witness of all, as in (to name but one example) The Five Gospels.I read the first entry in that debate, and I saw pretty much what you reported in the blog, so I never bothered to look again. The trouble with your thought of playing devil's advocate is: if you argue the position against religion, who from that bunch would argue the position on its behalf? ;-)
ReplyDeletejack