Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

Steve Black wrote Saturday, May 19, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: [gmark] Ch 4


> Verses 4:33-34 seem to me to be a puzzle.
>
> (33)With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were
> able to hear it; (34)he did not speak to them without a parable, but
> privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
>
> On one hand V. 33 implies the parables were told to illuminate, V34
> refers back to V.11-12 where the purpose of parables is to conceal.
>
> Guelich suggests in his commentary that this flaw in Mark's narrative
> world is due to  a conflict in Mark's received tradition and. Mark's
> redaction.
>
> That seems a plausible enough possibility, yet I'm not content with it.
> Was Mark that much of a slave to tradition as to permit this kind of
> contradiction?
>
> Perhaps the disciples play two roles in this passage.
> 1. Stand ins for the readers who presumably "get it"
> 2. The "historical" disciples, who ultimately prove not to "get it"
>
> On the other hand, I wonder if Mark's narrative is not ultimately
> able to bear the heavy weight that our careful scrutiny places on it.
> Perhaps Mark merely wasn't being consistent in his thinking - a human
> enough possibility.
>
> Any thoughts?

My response:

First, Steve, I need to apologize to you for not yet responding to your
questions to me in your posts of 3/15, 3/30 and 4/10 on my position on Judas
as a creation of Mark and related matters.   I still intend to do so; but I
have been deterred by professional responsibilities in the last several
months, as a member of a pastoral staff (in semi-retirement).   That
position just ended and will free me to be more prompt in responding to
posts like yours, as well as free me for some major writing projects, one of
which is a commentary on Mark, for which I am contracted by Chalice Press to
write (and will not at this point make the deadline for the manuscript).   I
have also been delayed in getting back to you because I increasingly have
found myself drawn into engaging on a number of fronts in on-line dialogue
over issues people raise about Mark as well as historical Jesus issues (I am
a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar).  .

With respect to the latter, the recent James D. G. Dunn seminar (on his
paper "Jesus in Oral Memory: the Initial Stages of the Jesus Tradition"),
which a number of Lists were invited to join in participation, drew me into
that discussion in ways I had not anticipated.   Not only did I find myself
needing to respond with a lengthy essay, raising serious questions about the
cogency of some of Dunn's arguments, but also I have since discovered, in a
follow-up investigation of one of Dunn's primary supports for his position
(Kenneth Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral tradition) that
Bailey's theory is fatally flawed by his misrepresentation of one of his key
sources for his theory.   This discovery has caused me to direct my
attention to a comprehensive essay to show why, in my judgment,  Bailey's
theory is flawed and now vitiated by the evidence provided by Bailey's
source.  Many have, along with Dunn,  relied upon Bailey's theory to support
the contention that the early Jesus movement(s) preserved intact the
integrity and authenticity of the original oral tradition that goes back to
Jesus himself.   Consequently, I feel I need to produce this essay to show
how that position, using Bailey's theory as support, is just not tenable.  I
hope to complete this essay soon, hopefully in a week, and plan to present
it on XTalk and possibly one other List.   This is a long way of saying that
I have not forgotten you and will return to your questions, including your
most recent posts on the Markan ending and Mk. 4 after I have finished this
current project.

In the meantime, with respect to the questions you raise here on Mk. 4, as
well as the ending of Mark in your earlier post, my position on both has not
changed appreciably since I wrote my _Mark--Traditions in Conflict_
(1977/79).    If you have not had an opportunity to engage me in that work,
it might be helpful to do so to understand my basic perspective on Mark.   I
address Mk. 4 (138ff.) and the ending (45ff., passim) there.   With respect
to the ending,  I am now changing my thesis on the origin of the empty-tomb
story.   I am now convinced that Mark got his empty-tomb-story idea from the
resurrection episode in the Cross Gospel, which Dom Crossan has
reconstructed.    I have an essay that I have been working on for sometime
to show that.  Furthermore, since my _Mark_, I have changed my views on Q
and John in relationship to Mark.   I am convinced now that Mark knew, used
and corrected the theological propensity of Q and that John was dependent
upon Mark for the passion narrative, along with other Markan episodes, and,
in incorporating the Markan passion narrative, "corrected" and reformulated
Mark's christology and theology to bring it in line with his own
christological/theological perspective.

If you are interested in taking a look at my Mark book (which is out of
print), and if you cannot find it in libraries near you, it is, as it turns
out, still available for purchase from a press-outlet that bought up unsold
copies.   I would be glad to send you information as to how you can order a
copy from that outlet if you wish.    I also wrote an update of my position
on Mark in an essay "The Markan Mystery and Mark's Messiah for Faith," for
the journal _Chicago Studies_, April 1995, 17-31.  But my thinking on Mark
has evolved even further from what I state in that essay.

Best wishes,

Ted