Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - [GMark] Mark Investigation

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks AT asianlan.umass.edu>
  • To: "GMark" <gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: GPG <gpg AT yahoogroups.com>
  • Subject: [GMark] Mark Investigation
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:15:58 -0500

To: GMark
On: Mark Investigation
From: E Bruce Brooks

Jeffrey Gibson has suggested, following a posting of mine to Crosstalk about
my current research on the Gospel of Mark, that I might do well to make a
similar mention to Kata Markon, acquainting its members with what I am doing
with Mark, and inviting their participation in one way or another. I do so
accordingly. There is a certain amount of membership overlap with Crosstalk,
and with Synoptic, where one or another aspect of the work has previously
been set forth, and I ask the overlap members for their patience. I will try
to make this as brief as may be still intelligible to those who have not
heard it before.

ME

I am a specialist in classical Chinese texts (my book The Original Analects,
Columbia 1998, may be in your theology library), with a lifelong serious
interest in NT as well, though without professional NT qualification other
than an acquaintance with general philology. My NT investigations are based
on a philological understanding of how texts in general operate, and
especially on how they come into being. (What used to be called the higher
criticism, though this term seems now to be taboo, and no other has taken
its place). My work centers not on one problem (eg, Historical Jesus), or on
one text (eg, Mark), but on what the NT texts as a whole can tell us. What
are they doing, what are they up to, who are they talking to, and in the
text-formation sense, what have they been through? Those are the questions.

MARK

Among those texts, I take it as obvious that Mark is one of the crucial
points: the earliest of the Gospels and the model for all the others, and
thus (since Paul rejects the Gospel approach by being determined "not to
know Christ after the flesh") the earliest direct witness to the evolution
of Christian belief, both during and especially after the lifetime of Jesus.
(It will be obvious that this approach is not for those who are
uncomfortable with the idea that present Christianity is the end product of
a growth process; to them I say a respectful farewell, but from now on I am
addressing only those who *are* prepared to see the early record in this
way, and thus to accept the possibility of a radically unfamiliar Jesus, if
such should be the outcome).

ACCRETIONAL MARK

What I venture to bring to the scene that seems to be new is the further
thought that Mark itself is not unitary, but is rather an accretional text,
composed over a span of time, and thus witnessing not to one, but to
several, stages in the evolution of Christian belief. The earliest of these
stages inevitably assumes special interest, as the record of Jesus which is
closest in time to Jesus himself; the least overlaid and extended by later
church need and theological development.

I identify strata in the first instance by recognizing interpolations, plus
the principle that the interpolated material is presumptively later than the
thing into which it is interpolated. For an example of interpolation
detection, see the end of this message.

Some may have seen my annotations to Adela Yarbro Collins' reconstruction of
a pre-Markan Passion Narrative, given on p819 of her Hermeneia 2007
commentary on Mark. In general, though one may differ as to this or that
passage, I find that she has employed the tools of the trade in a
responsible way, and has reached a plausible solution for the earliest state
of this portion of Mark. My chief dissent from her finding is not the
finding itself, but the fact that she stops with that finding, whereas
equally convincing evidences of interpolation are present, as her commentary
sometimes recognizes, in the rest of the text as well. If the tools of the
trade were applied equally to the whole of the text, the result would
presumably be the first textual state of the Gospel, not just its final two
chapters. It is this first state of Mark that I believe I am in the process
of recovering.

RESULTS SO FAR

It seems somehow out of place to summarize here my findings so far, in
advance of a fuller account of how they were reached, but my purpose is to
locate people who might be interested in taking a share of the ongoing
research, by contributing their criticisms and suggestions to the project
already in motion, and it may be appropriate to share this information for
that purpose, so that they can judge for themselves whether the results of
the investigation seem to them historically plausible. Briefly, then, I find
so far that (1) Mark looks like the authority document of a single church,
perhaps (though the text itself has nothing to say on this) in southern
Syria, amended as need arose by its proprietor, who in all likelihood was
the leader of that group. (2) There are at least seven distinguishable
textual strata in Mark. (3) The timespan over which Mark was composed
ranges from very shortly after the Crucifixion to sometime in the 40's; for
instance, the text or its latest paragraphs are aware of Caligula's threat
to the Temple in 40, and the martyrdom of James of Zebedee in c42, and there
are what are most easily explained as some contacts with Paul, probably
during his first years of preaching, which would fall in this same period.
(4) Mark is known to be theologically complex. This may be because it was
indiscriminately crafted out of theologically incompatible material. But
there are other possibilities. I find that the first three layers of Mark
coordinate with its three main theological positions, which see Jesus
respectively as the Son of David (the Davidic Messiah of Israel; it was for
a failed attempt to realize this possibility that he was crucified), the Son
of God (the stage at which fully divine powers came to be attributed to
him), and the Son of Man (always associated in Mark with the Resurrection
theme, as distinct from the Ascension theme, and representing a
reinterpretation of the death of Jesus as itself having salvific value).

CONFIRMATION

Can these results be independently supported? I think so. For the earliest
layer of Mark, we find that the often noted inconcinnities of the text
simply vanish; they are not there. That layer is about half the size of
canonical Mark. It makes perfect consecutive sense as a story. It has no
geographical or narrative confusions (the ones in our canonical Mark being
artifacts of unskillful addition of new material to the old material; see
further at end). Apart from these negative virtues, it shows an interesting
idea of Jesus' career, which by no means emphasizes those aspects of it that
a modern reader might expect. It emphasizes other aspects. It seems to
satisfy the natural expectations of the experienced historical worker: it is
at once surprising and intelligible.

There are also interesting coordinations between the accretional model, as
so far developed, and well-known features of the text. One example, recently
shared with Crosstalk (and repeatable on this list if anyone cares to see it
in detail) is that the Historical Present trait, which is among the
signature features of Mark that are partly or wholly screened out by the
Second Tier Gospels, is wholly absent from seven passages which on other
grounds (theological and/or formal) suggest themselves as probably late. One
interesting secondary trait of these seven passages, which include all of
the notably long pieces in the text, is their interest in women, which is
notably greater than in the earliest layers of the text. This too may be
plausibly regarded as representing a change in the social makeup of the
evolving church, and in particular, the patronage of well-to-do women or
widows.

EVALUATION

One can like these results or not like them. I don't myself have preferences
among possible results, and am merely curious to see what they might be. I
suggest that these results are themselves historically plausible. With
respect to the divinization of Jesus, in particular they follow a standard
sequence which can be illustrated from nearly every sacred or secular
movement of any consequence, and which is also manifest in the changes in
the Jesus image of successively later Gospels: Mark > Matthew > Luke > John.
I think that this suggests that the investigation, insofar as it can be
judged on its interim results, may be fruitful. That possibility is my
excuse for mentioning the investigation here.

If for these or kindred reasons we accept the reality of this construction,
then it becomes possible to learn something from it. For example, if the
"historical present" example should hold up to further study, we may have
evidence of the handiwork of a very late author, not the original Mark ten
years later but a different person altogether, who was less concerned than
those before him to maintain the original, notably breathless, style of
Mark, and to compose in a less engaged, less lapel-grabbing, and generally
more dignified style, in the way that Matthew and Luke would also define a
more dignified style. For much of the text, the theory of a single author
periodically revisiting his own work will suffice, and that theory is indeed
suggested by the retention of distinctive traits of Markan style. But for
these late piece, it seems that this theory at last fails, and that for the
final years of the text, we must accordingly posit a successor in the pulpit
of the Markan meetinghouse. Neither option is intrinsically more likely than
the other, but if the reality of the construct has been verified on other
grounds, then from these details we stand to gain further information, which
could not possibly have been gained in any other way.

So it goes. If anyone is interested in this work, its methods, its results
to date, or any other feature, I would be glad to hear from them on this
list (or to me privately, if preferred), and can provide further details as
may be desired.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

PS: AN INTERPOLATION EXAMPLE

Several passages in Mark have long been recognized as interruptive and
therefore as presumptively interpolated. The interpolations have also been
explained away. One seemingly attractive attempt of the latter sort is the
Edwards "Markan Sandwich" theory, which treats the original story plus its
interruption as an authorially intentional ABA form, and further suggests
that it is the B part of the form that gives the author's intended
interpretation of the whole. In the latter point I would concur,but I would
put it this way: B material is added because it represents an update of the
earlier position, which will usually be implicit in A. The two explanations
thus cannot be distinguished on this detail. Here are the narrative details,
from Mk 5:22-43.

22. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing
him, he fell at his feet. [23] and besought him, saying, My little daughter
is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be
made well and live.

24. And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him, and thronged about
him. [25] And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve
years, [26] and had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all
that she had, and was no better, but rather worse. [27] She had heard the
reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd, and touched his
garments. [28] For she said, If I touch even his garments, I shall be made
well. [29] And immediately, the hemorrhage ceased, and she felt in her body
that she was healed of her disease. [30] And Jesus, perceiving in himself
that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd
and said, Who touched my garments? [31] And his disciples said to him, You
see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, Who touched me?? [32]
And he looked around to see who had done it. [33] But the woman, knowing
what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before
him, and told him the whole truth. [34] And he said to her, Daughter, your
faith has made you well, go in peace, and be healed of your disease.

35. While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler's house some who
said, Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further? [36] But
ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, Do not
fear, only believe. [37] And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter
and James and John the brother of James. [38] When they came to the house of
the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing
loudly. [39] And when they had entered, he said to them, Why do you make a
tumult and weep? . . .

This is as much of the story as we need. Now we may ask the St Ives
question: How many people went with Jesus to the house of Jairus? According
to the interior Woman story (B), it was a whole crowd; this is narratively
necessary for the story, so that she may approach Jesus unseen and touch his
garments. But in the outside story (AA), the messengers arrive while Jairus
is still asking Jesus for help, and Jesus takes with him only his most
trusted disciples.

So the answer is either "many" (the inner story, B) or "three" (the outer
story, AA). I submit that the correct answer is "three," and that the crowd
in B is there merely for the convenience of the Woman. We note that the
crowd vanishes as soon as this role is fulfilled, and that we seem to have
here one of those conveniently appearing and disappearing crowds that occur
often in Mark, always arousing the derision of the less sympathetic
commentators when they do. It is these convenient but narratively
implausible crowds that I suggest may always be explained as the result of a
not wholly skillful insertion of a later story, itself internally
consecutive, into an also internally consecutive earlier story. It is not in
either story as such (neither the early author nor the late author was that
much of a fool), but at the edges of the insertion, that we can see an
inconcinnity developing.

Then the "sandwich" theory of authorial intention merely convicts the author
of poor writing, and after all does little to enhance the perceived dignity
of the text.




  • [GMark] Mark Investigation, E Bruce Brooks, 01/12/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page