Kata Markon

["E Bruce Brooks" <brooks AT asianlan.umass.edu>]

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.