Ben C Smith

It seems to me that genre is a tacit agreement between a writer and his readership. The writer follows certain conventions to clue his readers in to how to interpret the text. But these conventions change over time and may differ from place to place, so it is entirely possible that those who read the gospel of Mark as history are simply making a genre mistake that a contemporary would not have made. Likewise, it is also entirely possible that those who read Mark as fiction are making a similar mistake.

(Even within the same time and place the line may be crossed, as when Orson Welles apparently crossed the line between fictional radio play and factual news broadcast in 1938.)

So my question is this: How did the first readers of Mark interpret Mark? On the two-source, three-source, and Farrer theories Matthew and Luke were early readers of Mark, and probably contemporary or very nearly so. Many also think that John was an early reader of Mark.

Assuming for the sake of this thread that one of those three synoptic theories is correct, then, I am interested in arguments both for and against Matthew, Luke, and John having read Mark as fiction as opposed to history.

Furthermore, if one holds that Mark wrote in one genre but the other evangelists thought he was writing from a different genre, it would be nice to have this mistake historically accounted for.

Thanks.

Ben.

Toto

Briefly, "Mathew", "Luke" and "John" treated "Mark" as a fictional source. They took over some of the language and images, but changed details to suit their own theology or story line, like a movie director adapting a novel to screen, or doing a remake of an earlier classic.

This may or may not show that Mark was entirely fictional. If you hold that there is some historic core of events behind Mark's story, you might still want to believe that all four gospels contain some core of history. But there would be no real evidence for this.

If they had been using gMark as history, they would have said something like, "and as observed by the earlier historical commentator "Mark", who got his information from X. . ." Of course, if Mark had been written as history, it would have started out something like "I, Marcus, write this based on my personal knowledge and information from X" to establish authority.

Diogenes the Cynic

In addition to what Toto said, I would also point out that neither Matthew or Luke had any compunction about altering Mark's account when they saw fit, nor did they have any problrm with inventing whole cloth fictions of their own. I think it would be hard to argue that either of them were much concerned with preserving any genuine history.

TedM

Assuming changes were in fact made with knowledge of a different account in Mark, it seems to me that there are several possible explanations for them:

1. To create their own fiction, with full knowledge (edit: belief) that the original account was fictional, for whatever reasons they wanted.

2. To create their own fiction, with full knowledge (edit: belief) of an original historical account, for whatever reasons they wanted.

3. To create their own fiction, with uncertainty regarding the historicity of the original account, for whatever reasons they wanted.

4. To correct perceived historical errors in the original account, with belief that the original account was intended to be historical, for whatever reasons they wanted.


I'm not sure why a change is automatically assumed to have been an indicator that Matthew, Luke or John knew Mark was not intending to write history, or that the changes were always for theological reasons or for the purpose of creating their own fictional account.

It seems quite possible that "Mark" was known to others in the community, and that if it was based on history, the traditions had developed to such an extent after some 40+ years that the idea that one person (Mark) would have been able to accurately portray everything about Jesus would have been ludicrous. As such, it would have made perfect sense for others to have written their own "corrected" version which reflected other traditions that reflected what really happened, or that had developed for various reasons (cultural, political, theological, etc...) over that time.

This is an assumption about the individual's motives and their own understanding of history, and that's all. If they had "heard" a different version of history, or their community of believers had different traditions, what looks like "inventing" may in fact have been an honest attempt to "correct" the history.

For me personally it makes a lot more sense that others in the community were writing their own 'corrected' version of history, as opposed to trying to make a better story out of one they believed to have been fictional. I don't think the idea that there were a number of other playwrites busy plagerizing and changing Mark's story in order to come up with a better one of their own is very realistic. It seems too cynical to me.

ted

Chris Weimer

Matthew appears to be a combination of the two. "Historicity" was a relative term in those days. I'm sure he didn't see his work as absolute history. Perhaps he knew the theological constructs in Mark, and then created his own. He does, however, fairly much believe the core of the story is true.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Another issue that I would like to see pinned down is this: If the three synoptic evangelists were all cognizant of writing fiction, what kind of fiction did they intend to write? Did they believe that Jesus existed or not? Did they believe that an historical figure named Jesus had done or said marvelous things? Did they simply intend to fill in fictional details, or did they invent those marvoulous deeds and sayings whole cloth?

It is one thing to write an historical fiction about Alexander of Macedonia, using scads of historical figures and data but adding fictional dialogue, plot twists, and so forth, quite another to write a fiction about a slave girl named Rhoda from Cyprus who finally gets to visit Rome and has an adventure there.

(I understand why you enclose the names in quotation marks, but if you ever forget to use the quotations I promise not to hold you to the traditional authorships. )

Diogenes develops this point of yours further:

I agree that some, though by no means all, of the changes seem to show a sublime unconcern for the integrity of the Marcan account.

But let us look at Luke for a moment. He, at least, frames his account with many of the usual conventions of ancient history. He includes a prologue for each of his works, appeals to the passing down of testimony from eyewitnesses, lays out a complex synchronicity of events for the ministry of Jesus, and addresses someone who is probably a patron. Does it not appear that Luke thinks of his own work as historical? If not, why not? If so, what does that say about how he regarded Mark? Would he use something he knew to be a fiction as the groundwork and principal source for his own history?

And think of Matthew. No attempt to frame his work as a history per se, but does the story of the guard at the tomb not sound like an outright apologetic for why the Jews have not flocked to the Christian faith? Does it not sound as if Matthew himself honestly believed that the tomb was really empty, and that the disciples were innocent of emptying it? If not, why not? If so, what does that say about how Matthew regarded the historicity of the empty tomb in Mark?

Just scattershooting here. Thanks.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that is why Matt drives me crazy. He makes no attempt to present his information as history, but on the other hand he adjusts it to handle certain criticisms of the story as if it were history. But if he thought it was history and added stuff to address specific apologetic claims, then...either he was a poor liar or he didn't think it was history. Plus, consider his error with Zech 9:9. Doesn't that show at bottom he was engaged in story-creation? Perhaps the guards at the tomb are there to seal a hole in the story.......

Ben C Smith

I have read similar things from you about Matthew before. It is curious.

But it is also what has me leaning toward a strong historical core with a heavy layer of legend and embellishment on top. Kind of what Chris W. said.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

The rumors of the Jews claiming that the disciples stole the body was probably not history for Matthew. In this sort of theological-history, you don't see any "and the Jewish leaders probably made up the story of the thieving disciples" but rather "the Jewish leaders did make up the story". Hearsay is very important too. The notion of "history" as facts able to be verified is a ridiculous notion to ancient authors. Matthew probably believed the tomb was empty. To give either history or fiction is to present a false dichotomy - besides, those terms are basically meaningless to the ancients.

Diogenes the Cynic

These are some valid points regarding GLuke, and I agree that it appears the author is at least trying to follow some of the form of a history, even if he doesn't really believe it all himself (in fact, he knows he's making some of it up).

The following surmise is purely speculative on my part, but on an intuitive level, GLuke (just the Gospel now, mind you, not Acts, which I concur with Vork in thinking it follows more of a novelistic style) strikes me as looking like a research paper which has been done by a student who is trying to bullshit his way through it with very few sources. If I had to take a wild guess, I would guess that GLuke has the look of a mercenary effort. Something which was done on commission by an author who was educated and resourceful enough to create something which had the appearance of being well researched and definitive, and gave his patron what he wanted to see, but which contains some elements of cynical invention where the sources ran short.