Vorkosigan

In the tradition of Rick Sumner I thought I'd put up some remarks here on books I have been reading lately. One of this is Mary Ann Tolbert's Sowing the Gospel.

Tolbert's thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is essentially a piece of Greek popular literature aimed at a variety of audiences. The gospel follows the conventions of such works. For example, such literature typically consists of episodic narrative at the beginning and middle and ends with a series of recognition scenes in which the question of identity is crucial, and in which chronology is carefully controlled. So it is with Mark. In Greek popular literature the minor characters pop in and out quickly, and the major character does not undergo psychological change and growth, but instead suffers the vicissitudes of life in which his monolithic character is displayed. Another feature of Greek popular literature is that it contains synopses which lay out the story for the reader/listener, just as Mark does....

...she divides Mark into two great divisions, 1:14-10:52, and then 11:1 and on. The parable of the sower in Mark 4 sets up the typology of the characters in the first half of the gospel, thus serving as a synopsis. If you recall, Jesus names four groups of seed/earth configurations. They are

*seed thrown on the way and eaten by birds (those whom Satan causes to reject the message). In Mark those are the chief priests, scribes, and other Jewish authorities

*seed thrown on rocky ground, grows quickly but withers in the sun. In Mark those are the disciples but especially Peter, for whom "rocky" is a play on his name.

*seed thrown in thorns, which choke it. Those who are distracted by considerations of wealth and power, such as the Rich Man in Mark 10, and Herod.

*good earth which multiplies it a hundredfold. Those who have faith and are healed and spread the word of the kingdom of God.

Thus, in GMark the real key is not the seed, but the earth. Her reading of the disciples as the rocky ground is absolutely fascinating and heavily documented. The various events in the gospel then play out this typology.

In the second half of the Gospel the controlling parable is the Parable of the Tenants. I haven't read that closely yet, but it looks very promising.

This is a great book that I can't recommend enough. Very insightful and full of stimulating ideas and analysis. The background material on the gospels in light of Greek popular literature alone is worth the price of admission....

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

Hi Vorkosigan

Could you please clarify what Tolbert means by Greek popular literature and give some examples of the works regarded as particularly relevant to the Gospels ?

Thanks
Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Here you go:

"Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus, the author of the non-Sophistic novels, provide the clearest comparisons in overall style, and while Chariton's work has strong similarities to Luke-Acts [62], it is Xenophon of Ephesus, the crudest and least skillful of the ancient novelists, whose Greek style most resembles the Gospel of Mark. Besides the factors already mentioned -- beginning with minimal introduction, journey motif, episodic plot, central turning point (peripeteia), and final recognition scene,all of which find their ultimate ancestor in Homer -- Xenophon, like Mark, supplies little descriptive detail to characters, places or events....[discussion of specific structural features] In Xenophon, as in Mark, these repetitions of often take the form of doublets or pairs which help to structure the story."(p67)

[62]Note 62 refers to Pervo and several other studies, as you probably guessed.

On page 68 she notes that Mark is simpler, plotwise, than the ancient novels, but the Greek of Xenophon and GMark is quite close, unlike that of the other novels preserved from antiquity.

Tolbert calls it "Hellistic popular literature" -- literature composed to be accessible to a wide spectrum of society, probably to be read out loud to an audence that would include artisans and others in a society where there were well-to-do types with education who could afford to indulge a taste for literature, as well as a large majority of illiterates. Tolbert relies on Hagg's The Novel in Antiquity for much of her analysis of how Mark relates to the ancient Greek novels.

Note that the relationship is at the level of style and structure and expected audience, not at the level of plot. Mark is writing in an accepted style, but the story he is writing is not derived from Greek novels. Looking back, perhaps my post was confusing and unclear. Very sorry.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Amazon link - contains some cheap used copies

rlogan

Sort of a novel that got out of hand?

Clivedurdle

But a novel has also got out of hand in the case of the Scientologists! A repeating phenomenon to study!

Chris Weimer

And the Quran too!

Vorkosigan

No. The writer fully intended that the story he told "get out of hand." Tolbert believes GMark is a definite creative enterprise and not the result of some oral tradition coalesced/coalescing into a real story. She does a very good job of showing how even the parts in the PN reflect the typologies set out in the Parable of the Sower, setting to rest any idea of a pre-existing PN. The whole thing is literary creation. I've never believed in the "all things to all men" oral tradition, which covers any multitude of sins. Tolbert alone is a great antidote. Tolbert + Robbins is a positive cure-all for any delusions of historicity in Mark.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

Both Chariton and Xenophon are probably 2nd century CE writers, though Chariton may be very late 1st century.

Some scholars have suggested influence of Christianity on both
See Bowersock 'Fiction as History Nero to Julian'

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Hagg suggests that Chariton is 50 BCE-50 CE. Xenophon is not necessarily second century, see the footnotes below.

http://www.einaudi.it/einaudi/ita/news/can4/98-351.jsp

In any case, if a connection can be drawn between Greek popular lit and Mark, I don't have a problem. I don't think Mark is first century, but rather, sometime in the first half of the second century. Although dating Mark becomes more and more problematic the more you assume it to be literature...

This review also dates it to the same time frame:

http://www.complete-review.com/revie...k/chariton.htm