Vorkosigan

Looking at Jesus prediction in Mark 14, Raymond Brown notes that the idea that dawn came only after the second cockcrow is found in Greco-Roman literature (DotM, vol 1, p137).

Jay, have you looked into the PN-as-liturgy ideas of Trocme and Goulder? The three hour periods in the PN might be liturgical in nature. I myself am beginning to suspect that Mark was a liturgy meant to be performed -- the number of fivefold structures -- and five acts was the common form in Attic drama. Also, Tolbert in Sowing the Gospel points out that in Hellenistic literature time in the recognition scenes was carefully controlled, just as in the Markan PN, which is all about Jesus' identity (I know, I owe you a response, Andrew. Finally, Beavis in her book on Mk 4:11-12 reconstructs the entire Gospel as Attic drama...I wish this forum could do tables:

*******************

• Reconstruction of Gospel of Mark as Hellenistic Drama
  (adapted from Beavis 1989, p128-9)
  
  Prologue 1:1-13 Jesus introduced as Son of God, John precedes Jesus
  
  
  Act 1 1:14-3:35 Jesus calls disciples, preaching and healing begins, conflict stories
  Teaching 1 4:1-34 Parables, themes of private teaching, catchword is Listen!
  
  Act 2 4:35-6:56 Miracles, Jesus rejected in own country, disciples sent, John executed, first feeding miracle, section opens and closes with miracles on the sea
  Teaching 2 7:1-23 Teaching on clean and unclean, private teaching
  
  Act 3 7:24-9:29 Story of Syro-Phoenician woman, healing, feeding, healing, recognition scene (Mk 8), transfiguration
  Teaching 3 9:30-10:45 Teaching on discipleship, passion prediction and ransom saying
  
  Act 4 10:26-12:44 Healing of blind, entry into Jerusalem, Temple cleansed, hostilities with Jewish leaders
  Teaching 4 13:1-37 Private eschatological teaching to disciples, catchwords are Look! and Watch!
  
  Act 5 Arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus
  
  Epilogue Empty tomb, Jesus is risen.
  ***********************

In her reconstruction, the teaching sections take the place of the chorus.

Hope this helps

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Thank you. This is extremely helpful, as this whole thread has been. I believe that Mark preserves very little of the original play, perhaps 10%. A great deal of his material, over 25% seems to be off the top of his head. John is considerably more helpful as he keeps about 50% of his material close to the orignal play which was in verse form.
However, Mark may have maintained the five act form of the original play, as Beavis suggests.

Thank you for even answering my odd question about the cock crow.

I was jogging recently at sunrise and I heard a cock crowing. The cock crowed about ten times. If cocks crowed this many times in ancient days, I do not possibly see how any language or culture could have developed an idiom where the second cock crow meant sunrise. Have cocks evolved or did I just happen to hear a city cock who had been out drinking the night before?
Has anybody offered any suggestions for why Mark gives us the second cock crow, but not the first cock crow? It appears to me that someone has deliberately cut out the first cock crow to make it appear that the second cock crow meant sunrise, possibly to harmonize Mark with John.

However, it is clear to me that Mark meant something completely different, that Peter would betray three times before a cock crowed twice, in other words, Mark was saying that Peter would betray Jesus many times very rapidly (in between two cock crows), and not saying Peter would betray Jesus before cock crow (sunrise).
This leads me to conclude that either John or Mark was badly translating from another language (aramaic?) into Greek or making stuff up. The first former seems much more probable.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

Chili

Yes it 'must' mean that because the sun did not rise for Jesus on that day since Peter, who represents the faith of Jesus, had denied him before the sun rose ("daybreak" comes in Luke 22:66).

Significant here is that 'sunrise' illuminates us with the light of common day which for Jesus was not true on that day to say that he was ready to be crucified. He tells us that with "From now on, the Son of Man will have his seat at the right hand of the power of God" (Luke 22:69) to say that he had vacated the [lower] house where the light of common day makes our days bright.

Don't forget here that the Morning Star is Lucifer and this is how Lucifer was spared as well.

As a general comment would I say that the Gospels are the stuff Roman Plays are made of. I actually don't know any but I do know that they can't get any better than this.

Vorkosigan

On this point, we shall disagree. Mark is the original-don't-buy-anything-else creator of this story and preserves it 100%.

No idea. Living in Kenya permanently separated me from the idea that roosters crow at sunrise.

If anyone has, I certainly haven't heard about it.

It leads me to conclude that the author of Mark didn't really give a damn about reality, and was interested in these effects only insofar as they advanced his story. Remember, while Peter is down in the courtyard Jesus is up there getting convicted by the Sanhedrin. All this action must take place "simultaneously" in story time but consecutively in narrative time. Peter's betrayal is the bridge that permits the story to move from the Sanhedrin to the Pilate Trial, and gives the actors time to clear the stage for the next little scene. In other words, the construction of the scene is dictated by neither translation nor by reality, but by the needs of the narrative/liturgy/play. This can't be a translation, because there is a doublet here -- Peter denies Jesus 3X, and in next scene, Pilate offers Jesus to the crowd 3X that is pure Mark. Further, there is a nice bit of Markan irony -- the man named "Rock" falls to pieces at the end. And there's that nice intercalation, whose meaning I believe I have finally puzzled out. Ever notice something about those famous Markan intercalations -- the fig tree, the denial, the bleeding woman in Mark 5 sandwiched between the daughter's raising? They all involve a change of location. I'll have to analyze the problem in detail, but I wonder if the real reason for those intercalations is to create time for the set to be cleared and the actors move to a new location in the midst of a story. Where there are no intercalations, the action happens continuously in one spot....

Just some thoughts.

Vorkosigan

Chili

I am with you on this. Mark is mechanical stage director and gives us the no non-sense point of view. Question is: where did he get his scrap book from to put it all together in such a way that the other Gospels could embellish the story. That is why I call it the Gentile perspective . . . but Mark knew the rest of the story, and knew it well! They do, probably because they've got 25 hens to take care of that day. But there is more to it than this. The cock's crow suggests that there is a certain degree of human condition (faith) left in Jesus and this is no longer true after Peter denied Jesus. Mark, without understanding of this metaphysical connection has the cock crow once but not twice. But look, when Peter was warming himself in the courtyard of the high priest a servant girl (who represents an attempt for Jesus to 'cling' to faith) came passing by and therefore the cock crowed twice in Mark. In this sense does Mark show the struggle in the mind of Jesus to resign from faith so he may stand convicted by faith as if faith was a generator here coming to a final stop after the switch was thrown that landed him in Galilee where faith is meant to be annihilated in understanding. Such detail, which may be as little as a facial expression, is not known to Luke who is determined to succeed, and does succeed.

So the detail that Peter was warming himself as the faith of Jesus is evidence of the struggle in the mind of Jesus and therefore the cock crowed twice. Matthew would never understand this struggle and presents a legalistic 'yes or no' while John shows the battle in full force without any wavering at all in the mind of Jesus where Peter is denied.
Be careful here and please be reminded that it is a comedy. The advance of the story is that Jesus must stand convicted as king in his own right and therefore bereft of faith.I disagree with this. Peter's betrayal is required to move the action forward to the Sanhedrin so Jesus can stand convicted. Pilate looked at "the man you call king of the Jews" as man and not as Jew. In truth, if there was even a tiny bit of faith left in Jesus he should have been protected as Jew but not stand convicted as king of the Jews while the reality is that Judaism caused Jesus to become king in his own right that is born out of Judaism.

In this last and final stage of the play the Jews must convict the Jewish identity to be crucified in effort to set the kingdom of Jesus apart from Judaism in the mind of the victor. The triple denial is to cleanse Jesus of faith, hope and charity that once were his favorite disciples. I mean at this stage of the play not only faith but also hope and charity must find fulfillment since there is no hope or charity to be found in heaven.

Peter was not the rock as Peter but the keen insight of Peter was the rock and he proved this to be true to this very bitter-sweet end.

JoeWallack

The VorkMeister:
It leads me to conclude that the author of Mark didn't really give a damn about reality, and was interested in these effects only insofar as they advanced his story. Remember, while Peter is down in the courtyard Jesus is up there getting convicted by the Sanhedrin. All this action must take place "simultaneously" in story time but consecutively in narrative time. Peter's betrayal is the bridge that permits the story to move from the Sanhedrin to the Pilate Trial, and gives the actors time to clear the stage for the next little scene. In other words, the construction of the scene is dictated by neither translation nor by reality, but by the needs of the narrative/liturgy/play. This can't be a translation, because there is a doublet here -- Peter denies Jesus 3X, and in next scene, Pilate offers Jesus to the crowd 3X that is pure Mark. Further, there is a nice bit of Markan irony -- the man named "Rock" falls to pieces at the end. And there's that nice intercalation, whose meaning I believe I have finally puzzled out. Ever notice something about those famous Markan intercalations -- the fig tree, the denial, the bleeding woman in Mark 5 sandwiched between the daughter's raising? They all involve a change of location. I'll have to analyze the problem in detail, but I wonder if the real reason for those intercalations is to create time for the set to be cleared and the actors move to a new location in the midst of a story. Where there are no intercalations, the action happens continuously in one spot...."


JW:
You wrote a great post about the Irony of the Cock Crowing Prophecy which I can't find now (it appears to have gone wherever the Hell Jesus has been for the last two thousand years). Personally, I think the third Crowing was when the young man dropped his linen.

"Mark" does seem to be driven largely by the Greek literary convention of Irony as opposed to the literary convention of History leading to stories that are entertaining literature but not believable. I see three primary methods of Advertising that Christianity has used from the start:

1) Prophecy Fulfillment

2) Miracles

3) Resurrection

"Mark's" emphasis seems to be 1) Prophecy Fulfillment, with the purpose of Miracles and Resurrection (see below) to fulfill prophecy. The question I see is:

Was Prophecy Fulfillment in the Original "Mark" primarily for the purpose of Advertising Christianity or primarily for the purpose of writing an entertaining story?
The related Markan story that intrigues me is Chapter 12:

Mark 12 (KJV)
1 "And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'
8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.
13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question."

In summary:

1) Jesus gives parable about the Caretakers denying fruit to the heir.

2) "Mark" claims prophecy fulfillment of some stupid stone being rejected.

3) The real Caretakers take offense and with bad intention constantly ask Jesus insincere questions and receive insincere answers.

4) Finally one Caretaker takes interest and with good intention asks Jesus a sincere question and receives a sincere answer. Ironically, "Mark" finishes this with "And no man after that durst ask him any question." (actually many men durst ask Jesus questions after that according to "Mark"). Even Oedipus would have seen the irony here. Great literary irony but not believable history.

I leave it to the Vorkster here to work out the intercalation of the Saduccees denying the Resurrection in the above and this story moving onto the prophecy of Jesus raising the Temple in 2/2&1/2/3 days and 2/2&1/2/3 nights.

All this Sophisticated Literary Convention such as Irony and Intestate Calculation, does seem to fit The Vorkosigan Theory, that "Mark" was a literary genius. The observation that the editing by "Matthew" and "Luke" tends to reduce the Irony and that other long "I" word is perhaps the best evidence that "Mark" was first and copied from even though it apparently was too sophisticated a point for Sinopticae Horus (with apologies to Yuri).


Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

PhilosopherJay

EEK!

Yes, I agree, we have a big disagreement here. I find the idea that Mark originated this gospel without predecessors to be similar to the Eusebean myth that the Roman Catholic Church preserved the teachings of the apostles intact and the dozens of other Christian groups made up their own teachings.

I believe Mark was copying, editing, condensing, expanding, rearranging and censoring material like dozens of other gospel writer of his time. In my forthcoming book, I hope to show at least four source documents that he used, not to mention at least six source documents that Matthew used.

A recent article by Keith Olbermann http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
I believe helps us to understand the process of change in the early church. This portion of the article is relevent:
As with baseball, the Roman Catholic Church erased its early history when it realized that the rules of the game it was playing was different. It was no longer interested in a story of a God sending his son/word to save the Jews from the Romans, it was interested in a God sending a savior for all the peoples of the Roman Empire and the blind and wicked Jews who betrayed him. The old material had to be recast in a new mold. Most of the truly early works, as evidenced by the 1949 finds at Nag Hammadi were unuseable. Mark just made the 1900 cut so to speak.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin