Amaleq13

I think there is a significant difference between the development of ideas over time and the existence of written narrative(s) upon which the author of Mark relied. Your statement above seems to suggest the former while your earlier statements suggested the latter. The extant Gospel attributed to Mark may very well be the final version of a story that developed within the community over time but I see no reason to assume it relies on earlier written texts produced outside that community.

Vorkosigan

Andrew....there is no Markan community. Where is the community in the Gospel? There's no reference to it anywhere. There's nothing that addresses the needs of the community. No comments on daily schedules, structure and authority, the role of different kinds of individuals, tithing and donations, types of work and study, passages from the OT and other writings, or anything else. Mark's Gospel faces outward.

Several reasons. First, Mark is narrative but not history. It's clearly a piece of fiction designed that way from start to finish. Matthew was a sort of halfway house on the way to Luke, who finally matured the strategy of treating the narrative as history and back-projecting the religion into the past. At that point Mark became superfluous, even dangerous.

The second reason Mark almost vanished was because his Christology was so different from everyone else's. Mark followed Paul in Romans 8:14-7 and had Jesus, who plays -- among many roles -- the role of believer baptized as son of God. Believers, in Paul's view, are adopted as sons of God. Well, so was Jesus. Mark's Christology was Adoptionist. This necessitated much redacting and editing -- Mark's gospel was spawned more variant verses than any other.

The third reason was Mark's "unskilled" Greek. Luke and Matt wrote much better, and incorporated Mark into their stories wholesale. No need for Mark.

Amaleq13

You don't think he represents more than just his own, personal beliefs?

Aren't they implied as being those who, unlike the depicted disciples, do understand Jesus?

You think there is nobody "inside" except the author?

Vorkosigan

I can't tell. Probably.

Yes. But when they understand Jesus, they do not join a community. They become followers.

That's not the right way to look at it. The author is looking out, recruiting followers. He is not looking in. Hence, we have no bead on whatever community is there, and no evidence that there is one. Writing narratives about Jesus using novelistic conventions has been a common practice throughout the last two millennia. What is the community of King Jesus or Behold the Man? What evidence can you offer me that the writer is not the only person on the inside?

The idea of a community is a very strongly-held assumption of scholarship. It is also unsupported by any evidence from Mark.

Just look at Mark. The writer offers no details of the beliefs of any community. He refers to a Kingdom of God but without any description of its nature, politics, goals, composition, beliefs, etc. That's a commonplace of recruiting practices -- hide the true nature of things. Mark's gospel is very fast-paced, and its "teachings" are all common sayings of the day. When the Christians/Mormons/Scientologists recruit, they first nail you with stuff you're already familiar with -- indeed, culturally primed for -- just like Mark. Mark constantly challenges the reader to exceed the bad examples set by the disciples, cast off their old selves, and be reborn as a Christian, erecting dichotomies between those inside and out that invite the reader/hearer to make themselves one of the privileged insiders.

But let's look at it on the negative side. Why would anyone writing to a community waste precious space explaining what the Kingdom of God is like when they community already knows that. They need to know what it is. Why would they keep depicting people healed and following, when they had already followed? They need to know the practicalities of followership -- "OK, we've been healed. What next?" Why extend invitations to a group already inside?

etc. In Mark, is baptism a metaphor for death, or is death a metaphor for baptism?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I am addressing this in a new thread....

Peter Kirby

Good question. Baptism is inherently a metaphorical act. It could be a metaphor for death (submerging) and rebirth (emerging). These are themselves metaphors for the "new life" that Christians have as believers. So perhaps we have some co-symbolism. I think you would agree.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Yes, I would agree. Mark is doubly-coded so it can be read both ways -- a common practice in Hellenistic fiction.

Andrew, I am moving our discussion on Mark to a new thread.

andrewcriddle

Hi Vorkosigan

I'll try and do a post later about some of the IMO more questionable OT parallels but there is also the question of whether or not creation from the OT in Mark necessarily means creation by Mark.

Eg Mark 6:45-end (walking on the water) is IMO a plausible example of something created on the basis of the OT in the pre-Markan tradition.

Part of my reasons involves a belief that the early form of John is independent of the Synoptics which IIUC you would disagree with, but even apart from that the idea that Mark's treatment of the Jesus tradition is both unparalleled in the pre-Markan Church and all-pervasive in the post-Markan Church does have real problems of plausibility.

One can build a case on the NT and early tradition for the immensely creative influence of Paul as an individual but there is no hint of such a role for Mark as an individual.

Eg apart from things like the very late tradition of Mark as Bishop of Alexandria there is no hint of any Christian group tracing their history back to Mark.

Papias in effect claims that Mark had reordered/disarranged an earlier tradition not that he had produced an entirely new one.

(This is not particularly strong evidence but if one wishes to entirely reject it I think one requires specific reasons to do so.)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

They are followers of a shared theology and that seems to me to make them a community. In addition, they appear to have existed in opposition to other beliefs (represented by the stupid disciples) which also seems to me to make them a community.

I've asked before what specifically causes you to reach this conclusion. I don't see how portraying Jesus' closest disciples as nitwits or refraining from depicting appearances to them as stories to encourage new converts. It seems to me they are stories to encourage existing converts that they made the right choice. Isn't this only a message of hope to those who have already accepted the incorporated theology?

Isn't that contained in every speech Jesus makes about the Kingdom?

That is an interesting point.

So, he is recruiting from those who would consider themselves followers of the disciples?

Reinforcement against opposing beliefs and/or loss of membership?

andrewcriddle

These points may be relevant

a/ From second century and later evidence it seems that catechumens and interested outsiders were not taught the gospels at least to start with but were instructed on the evils of polytheism, the correctness of monotheism, the nature of moral values, etc. Teaching about the gospels was given at a more advanced stage.

If this is broadly true in the late 1st century BCE then Mark is probably not primarily intended for potential converts.

b/ If one holds that a central theme of Mark is linking the OT with doctrines about Jesus, then this seems something more relevant to a Christian worshipping community than to potential converts.

(This depends on who the potential converts were but IMO Mark is directed to Gentiles rather than Jews.)

Andrew Criddle