Awmte

I've seen this claim that GMark was a brilliant, (literarily,) writer. For example, Vorkosigan demonstrates the existence of chiasms all over GMark. Thematic chiasms like these would need a modicum of genius to implement; the vivid and vital nature of Mark's narration also point towards this genius.

There is, however, this concurrent claim that GMark is a relatively primitive, unpolished work compared to the other gospels, and that this very primitiveness indicates that it was one of the first gospels.

So, given that I know nothing about the Greek language, ancient Palestinian culture, or, indeed, anything relevant to this topic , which one am I to believe?

Thanks all

Peter Kirby

He was, of course, a primitive genius; in other words, a prodigy. :devil1:

Vork said something very sensible once on how, as the first one to tell a story about the crucified one, there is something of the sublime here, some greatness that we cannot specify and perhaps don't even recognize because it is so very familiar.

I would not discount the idea that Mark's Greek was limited and even the idea that its author was more proficient in Latin than Greek.

neilgodfrey

Chiasms in themselves are not necessarily a sign of genius. Whitney Shiner has shown that they could well have been a simple mnenomic device -- picture any symmetrical gable like structure. The statuary leading up to the pinnacle can be mirror-matched by that on the other side of the peak. A small statue on the far left end, followed by a taller one half way to the peak, and a higher one at the peak, and the matching set on the other side of the gable. And even easier if the series of statues tells a well-known story. A storyteller can associate episodes with each point on the way up to the peak and then each corresponding point on the way falling down from the peak.

The a b c d d1 c1 b1 a1 structure can be composed as simply as that.

A famous now dead Australian author, C.J. Dennis, cultivated an almost illiterate, idiomatic crude vocabulary for his creative works. He was a genius. If Mark was emulating Homer in some respects (an hypothesis too facilely dismissed by many in my opinion) he was doing so through an "anti-Homeric-mini-epic" and his crude language and style was as cultivated as the ironic reversals of the thematic content of his gospel.

Was his crude grammatical style part of the same parcel that packaged his ironic thematic reversals? It's a hard question if we leave out of the equation, as I think we should, the later canonical gospels who clearly disapproved of much of both Mark's grammar and content.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Solo

I read him that way too and the more I get into the subject matter, the more it seems that the unpolished brilliance of the unknown gospeller "Mark" has had a key role in the foundation of Christianity.

Mark looks to me a master of spiritualist shorthand, able to convert story to symbolism and vice versa, load up an image with multiple meanings and manage it across his tale. Mark was the original Franz Kafka.

I seem to exercise Ben Smith with the idea that Mark - among other things - "loaded up" the imaginary speed travelling of Jesus, so it was quickly decodable to a bright "manic" of the era, as an allegory of the sudden arrival, the increasingly chaotic indwelling and the excruciatingly painful departure of the spirit in himself/herself.

Yep, the guy was a genius.

Jiri

Awmte

So let's see if I got this right. The guy was a literary and thematic genius, but a not-so-hot grammarian.
So, not the most sophisticated prosody, but definitely the most eloquent (well, comparatively).

Doug Shaver

Being illiterate in Greek, I cannot judge Mark's literary skills. When reading English, though, I have sometimes seen brilliant thinking expressed in mediocre writing. I have also known people who cannot make the distinction. They think any writing that expresses great ideas is great writing.

neilgodfrey

Prominent literary critic Kermode in his Genesis of Secrecy sees little but genius in Mark. The most famous grammatical crudity, if we take its original ending at 16:8, is the unparalleled ending with the word "for" or Gk "gar". That such an 'illiterate' ending has given rise to so much discussion and scope for insight into the dramatic mind of the author:

“The conclusion [of Mark, 16:8] is either intolerably clumsy; or it is incredibly subtle. One distinguished scholar [W.L.Knox], dismissing this latter option, says it presupposes ‘a degree of originality which would invalidate the whole method of form-criticism.’ This is an interesting objection. Form-criticism takes as little stock as possible in the notion of the evangelists as authors … If it comes to a choice between saying Mark is original and upholding ‘the whole method of form-criticism’ the judgment is unhesitating: Mark is not original.” (p.68)

For this and more relevant extracts from Kermode click here.

Read the grammatically crude text of a recent modern novel here and note that this book won the 2001 Booker Prize and Commonwealth Writers Prize by multi-award winning author Peter Carey.

Not knowing Mark's audience or provenance etc it is rash to assume grammatical crudities point to absence of skill.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

gurugeorge

Follow your heart The "Jesus" story may not literally be "the greatest story ever told", but it's a damn good yarn that's captivated millions. For sure, "Mark" was a genius - and not just a literary genius but a spiritual one too, though probably not as hardcore a mystic as some of the other early Christian writers like "Paul"/Simon Magus (as I believe he was). So it's sophisticated (albeit perhaps primitive in expression, as some say).

Clivedurdle

I see a genius - possibly highly educated in the Roman world who wrote something in his second language - Greek - who sucessfully carried out several operations - a devastating attack on Rome and Judaism, the construction of a solution for a new heaven and earth - a new political and religious order.

It might have been an essay set by a teacher to a student!

Clivedurdle

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205276

(The Romans were Latin speakers whose Greek wasn't that good!)