Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Vork,

I see that you're trying to move over into the Goodacre camp, with his "no Q", and Lk as the latest gospel theory.

This whole 'overlaps' business is just too wonky for my taste. Everyone and their uncle have a different view on this, and no agreement is in sight, not even close... The whole thing is a morass.

I doubt that Q had ever existed in any fixed form as a unified document, so some scepticism in this area is healthy. But Goodacre's real Achilles Heel IMHO is his embrace of Markan priority.

So if you're really so sure that Lk was the latest gospel, what do you do about the Luke's Great Omission (i.e. Mark's Bethsaida Section)? I think it's as clear as can be that this whole Bethsaida Section in Mk/Mt was a late addition. Why would have Lk dropped that whole large section in Mk/Mt, according to you? The section that has all the hallmarks of being a late Gentile-oriented add-on?

Best,

Yuri

Vorkosigan

That looks like good point, Andrew, but unfortunately you're still stuck in the same mode that Vinnie is, seeing the gospels through the very narrow lens of "what would his hearers/readers have understood." Creative writers do not work that way. Just consider the Wizard of Oz. Most people enjoy it as a cute folk tale with some homely wisdom. A few know that at one level it has been seen as a political parody of US politics at the end of the 19th century. A very select few understand that it is actually a parable of Theosophy, in which Toto stands for the intuition (for example), and Glinda the Good Witch is a sort of pantheistic overspirit who has power anywhere in the World of Oz. Last year at my university here a teacher had many of my students read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe which they enjoyed, but not one caught the Christian allegory. Literature functions on many levels and for many audiences. Writers write for Those Who Know as well as the hoi polloi. Great works of literature are often full of in-jokes and references that make sense only to the author.

But even ignoring that problem your argument lacks force. Christianity piggybacked across the Med on diaspora Jewish communities, among breakaway Jews and God-Fearers. Certainly there would have been some in Mark's audience who would have made the catch, and they might well have been able to spread the word.

The issue isn't what the god was called, but where the reference points to in Mark. The actual name is a red herring. the difficulty only heightens the strength of the reference -- it is exactly the kind of problem that forces the reader to go back and look at the text to references to Ba'al to see what it says, just as Mark's "error" with David and Abiathar in Mark 2 does. If the writer cites a passage that occurs but once in the OT, he means something by it. A similar event occurs in Mark 7:32 where the word "stammer" occurs, but once in the NT and once in the OT. There it points back to Isa 35:3-6,

• 3 Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way; 4 say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you." 5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. 6 Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. (NIV)

which many exegetes see as lying behind the miracles of Jesus.

Vinnie, here is the short essay I've prepared for my website on Markan interreferences:

• The Gospel of Mark, as previously mentioned, appears to have been created using the stories from the Old Testament as a framework for the events of Jesus' ministry, passion, death, and resurrection. From time to time the author sends the reader a signal of this habitual creative pattern: he cites a passage he has paralleled, or will parallel, elsewhere in the Gospel. Since I was unable to find out what word scholars have given to this habit, I have dubbed them "interreferences" until someone comes along with some term more pleasing to the eye and ear. To date I have managed to locate 13 instances in which the author does this, including Mk 1:2, Mk 2:25, Mk 2:26, Mk 3:22, Mk 7:6-8, Mk 7:32, Mk 9:1-13, Mk 12:20, Mk 14:27, Mk 14:55, and Mk 16:5. Some of these are of course stronger than others.
  
  Two of the easiest to see are located right here in Mark 2, Mk 2:25, and Mk 2:26. In Mark 2:25 Jesus refers to the time that David ate the bread of the presence, demanding 5 loaves. Later on in the gospel, in the Feeding of the 5,000 in Mk 6:30-44, Jesus' disciples will have five loaves. In the next verse, Mark 2:26, Jesus makes a famous error, incorrectly referring to "Abiathar" as the High Priest when David had his magical snack. Although this is often written off as error, in my own view the writer is referring the reader ahead to the Gethsemane scene, which he will construct using 2 Sam 15-17 as a foundation. In 2 Sam 15-17 David sends Abiathar back to Jerusalem with the Ark of the Covenant. The back-to-back joining of David and Abiathar represent the writer quietly directing the reader to the passages to be paralleled. Homer may nod, but Mark never sleeps.
  
  Similarly, in Mark 14:55, during the Sanhedrin Trial, the writer cites Daniel 6, right down to the Greek. Daniel 6 is the basis of the trial, death, and resurrection scene in Mark 15-16. Again, in Mark 3:22 the writer mentions Be-el'zebul, which occurs only once in the OT, in 2 Kings 1. That sequence was used to create the story of the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12.
  
  Among the weaker ones is a possible reference to Tobit in Mark 12, which may refer to a possible reference to Tobit in Mark 16, and a possible nod to Esther in Mark 15, which may take the reader to Mark 6:14-29, where the Book of Esther is used to create the death of John the Baptist.

Actually, I am glad I went through, because I eliminated a couple that I didn't like, leaving 10 or so....

1:2 -- Mal 3, those who rob the house of god, which he seems to have picked up for the Temple Ruckus

2:25-6 and 3:22 are discussed above

6:3 is a subtle one. Referring to a man by his mother is rare in the OT, but it crops up in 2 Sam 16, which Mark uses in Mark 14.

7:6-8 cites Isa 29, one of the texts that lie in the background of the gospel

7:32 is the lone reference to stammer in both OT and NT, back to Isa 35:3-6, one of the most important passages in the background of the gospel.

9:1-13 five references to Elijah, who is the major figure Jesus is patterned after until Mark 14.

12:20 may be a weak reference to Tobit (7 husbands) matching a weak one in Mark 16

14:27 -- pointer to Zech 13 and thence back to JBap in Mark 1

14:55 -- points to dan 6, used as backbone for death and resurrection

16:5 -- also weak, may point to 2 Macc which stands behind Temple Ruckus, and Maccabees in general, which crops up in several places in GMark.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I have no idea, but if you want to start a thread on Markan priority and tussle over it, I'll be happy to fire a shot across your learned bows . Several other maverick thinkers are trying to convince me that Matt was first, so perhaps the idea of non-Mark priority might be worth exploring. I'll have a post up in a minute so we don't derail the discussion of the conflict stories here.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

The only good reason against Matthean priority as far as I am aware is "why would Mark omit so much"? Are there actually other good reasons against the GH?

Some like Yuri woukld argue on FC grounds for the priority of some parts of Luke that look early. I tend to question the methods of form critics, however.

I would argue on other grounds that Mark (ca 70 c.e.) appears to date earlier than Matthew (ca. 95) and therefore the dependence runs Mk to Mt.

But textual corruption and proto-gospels cannot be overlooked. We must allow for the evolution of the material at all stages in its life--including after it was shaped into a distinctive Gospel. This makes solving the synoptic problem much more difficult.

I'll look at your interreferences in a bit. Thx for taking the time to post them.

Vinnie

Chris Weimer

I argued Lucan priority over Matthew here. I think the answer lies in the Beatitudes, although I still give Mark priority over Luke.

Basically, Mark is written from either oral tradition and a written source or even oral tradition alone, although I would suspect something like gThomas to be the source of Mark. Then Luke comes along and takes Mark plus another source (more additions to his sermons and other minor details) and protoLuke is born. Then Matthew, who draws highly on Luke and another source, more so quote-form like Thomas then a narrative, for reasons concerning the Beatitudes, and protoMatthew is born. John draws of one source relating to the synoptics and one source to something totally different and protoJohn is born. Of course, redactions have altered their shapes slightly, but that is to be expected.

Killer Mike

Thanks for directing me to this website!

DramaQ

Hi Michael. I'm finding your arguments facinating and am starting to lean towards them.

However....

While this is very true, the reverse is also often true.

As an example: a friend of mine sat in on a class where Arthur Miller was a guest and they discussed his play "A View from the Bridge". One of the students proudly stated that she understood his allegory of the "bridge" as "adolescence" - the span between youth and adulthood. She had quite an elaborate symbology worked up.

When she finished, Miller told her that she'd done a wonderful, fascinating analysis, but that he had no idea such an analogy existed and never dreamed of such a thing as he was writing it.

Sometimes readers see MORE in a writer’s work than the writer put there.

Not saying that's the case here, but when it comes to trying to quess what's in the author's mind, I find myself stepping awfully carefully.

dq

PoodleLovinPessimist

Who says an author is an authority on the interpretation of his own work?

Yuri Kuchinsky

LOL!

So if Miller didn't deliberately put any of this allegory/symbolism in there, and yet it's still there somehow, then what does it mean? I guess we could say that Miller is a literary genius, so anything he does just automatically turns to literary gold... Hmm...

And, by analogy, maybe the authors of Mk didn't really try to place any such chiastic embellishments in there deliberately, and yet they are still there. In such a case, the only thing Vork proves with his analysis so far is that the author of Mk was a great literary genius. I don't think he has yet proved that Mk was the earliest gospel though...

And, then again -- perish the thought! -- perhaps both that female student and Vork were/are just imagining things?

Regards,

Yuri

DramaQ

It means that in the specific case of Miller and this student, the allegory was in the student's vivid imagination.

It does not say anything about GMk.

My point is only that finding parallels does not necessarily mean the author put them there.

And maybe he/they did. I'm still absorbing it all and am not prepared to make a blanket statement.

Lucky thing for Michael that's not what he's setting out to do in this thread...

Cheers,
dq