Vorkosigan

In another thread Andrew writes:

First, we'll see how much of Mark is based on the OT. The "OT Frame" represents a significant event parallel between the OT and Mark, "(OT parallels)" represents a signficant number of verses with parallels in the OT.

Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)

1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31[color=white]....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)

Vorkosigan

Let's now group them:

DIRECT OT PARALLELING:

1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71

OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)

1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%

CHREIA

2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------

9/71

OUTRIGHT INVENTION

3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71


UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT

9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN

-------------------
9/71 = 13.8%

Vorkosigan

Well, about 65% of Markan pericopes are built off of the OT one way or another, sometimes by direct paralleling of events, sometimes by verse inspiration. The rest is either Chreia from the culture or hand of Mark, or obvious invention. Some things are difficult to classify, of course....

Mark is fiction, Andrew. If there was really a community spurring Mark to write this, where are the traditions? There is nothing in Mark that does not go back to the OT, Paul, or something Hellenistic. Exegetes are found of arguing that Matthew cannot be a disciple, else why would have copied Mark? That is just as true of Mark: if he knew stories about the HJ, why did he bother to parallel the OT?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Michael, wow! Great stuff. Why do you think that Mark did so much paralleling with the OT in the way that he did?

And let me ask a standard interview-type question: what is your weakest example of OT paralleling?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Because he knew nothing about the HJ. A

Definitely the connection between Mk 13 and 2 Kings. I found this one all by myself:

Jesus gives instructions to his disciples
Jehu gives instructions to his people to gather the priests of Ba'al.

no stone on another
Great stone of Temple of Ba'al thrown down

Jerusalem Temple destroyed
Temple of Ba'al destroyed

abomination standing in temple
Ba'al Temple used as latrine

Feel free to disregard!

The other weak one is the Mk 2:1-12 and 2 Kings 1:2-17. I would think it was coincidence, if the Beelzebub in Mk 3 didn't ask us to go back and look at that passage.

Bede

The trouble is that most of the paralells suggested above don't exist outside the imagination of the reader.

Esther/John the B's death. There is no literary link here aside from a common place (I'll give you half my kingdom) which could have come from anywhere, even Antipas if he was pissed enough.

Where is the parallel between Mark 12:35-44 and 2 Kings 12:5-17? They are both about Temple money but the stories have no reseemblence at all.

And Mark 3:13-19 to Exodus 18:2-26? Again, both about choosing men but other than that their is no dependence.

The whole schema is incredibly weak. Basically, you take the entire enormous OT and if you can find something that deals with similiar themes then you claim one is based upon another. This is not a method we should take seriously and tells us nothing about why Mark choses the episodes he does when he could have chosen practically anything with the entire OT at his disposal.

It is really a case of the Nostradamus syndrome. If you think the parallels are there, you will find them regardless of what the author was thinking of. To show literary dependence you need rigorous critieria of the kind this work utterly lacks.

So Andrew is absolutely right. Most of Mark is not based on the OT but simply refers to it when he notices some event prefigured. As this happens alot (because the OT is so big) and Mark actively wants to see his Jesus as a prophet in OT style, we do end up with a few real paralells like the feeding miracles. But this is not a licence to then say any story in Mark has a parallel in the OT if they have the slightest correspondence. They don't.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

LOL. It not only replicates the doublet in Esther, it also tracks the Greek of the Septaugint. That is probably why so many scholars from across the spectrum make the connection.

A small one, but telling, especially in that it occurs in a long string of similar uses fo 2 Kings.

The widow gives money to the Temple
money is given for the Temple

the widow gives all she has, not for venal purposes
the money is not used for venal purposes

Both juxtapose a disatisfied family with an appointment of representatives and underlings, in the context of a semi-divine judge at work

A non-objection. It's not relevant to know why, only that he did so. Frankly I don't give a flying fuck in a rolling donut why Mark chose to parallel one thing and not another. In most cases the writer of Mark tracks the Greek or signals you in some other way that he is paralleling something specific that you should go back and look at.

Accusations of a lack of rigor, in combination with one's own unfamiliarity with the scholarship, ring hollow, my friend.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Sorry Michael, but not even profanity that beggers description can hide the weakness of your case.

Is Thomas Hardy's "Under Greenwood Tree" based on As You Like It (v.1)? What about vast numbers of other titles taken from Shapkespere (http://www.barbarapaul.com/shake.html)?

If I gird up my loins and escape by the skin of my teeth must I be referring to the OT story of Job (38:3 and 19:20)? When Avril Lavigne sings Play the Fool is she playing Saul (1 Sam 26:21) or is he merely a man after her own heart (1 Sam 13:14)?

And who can miss the fact that Hemmingway based his Spanish Civil War novel on John Donne?!?!

Give me a newspaper story and I'll retell it using nothing but phrases from Shakespeare or the Bible. I once got sixteen of the former into the Crosstalk post that finally silenced the MacDonald thesis.

As I have said, Michael, you have completely overegged the pudding by assuming that a combination of commonplaces, deliberate allusion and your imagination has proved where Mark got the cloth of his story. It tells us nothing except that Mark had a lot of trouble with some of his material when he wanted to find allusions because the material usually didn't fit very well.

Best wishes

Bede

Clivedurdle

Checking my evangelical New Bible Commentary Revised, this picks up loads of references to the OT.

It is common practice to find an OT reference for just about everything - to prove the apologist case! Why not check out if these are real, but argue it shows the author of Mark used the OT?

For example Mark 1 1 - 8

v 2 Ex 23.20, Mal 3.1,
v 3 Is 40.3, 40.9, 52.7, 61.1
v 8 Is 44.3, Ezk 36.26f, Joel 2.28 f

Evoken

:rolling:

Mark is an OT Frankenstein!