that makes some sense. both of your comments. there had to be mystery level as well as a judaic justification for retaining the idea of secrecy. maybe it also served as i proposed when the questions about an historical jesus arose in the mid second century.
I was just reading Ehrman's book "Lost Xtianities" again yesterday, it reminded me of how diverse tyhe traditions were. It seems an oversimplification to limit the layers to just few major camps that had some standardized dogma. There in reality was no such standardization at the time we are suggesting this redaction. it was just too early.
Jesus gave no signs
by peacefulpete 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
peacefulpete
I jusrt noticed that our word "sign" is equated with demonstrations of powerful works in the long ending of Mark. (16.20) This confirms that the ending was a later addition. Maybe from the Johannine camp.
-
peacefulpete
Also note that Mark 5:22-24 introduces the Jairus daughter story, but is interrupted in verses 25-34 by the insertion of the woman with a hemorrage scene then returns to the Jairus story in 34-43. Jesus insists upon secrecy for Jairus but not the woman who touched him! The woman with a hemorrage was a favorite in the Gnostic camp for it's parallels in the Horus stories, perhaps it was inserted into the Jairus episode from Gnostic sources after the miracles were introduced into the story. The traveling to Jairus home would provide a setting for a crowd scene. This would explain the absence of the secrecy directive.
-
Narkissos
PP: The use of semeion in the pseudo-markan long finale seems to be closer from Acts' use of the term (2:19,22,43; 4:16,22,30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 8:6,13; 14:3; 15:12), as it lacks the characteristic symbolical dimension it has in GJohn.
The splitting of one story bracketing another, in a "sandwich" pattern, is a typically Markan literary device (cf. 2:1-12; 3:20-35; 6:14-29; 11:12-25; 14:54-72). The Jairus/hemorroissa stories are tied together by a number of words or ideas ("faith", or the "12 years" for instance). Your suggestion is very interesting however.
-
peacefulpete
You lost me about the "sign" and symbolic dimensions but that's fine. The point is still that it is late and this agrees with our earier comments.
The literary style you see in Mark is hard for me to see. The examples you give don't convince. I just don't see any interuption in scene in 2.1-12 or 6.14-29. Also 3.21 is a late interpolation soIt doesn't proide any help. Unless of course the style is not of the original Markan author but the redactor. In which case I do see a parallel with the jairus/hemorrhage stories! 11.12-25 was elucidated by Leolaia as short while back. The episode has gone thru transformations. It may very well have been relocated by the same redactor. Matt after all has the two episodes separate and sequential. But if not then we have 2 examples, does that constitute a literary style? -
Narkissos
PP: in chapter 2 the controversy about forgiveness is "sandwiched" into the paralytic's healing, which stands without it; chapter 6 it is the flashback on the death of John the Baptist (a little different I confess). The others are pretty obvious.
I personally don't wish to lose sight of this fact: our only material object for study is the text as it stands in its diverse manuscript tradition. On this ground we can build both diachronic (X- or Y-geschichte) and synchronic (structural, narrative) analyses: one does not rule out another, even when they are in logical tension. Of course I'm obviously speaking of "redaction". Btw, when it comes to the Gospels, I really wonder whether there is such thing as an "author" and where he/she hides...
-
peacefulpete
I think we're agreeing. I'm often at a loss as to what to call the people involved in the process, but I'm glad you understood. I still see no example in chapt 2 but that may be my being accustomd to the story as it's read. Thanks for the observations and assistance.