We now move from the why of textual causes (i.e. the authors' motivations, namely story and theology) to the how of textual causes. The "how" (methodology) runs parallel to the "why" (motivation), and will explain most of the phenomena that the authors' motivations cannot. I argue that almost every gospel author, whether canonical or apocryphal, was trying to combine at least two textual sources into one. This results in two primary mechanisms for the influence of those sources on the new text:
--Dual major sources, which will account for most of the source-critical text (i.e. the text that cannot be attributed to the invention of the gospel author, though sometimes a source's text will become highly embellished by a gospel author). These dual major sources will also explain most structural features of a gospel's text.
--Multiple minor sources, accounting for the remainder of the source-critical text (though sometimes this will closely resemble invented text, due to heavy, creative redaction by an author, involving the same embellishment processes that are sometimes applied to the major source text, often to an even higher degree). These multiple minor sources will explain most remaining structural features of a gospel's text.
Furthermore, these sources (though primarily the dual major sources) are handled according to the following related sets of features:
1a. conflating--two features, one from each source (like two pericopes, or even two individual verses) are combined into one.
1b. pairing--two features are combined by juxtaposition, sometimes immediate (i.e. placed side-by-side), sometimes distant (i.e. placed in parallel narrative constructions).
1c. eliminating--when two related features are found, one from each source, sometimes one is eliminated in the new text, in favor of the other.
2a. splitting--sometimes one feature is split into two, whether kept close or widely separated.
2b. duplicating--sometimes one feature is duplicated, whether immediately or later.
2c. re-using--sometimes one feature is rewritten and/or relocated to serve a new purpose.
The former set (1a-1c) is used primarily due to methodological causes (that is, due to the dual nature of the major sources), and the latter set (2a-2c) is used primarily due to motivational causes (that is, due to either story or theology). This is not to say, of course, that the former set may not be used for motivational purposes, nor the latter for methodological purposes. But the former set of features tends to be caused by methodological needs, and the latter set by motivational needs.
So, two mechanisms:
I) paired major sources, and
II) multiple minor sources.
And two ways of handling these sources, primarily (though not exclusively) I) the paired major sources:
1a) conflating, 1b) pairing, and 1c) eliminating, usually as a method for logically combining sources, and
2a) splitting, 2b) duplicating, and 2c) re-using, usually as a method for developing story or theology
We'll summarize all these principles in the next post.
Yes but one more thing. You speak of 'the author's motivation.' But is the voice which guided the 'shortening' of the Alexandrian text of the Gospel of Mark to make our canonical text of 'according to Mark' still authentic to 'Mark' the original author? If the Mar Saba letter is authentic then Mark INTENDED to add mystical sayings to his gospel. How can removing these sayings be in accordance with the original author's purpose?
ReplyDeleteI have been pondering the idea that the Carpocratian gospel of Mark (the one which represents a 'mixture' of true Markan passages with what Clement identifies as 'corruption) might well be our canonical text of Mark.
I don't think I can prove it, but the question again arises WHOSE VISION do the canonical gospel reflect? Could it just be the final editor of the canon 'assigning' certain stories to 'the Jewish text,' 'Mark's text,' 'Paul's gospel (i.e. Luke) etc. for purely political reasons?
Remember the model of the Mishnah (which was established around the same time). The Mishnah is just a collection of accepted interpretations of Jewish Law. There are Pharisaic interpretations mixed with Sadducean ones. In rabbinic literature as a whole there is a constant reflection of 'schools' which go back to the period BEFORE the destruction of the temple. Who knows if Hillel or Akiva really held all the 'readings' or interpretations ascribed to them. Probably not.
The point is that the fourfaced gospel could be imagined to have developed along the same way. Here are all the acceptable readings of the parable of the mustard seed. It is placed in Matthew (in two forms) and Luke but not Mark. Why not Mark? Because the Alexandrians identified Mark as the messiah because of it:
St. Mark the apostle and servant of Jesus Christ has appeared among all creatures like the mustard seed (which speaks the Gospel), which grows and becomes a huge tree, so that the birds come to rest on its branches and get away from his shadow, because, although our Lord Jesus Christ (may he be glorified!) have wanted to nominate himself for this comparison, however, can also apply the meaning to St. Mark, this shining light, for those who follow Christ are themselves Christs and other members of Christ. [Severus of Al'Ashmunein Homily on St. Mark 1]
There are countless examples like this. The Alexandrian identify the 'rock' upon which the Church will be built as the rock upon which the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria was built. Not surprisingly the saying is not included in the gospel of Mark. But was it once?
No, the Carpocratian gospel is not the canonical text. However, canonical Mark (as you can see by my diagram) is certainly a redaction of Secret Mark.
ReplyDeleteBut if there was Alexandrian devotion to St. Mark, it could derive, as you suggest, from Marcus the gnostic.
Interesting question about the mustard seed pericope--I haven't examined that one in close detail yet.
But by implication there must have been another gospel claiming to 'according to Mark' which was associated with the Carpocratians.
ReplyDeleteEverything else in Irenaeus, Hippolytus and the rest make it sound like the Carpocratians would be using the Gospel according to the Hebrews, no?
Why does Irenaeus (and especially Hippolytus) associate the Carpocratians with the Ebionites (and thus the Gospel of the Hebrews) but Clement sees things differently (especially with the Scott Brown translation i.e. denying that the Carpocratian gospel is by Mark).