Turton individually examines the pericopes in this section of GMk using chiastic analysis. He eliminates any pericopes that do not exhibit what he feels to be typically "Markan" characteristics; chiastic brackets that "talk to each other" (i.e. exhibit thematic or vocabular parallels), central bracket pairs that feature chreia, sayings by Jesus that neatly summarize teachings or deftly refute opponents, etc. As summarized in his "Excursus on Mark without Bethsaida", this leaves him with four pericopes that are arguably Markan in this section:
1) The Water-Walking. Turton thinks this (and the feeding of the 5000) were modified somewhat by the canonical editor of GMk who added most of what we consider to be the Bethsaida section.
2) The discussion of cleanliness in Mk 7. Turton does consider this to be part of the original Markan gospel, but originally located elsewhere, perhaps in Mk 10, as Jesus approaches Jerusalem.
3) The Feeding of the 4000. Turton finds the chiasm for it strikingly Markan.
4) The Blind Man of Bethsaida.
So, let's consider each of these in turn, in more detail:
1) I can accept an original Markan gospel that included the Water-Walking. Turton suggests that "perhaps it has been moved in from elsewhere" as well, because the flanking pericopes (the Feeding of the 5000 preceding it, and the healings at Gennesaret afterwards) "are decidedly unMarkan". I admit that it may have been moved from elsewhere in the gospel: there is some evidence that this miracle was originally a post-resurrection theophany of Jesus--that is, it resembles the sort of apparition of God that we find in the Old Testament, using similar language. Jesus descends from on high to the surface of the sea; the disciples fall at his feet and worship him when he arrives in the boat; etc. This is a highly unusual event, unique among the pre-resurrection pericopes, and more appropriate to the risen Jesus.
However, even Turton admits that it exhibits typically Markan features, so if it was moved from elsewhere in the narrative, it was probably done by the original Markan author himself, from a gospel that preceded even the original Markan gospel. However, we'll leave this aside for now, and simply admit that it seems fairly Markan, and hence was probably part of the original Markan gospel.
This is a good moment, however, to discuss Turton's comments about the pericopes just preceding and succeeding the Water-Walking, namely: the Feeding of the 5000, and the healings at Gennesaret. For Turton suggests that they, too, seem "unMarkan". I agree with Turton about the healings at Gennesaret, but disagree with him about the Feeding of the 5000.
In the case of the Feeding of the 5000, what Turton means when he says it is "unMarkan" is that he accepts that it was a part of the original Markan gospel, but has been rewritten. And in the case of the healings at Gennesaret, Turton suggests that it is entirely the work of a later editor.
Turton actually goes a little farther than this, and claims the Feeding of the 5000 was not the work of the original Markan author at all. But this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, for Turton elsewhere accepts semi-chiastic pericopes as basically Markan, albeit with later redaction, so I see no reason why to assume this miracle is any exception.
He is also wrong when he claims that the brackets in this pericope do not "speak to each other". Using Turton's breakdown (accessible via the link just above), they speak to each other as follows:
B "many saw them going..."
B' "those who ate...were five thousand men"
--"Many" parallels "five thousand men".
C "they were like sheep without a shepherd"
C' "they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces"
--I have communicated previously with Turton on this. This "feeding" is highly symbolic. Jesus has compassion on this "flock" of followers, because they have no "shepherd". At the end, they take up twelve baskes "of broken pieces"--i.e. the pieces are gathered into one. Think of Didache 9:4: "As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and gathered together became one, so may your congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ, forever." The number of baskets is also symbolic here; they represent both the twelve tribes of Israel, as well as the twelve apostles (Mark himself providing evidence that by his time, the tradition of the Twelve was becoming prevalent, since he mentions them explicitly). Later, in the feeding of the 4000--done in Gentile territory--the seven baskets will represent the seven deacons, mentioned separately in Acts. The lesson is clear; the Jewish followers belong in the congregations founded by the Twelve, and the Gentile followers belong in the congregations founded by the Seven.
D "he began to teach them many things"
D' "they all ate and were satisfied"
--This is more symbolism. The five loaves represent the Pentateuch. (And the two fish represent either the Two Powers theology or the two Greatest Commandments, to love God and to love one's neighbor). By "eating" the bread, the followers in this pericope represent the followers of Jesus hearing and abiding by the Torah--a highly-interpreted Torah, to be sure, but the Torah nevertheless.
E "his disciples said...'send them away, to go...and buy themselves something to eat'"
E' "he...broke the loaves...and gave them to the disciples to set before the people"
--The disciples tell Jesus to send the people away and buy their own food. Jesus instead feeds them himself for free.
The center seems somewhat asymmetric, but probably it was just tampered with by the canonical author. Based on Turton's decisions elsewhere to preserve semi-symmetic chiasms as authentically Markan, I see no reason to reject this one as insufficiently Markan.
It also belongs in the same gospel as the Feeding of the 4000, because the Water-Walking and the Feeding of the 4000 are a doublet of the Storm-Stilling and the Feeding of the 5000. They are clearly related pairs of miracles, and this is just the sort of structurally-paired doubling that Mark is fond of. The two pairs of miracles were likely composed as a single unit. There are alternative explanations, but this one is the simplest.
I will concur, however, that it's possible there was only one such feeding in original Mark, preceded by the Storm-Stilling, and followed by the Water-Walking. The canonical editor could then have revised this version, and doubled the original (into the feeding of the 4000, with seven baskets). The HSH would require that the original version was a feeding of 5000 with twelve baskets, as this is the version in GJn. I'm not sure how I feel about this idea, though it is plausible. For now, I find it unnecessarily complicated, but I'll continue to consider it as a possibility.
The healings at Gennesaret, on the other hand (discussed at the end of Turton's analysis of the Water-Walking) are a different matter; they seem clumsily thrown together for no discernable purpose, and hence are not likely Markan. The Markan author tends to present pericopes to explain some larger point, or for some symbolic purpose. The healings at Gennesaret, however, serve no such purpose. They were not part of the original Markan gospel.
2) As for the discussion on cleanliness (Mk 7:1-23), Turton argues plausibly that it makes more sense in a location near Jerusalem, as the Pharisees and scribes have come from there to meet Jesus. This was likely a part of the original Markan gospel (plus some canonical interpolations that I hope to discuss at a later time), but was not a part of the Bethsaida section.
3) Turton makes a very good case that the Feeding of the 4000 has a typically Markan chiastic structure. I can accept that this is original, too.
4) While there are some unusual features of the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida, Turton likewise makes a good case for a Markan chiastic structure. I can also accept this as an original part of the Markan gospel, and there is no reason to assume it was relocated by the canonical editor (though of course, it may have been).
Whereas the Syro-Phoenecian Woman, the Mute and Deaf Man, and the Leaven of the Pharisees are all eliminated as non-Markan. I concur with this in each case (though I have some reservations about the Mute and Deaf Man; it may be another example, like the discussion on cleanliness, of something that's been moved into this section by the canonical editor from elsewhere in the original gospel.)
This leaves us with an original Markan gospel that ran as follows in the Bethsaida section:
....6:46 [] 8:1-13 [] 8:22....
So the only pericopes in this original Markan gospel SGM that are missing from Luke's Great Omission are:
- The Walking on the Water
- The Feeding of the 4000
- The Blind Man of Bethsaida
And we'll consider each of these in turn again, in the next post. We'll see that in each case, the HSH explains why they went missing in the Lukan tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment