In the last post, I made a case for my claim that an original version of GMk was used by the Q-author to produce a Q gospel that lacked the Bethsaida section. This Q gospel was then combined with a canonical version of GMk to produce GMt, which used the Bethsaida material in canonical GMk; and GLk/Mc, which left out the Bethsaida material in canonical GMk (since it was absent in the Q gospel).
To further demonstrate the plausibility of this scenario, we'll have to show that the Q-author would have had reason to omit each of the original pericopes in the Bethsaida section in his Q gospel. Once again, these original pericopes were determined, by Michael Turton, to have been:
a) The Water-Walking
b) The Feeding of the 4000
c) The Blind Man of Bethsaida
We deal with each pericope in turn:
a) The Water-Walking: this features a strange, angelic Jesus who descends from a mountaintop at night and walks across the waves on the sea of Galilee. The Q-author would not have been interested in this Jesus, and would have wanted to avoid portraying him as a God. To be sure, the Gospel of Peter also features a strange, angelic Jesus, but only after the resurrection. The Q-author made clear that his Jesus was a human being born like any other of a natural mother and father, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended, so we should not expect the Q-author to portray Jesus as a spiritual being prior to his resurrection.
Turton claims that the Water-Walking was a part of the original Markan gospel. I actually think Turton has broken out the chiasm in this pericope wrong, but in general I agree it is basically Markan, since the Water-Walking is also in GJn (and in the same location) and I don't think John used canonical GMk, since John doesn't show a lot of evidence that he knew it. He does seem to have known a Markan passion narrative, since he includes most of the elements in the PN that Turton finds typically Markan, but he's missing all the material throughout the gospel that Turton thinks was added by the canonical redactor (like the extended version of the Baptist's death, the Syro-Phonecian woman, and so on). Indeed, an original GMk that was missing some of the material now found in the canonical GMk would make the case for Johannine use of GMk much more plausible.
It's also interesting that both GPet and GJn hint at another use of this pericope at the end of the gospel, in the appearance to the disciples on the Sea of Galilee/Tiberias. GPet appears ready to launch into a pericope quite similar to Jn 21 (i.e. an appearance of Jesus to the disciples as they are gathered together in a boat) when our fragment of GPet breaks off. It's tempting to assume that therfore, original GMk featured a similar resurrection appearance to GPet and GJn. There are suggestions that the Water-Walking was originally a post-resurrection theophany, with a ghostly, angelic Jesus walking on the waves. Just as some suggest that the Transfiguration was also originally a post-resurrection theophany, and has been moved to the middle section of the gospel, we might suggest the Water-Walking was a post-resurrection theophany, moved to the middle of the gospel. However, Jn 21 is often seen as a later addition to GJn awkwardly tacked on to the "natural" ending of the gospel with Doubting Thomas. I'm not sure where I stand on that question, and for now I think we can't determine with any certainty whether original GMk had a post-resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee.
But we at least know that GPet ended with a similar appearance, and I suspect this derives from Q. Indeed, this could explain why Matthew's Water-Walking differs from Mark's; Matthew was blending a resurrection account with the Water-Walking. Notice that the disciples worship Jesus in the Matthean version.
This could also be the origin of the Johannine account. This is somewhat speculative, though, and likewise can't be determined with any certainty. However, these appearances by the sea must be related somehow, whether directly or indirectly, because in GMt, Peter leaps into the sea to join Jesus, just as he does in GJn.
(Also speculative, though intriguing, would be to wonder whether such a post-resurrection appearance was original to the proto-Gospel, and that's why we find it in Q and GJn--because, they both used the proto-Gospel.)
At any rate, we can piece together a rough history of this pericope: first, original/Secret Mark either adapted a miracle story he found in the proto-Gospel (perhaps a post-resurrection theophany, perhaps not) or else invented one himself. Canonical Mark copied this faithfully.
The Q-author eliminated this story, because it smacked too much of docetism and incarnationalist theology. He did include a post-resurrection seaside appearance, however, and this was either adapted from the original Markan story, or from the proto-Gospel version
Matthew then conflated the Markan and Q accounts. Matthew's Water-Walking seems to include post-resurrection language (the disciples worshiping Jesus), so probably Matthew is conflating Q's post-resurrection version of the Water-Walking with Mark's pre-resurrection version. Luke/Marcion left the Markan Water-Walking out of his gospel altogether. Again, this suggests he didn't find it in Q. He did, however, know about the post-resurrection theophany, because he did find that in Q. Luke/Marcion, however, wasn't interested in any Galilean post-resurrection appearances--he was keen to keep Jesus near Jerusalem. So he appears to have just ditched the seaside setting, and turned it into an indoor appearance. Goulder (A New Paradigm, p. 437) helpfully shows that the language of the water-walking pericope is used in the appearance to the Eleven at table, in GLk. Luke/Marcion has just removed the sea from the theophany.
For his own part, John (or a later editor) would either have taken the seaside appearance from Q, or would have derived it from Secret GMk (if it was there) or the proto-Gospel (if it was there). I'm not sure which scenario is more likely.
We can now use this framework to explain the fate of the other two pericopes in this section:
b) The Feeding of the 4000: The Q-author would have disliked this miracle, since it is a statement of symbolic authority for the Seven, rather than the Twelve. (I have discussed this previously with Michael Turton.) The seven baskets represent the seven deacons of the early Christian community, who are also mentioned in Acts. The collection of the leftover food into the baskets represents the deacons' authority over the eucharistic feast and the distribution of food--just as it is stated in Acts. The deacons all bear Greek names. (Whether the names given in Acts are their real names is not as important as the fact that the author of Acts gave them all Greek names. He knew they were Greeks, one way or another.) These deacons are specifically in charge of food distribution for the gentiles, and the Q-author is not interested in giving the gentiles authority. He wants to emphasize the Jewish origins of the Christian gospel. So he leaves out the seven deacons entirely.
Canonical GMk keeps the Feeding of the 4000. As does Matthew, following GMk. Luke/Marcion eliminates it, based on Q--while Luke/Marcion's motives were different from the Q-author's, he in general respects the Q narrative, because it contains the sayings material that he's interested in preserving. Furthermore, any mistrust of Q would have extended equally to GMk, since GMk is clearly Adoptionist. So, coming across a contraditiction between Q and GMk, the choice for Luke/Marcion would have been somewhat arbitrary.
John may not have known what to make of this pericope, but he also probably didn't find it in the proto-Gospel. On the face of it, it's a Markan re-telling of the first feeding, with different figures, making it more likely that it's the work of an author (i.e. Secret Mark) working from an earlier text (the proto-Gospel). I admit that differences between the proto-Gospel and Secret GMk didn't stop John from keeping Secret GMk's Water-Walking, but John is interested in signs of Jesus' divinity. The Feeding of the 4000, on the other hand, would have been found superfluous by John. (It's also possible he just re-used the imagery in Jn 21, where Jesus greets the disciples with a meal of bread and fish.)
c) The Blind Man of Bethsaida: The Q-author did use this pericope in one form or another--the two blind men of Galilee in Mt 9 are clearly related (Bethsaida being, after all, in Galilee). The Q-author probably relocated it however--in GMt, the Blind Men of Galilee are found right after the healing of Jairus, whereas in GMk, the Blind Man of Bethsaida falls right after the feeding of the 4000. But since Michael Turton suggests that other pericopes in the Bethsaida Section have been moved from elsewhere in the gospels, we shouldn't be surprised if this one was, too.
We can't be certain exactly where the Q-author put this pericope in Q (or where it was originally found in original/Secret GMk), but I suspect that its original Markan location was either somewhere prior to Mk 6:45, or else just after the Feeding of the 4000. Either way, the Q-author would have moved it so that when the Baptist's disciples come to ask Jesus if he is the Christ, Jesus can reply that the blind have been healed (among other miracles), fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 35:5-6.
As for their fate in GLk/Mc, I have also long thought that the various blind men that Jesus heals are all representatives of Paul ("Bar-Timaeus" representing Paul's Platonism) since in Acts we learn that Paul was struck blind and was healed by a Christian. Thus the two blind men of Galilee are, I suspect, stand-ins for Paul and his various companions. Notice that Luke/Marcion only refers to these blind men obliquely. They do in fact show up, but only very briefly, in Lk 7:21--they are the "many that were blind" whom Jesus heals. There are other narrative reasons why Luke abbreviates this healings (which I'll hopefully get to sometime), but the theological reason is all we need. Luke read about this healing in Q, somewhere during the Galilean ministry, and felt compelled to include it but only mentions it almost in passing. He doesn't want to dwell on any blind men healed in Galilee, because they remind him of Paul.
Meanwhile the editor of canonical GMk, wherever he originally found this story in the original Markan narrative, used the healing to oppose the disciples, who don't understand the meaning of the loaves. They are symbolically blind. The sight of the blind man, in contrast, is healed by Jesus, and he can see--unlike the disciples.
So, this explains the Great Omission, and the Bethsaida section: there was an original version of the Bethsaida section in original, "Secret" GMk, consisting only of the Water-Walking, the Feeding of the 4000, and possibly also the Blind Man of Bethsaida. The Q-author used this Markan gospel, removing the Water-Walking due to its docetic implications (or maybe moving it to the end of his gospel), and removing the Feeding of the 4000 due to its emphasis on Jesus' Greek disciples rather than his Jewish ones. The Q-author also either moved the healing of the blind man (so Jesus can report to the Baptist's disciples that the Isaiah prophecy has been fulfilled), or else it was never in the Bethsaida section to begin with. And in either case, a mismatched order between Q and GMk would also explain why Luke/Marcion viewed this healing with some skepticism. He does mention it, but leaves out the details from both Q and GMk, since they probably differed from each other considerably. The Blind Man of Jericho, on the other hand, appears in both GMt and GMk in the same location, so Luke/Marcion is willing to keep it more or less intact and complete.
Thus, the Q-author performed the first Great Omission--or, as I like to call it, the Not-So-Great Omission. Then, Matthew and Luke/Marcion both used Q and GMk. Matthew elected to use the Bethsaida section, more or less as it appears in GMk, whereas Luke/Marcion elected not to use it. In other words, Luke/Marcion's Great Omission was motivated by the Q-author's Not-So-Great Omission.
Look at it this way: we know that Q is, in fact, related to GMk, from the Q-Mark overlaps (especially in light of Turton's insightful examination of those overlaps). And we also know from Turton's work that there was an original version of GMk, that lacked much of the Bethsaida section. Strongly suggesting that Q was based on this original version of GMk.
So the Q-author would have been the one to leave out the Water-Walking, the Feeding of the 4000, and possibly also the Blind Man of Bethsaida, and it turns out he is the perfect candidate to leave them out--for the Q-author was certainly interested in a very human, Jewish Jesus, and a Jewish-centered church, not a gentile-centered one. (BTW, this is different from Goulder's argument from "geographically discrete units" (A New Paradigm, p. 437); Q focuses on the Jews as a people, not Galilee and Judea as geographical areas).
This makes much more sense than the Goulder-Farrer Hypothesis. Matthew includes all of the Bethsaida material; but if Luke found all of it in both of his sources (GMt and GMk, according to Goulder), why on earth would he excise it so completely? GMt can't be the source Luke/Marcion is using. He must have used another source that drove him to omit the Bethsaida section, and thus some sort of Two-Source Hypothesis is best here. Hence, Q is the best candidate for an explanation as to the Great Omission in Luke/Marcion.
So the HSH provides a great explanation for the Great Omission. Original/Secret GMk didn't include most of the Bethsaida section. Then the Q-author wrote a narrative gospel we call "Q" based on original GMk. He happened to leave out two or three pericopes in a row from original GMk. Then a canonical editor took original GMk and revised it into canonical GMk. Matthew and Luke/Marcion both used Q and canonical GMk; they both noticed that GMk had material here where Q had nothing corresponding to it. Matthew favored GMk's verion, whereas Luke/Marcion favored Q's.
This brings to a close this series on the Bethsaida section and the Great Omission. Next up is the proto-Gospel. By establishing the existence of original/Secret GMk, we can now triangulate between it and GJn to determine the contents of the proto-Gospel. We'll discover that we've known the proto-Gospel all along: the proto-Gospel was the Signs Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment