Christian Texts and History • Re: Trying to do on Mark what a PRESUMED editor would have done to derive *Ev from Mark

A such editor would have:

• 1) ...searched for the first occurrence of Capernaum in Mark.
  
  
  They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue
  
  (Mark 1:21)

• 2) ...removed the "they" from Mark 1:21 so that Jesus alone went to Capernaum. The result is very similar to what we found in the incipit of *Ev:
  
  
  The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
  
  25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
  
  27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee
  
  

Hence the following question is very pertinent and rational:

What was the role of the disciples in Capernaum? None role at all.

This is a real problem for the Markan priority. If for Marcion the theological obstacle was only the baptism by John, then he would have made Jesus descend from above in correspondence of Mark 1:16:

As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.

...not when Jesus in Mark has already collected disciples and he goes with them to Capernaum.

By editing Mark 1:21 to have Jesus descending in Capernaum, and not near the sea of Galilee (if he had edited rather Mark 1:16), the presumed editor called Marcion would have taken upon himself well two burdens instead than only one:

• The removal of the baptism by John;

• the removal of the disciples from the entry in Capernaum.

While the first burden was justified theologically, the second burden was absolutely unjustified.

Occham prohibits.

Therefore: *Ev precedes Mark.

Your premise is that an author who uses Mark would be deleting what they find to be a "theological obstacle" and retaining the rest (or, if not, acted without motivation / a problem for parsimony or Ockham's razor). Let's call it the "minimal obstacle avoidance" theory. It is only a hypothesis.

Another hypothesis is that an author who used Mark could have selected episodes from a prior gospel to be arranged according to their preferences, which could include preferences regarding emphasis (theological or otherwise) and narrative impact. One example of such a preference would be to emphasize the appearance of Jesus as a bold new teacher, with divine authority, appearing out of nowhere to teach in the synagogue immediately.

Since "minimal obstacle avoidance" is a very narrow and blinkered perspective to take for an author, especially ones as creative as the evangelists, an argument based on it isn't a particularly compelling.

Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:09 am

---