Mark a stage play?

by peacefulpete 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Over the past 70 years a number of scholars have speculated that the Gospel Mark was witten as liturgical drama meant to be acted out. This has gained greater acceptance in recent years for good reasons. (The book of Matt likewise has elements that seem to lend to this use. But especially Mark has the earmarks of a play.) The unique layout of the book in what are called , 'intercalations', that is, a pattern of sandwiching a brief pericope between layers of another scene. As a a couple examples of this (2:1-12) where a paralytic is lowered to Jesus to be healed---an argument over forgiveness takes place---man is healed. (5:21-43) Jarius daughter scene opens--heals woman with flow of blood--heals jairus daughter. (11:12-25) curses tree---cleanses temple--tree scene resumes with it found dead.
  

  These breaks in the story may be more than stylistic, but necessary shifts in scene for stage performance. IOW attention is diverted while scenery and personnel are rearranged for the conclusion of the scene. There have been a couple persuasive reconstructions that separated the book into 5 acts in keeping with the standard in Greek tragedy of the time.

  Another aspect of Mark is it's general lack of descriptive motion. Again as example of this: Jesus' crucixion is not described, not necessay as the audience sees it done. Also Judas never is not said to leave the supper scene tho he obviously had to play out the arrest scene later, again the audience would have seen the man stand up and leave.

  Additionally the vague desciptions like 'house' and 'a synagogue' "a lonely place' etc, may best be explained by the audience being able to visualize a house,lonely place etc. as so no need for descriptions.

  It is also intersting that generally the miracle Jesus performs are all such as could be done with stage props. He heals sick, expells demons, curses a tree, and pulls bread and fish from a basket. An exception to my mind might be the walking on water and climbing into the boat episode (which has been a subject of contoversy for other reasons) tho even this could be done by a high school drama class I suppose.

  This possible intent of Mark would represent the use to which the book and the tradition behind it was put. The playwrite was using earlier material and working it for stage use.

  thoughts?
• 

  peacefulpete

  I should have added that the words of Gal 3:1 make a lot of sense if meant that the story of Christ was being acted out in a liturgical drama, " O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes (Jesus) Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? ".
• 

  IP_SEC

  Hmm interesting :)
• 

  Sargon

  Tom harpur takes this a stage further in his book 'the pagan Christ' ; in wich he claims that the whole Jesus story was a re-working of the horus/isis myth, and not meant to be taken literally.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hey Sargon, yes we are familiar with the pagan origins of the Christ Myth hypothesis, in fact I have discussed it here before. But this is another layer of tradition we are talking about here now. This Gospel Mark (and even the material he used, UrMark) was written well after some Jesus/Christ cult had become established. IMO the roots of Christianity are tangled and deep, no one event or writer was responsible for the synthesis. But how do you feel about the texual hypothesis offered here (ie. this document was written to be dramatized) and why?

  The so called Great Omission of Luke and the ending of Mark and the discussion about the walking on water vs, on shore, all must come together somehow. If the walking 'on water' scene was originally 'walking on shore' and was a resurrection appearance connected with the second ending of John (in boat on sea Jesus on shore etc.) and this second ending was the original ending of Mark but relocated thru binding with John. We might have an explanation for the shuffling of the scene in present Mark if the scene was relocated for dramatic effect, ie. the scene was either reinterpreted as walking ON water by the redactor/playwrite by mistake or by design (for impact) or the material he was using had already had this alteration. If the playwrite deliberately relocated the scene, he may have deliberately ommitted the ending again for effect. There are a number of scholars feel the abrupt ending of present Mark is by design, siting other examples in Greek drama which do the same. Also some scholars feel the present abrupt ending reconnects with the opening to produce a cyclical tale, again perhaps the intent of the playwrite of present Mark. This may also offer an explanation for the former ending having been attatched to John. The Mark that had become popularized no longer had it and a pious Christian sought to save it by adding it to John.??????????
• 

  Narkissos

  The general idea is interesting and not unlikely (to me) in the Hellenistic context (cf. the theatre of Dionysos). I often thought that the connection of Greek dramatic tradition and Bible literature might be enlightening sometimes (re: Job, for instance), that might work for the Gospels too. The extant Gospel of Mark does not really look like a Greek drama (too much narration in the aorist, although some theatrical background might be argued to account for the comparatively frequent use of narrative present -- and perhaps imperfect -- which is peculiar of Mark). Hmmm....

  Have you got some sources (or is it a playwright's eye )?
• 

  peacefulpete

  I'm afraid I'm not that clever. I have encountered the idea in a couple books but here is the link to the article I was plagerizing. http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark09.html#9X
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks for this very interesting link (http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark09.html#9X) PP.

  Again, it seems to me that there is a better argument for Mark being based on a Hellenistic Christian dramaturgy than for it being the actual script. Anyway it is a very enlightening perspective.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I'm not sure I see the distinction. Yes Mark lacks the stage directions and such, is that what you mean?

  What about my ramblings about the great ommissison and such.
• 

  Narkissos

  The argument that Mark is structured as a tragedy is quite compelling (and not new, although I never thought of the distinct possibility of it being the reflection of actual Church dramaturgy), but Mark is not written as a play script. Using it as such would require long monologues by a narrator which, in addition to the long teaching sections replacing the choruses, would result in very poor dramaturgy imo. (Perhaps we should try it to see all the problems.)

  Now the "great omission" (Mark 6:47--8:27a) is a complex issue: it can be explained by a combination of (at least) (1) material, (2) ideological and (3) narrative factors.

  (1) A portion of UrMark may have been missing in the copy available to Luke, but this portion was not necessarily coextensive to what is now "missing" in Luke;

  (2) Several parts of this section may have been deliberately rejected by Luke, especially the "docetic" walking on the sea (which John interestingly maintains) or the repetition of the story of loaves with the subsequent questioning of the disciples and sibylline answers of Jesus, which give the whole stuff an esoteric ring.

  (3) Once Luke has suppressed some portions for ideological reasons, he might be led to drop other "non-objectionable" material (such as the Syro-phoenician woman) because he cannot make it fit anymore in his own narrative consistency.

  On the other hand, the fact that an early version of John 21 might have been Mark's conclusion doesn't strictly rule out the originality of the "walking on the sea" in chapter 6 (which has also thematic parallels, equally docetic, in the tempest story of chapter 4).