My work is a slave to three masters… (a quote from Lucan)
Anyway, I have finished chapter 8, again, and chapter 5 which introduces the relevant points of Lucan and provides a Lucan reading of Mark’s Gospel that neither chapter 5 nor the commentary could provide sufficiently.
So, chapter 9 involves three points.
- I want to provide a test case, more than the Lucan reading of Mark, to prove the hypothesis. I will do this with two recent works, one of which is by a student of Thomas L. Brodie. The other has done some work on empire and the New Testament. My worry here is that any such work can appear to be too ideological, but I hope that I have avoided as such these entrapments, if even in my own objective reality.
- I will dismiss the Q hypothesis and instead argue that the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre Hypothesis should now be moved into the realm of Theory. I will attempt to demonstrate how mimetic criticism shows that Matthew needed no other source but Mark and that he was following the same ideological paradigm as Mark, thus making Matthew not only closer to Mark than Papias, but affirming that Matthew knew Mark’s rhetorical strategy.
- Discuss what remains. If Mark is using rhetorical strategies, does this exclude a historical Jesus? Is Jesus merely a literary vehicle? Hardly. I hope to introduce (unless I find it pre-exists me at which point I will simply say that I am proving it) something that I am calling the criterion of apologia.
Of course, this is going to be the toughest chapter, I think. We’ll see. My only concern here is writing in a scientific manner or not, but trying to present things as fact. Goal 1 and 2 is easy, I think. Number 3 is not so much.
Also, thinking of changing the name to “Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary“