One of the essential tools of mimetic criticism is the use of cues early in the text. We look for these as early as possible in the primary text so that as we read through, the secondary texts come through. This intertextuality is important — because it doesn’t just make cute allusions, but uses the previous text (preserving it, often times) to build an ideological (in our case, theological) aural atmosphere in which to read the text. This is the case with the Gospel of Mark. If we miss these cues, we miss the points Mark is trying to
This is part of my CTP class, and… well, my book, and studies, etc… I know people will disagree, but I think Mark writes in such a way as to constantly question his audience — to drive them into self-realization.
These are notes from my CTP Class – but I wanted to put them here for a few reasons. And look… I made a video: Why Isaiah and not “the prophets” or at least Malachi? Why is Mark… wrong? He’s not. He’s trying to draw your mind into something. He wants his hearers to understand something profound about Jesus. These are what I would call mimetic cues. He begins by calling it Isaiah…something clearly “wrong… but this is a way to draw your attention. I think it is meant to draw your attention to at least two levels of
There may be simply several sources for Mark 1.1. I tend to think it comes directly from the Priene Calendar inscription, setting GMark as the anti-Roman Gospel. This is Mark 1.1 in the Greek: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. This is the calendar inscription: ἦρξεν δὲ τῶι κὀσμωι τῶι δι᾽ αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίων ἡ γενέυλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ But, what if it is pointing to Genesis 1.1? ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν Another possibility is that it comes from Greek Hosea, 1.2 Ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ωσηε What would Mark 1.1 mean depending on the
This was posted in 2009, but written some time before that. My Thursday Morning CTP class is going to study Mark’s Gospel next and I wanted to do something different. I maintained then and still do so today that Mark is meant to be read as mad-dash play-by-play commentary. This is an early work and I will be updating it over the coming weeks, adding to it, refining it. I have two more chapters to work on as well and then to finish the entire book. My goal is to make GMark readable, but rushed, and live-action. I have left
Rudolf Bultmann, the father of demythologization, urged people to get behind the text. On that, I agree. I also agree that sometimes the superstition of the age, or the need to see things in a miraculous way, can be passed down in an oral society much easier than it can today. But, I don’t think that is what is happening with the story of the fishes and the loaves. At this point, I do not care if the event(s) actually happened. I don’t think that we can determine if Jesus set on a hilltop and fed even a single
I had hoped to invest some time in exploring this subject, either for a chapter or a paper, but right now I am swamped. I was recently reminded of this, first in reading this book and second via an email. So, I wanted to take a quick second and sketch out an idea. I think Mark 13 is something of a chaotic chiastic passage. By that, I mean Mark does not using a simple pattern like A B B C B B A, but rather, has a focal point from and to which all things flow, even if the