better late than never – #liveblog notes on #SBLAAR Markan Literary Sources, II

Have you ever been so nervous you just want to run crying? Or sit and cry. I don’t care. I’m pretty nervous at this point. This is the first academic paper, I guess, I am presenting.

Kenneth Cardwell is presenting first. Previously he has stated he is a fan of MacDonald. This time, he is presenting not so much on Homer as a source, but on a Markan use of Joshua 1–6. I rather like his take, although it may be difficult to approve. If no one is suppose to see it, but he does, how can we test it? Further, he uses “Jesus” as a trigger to alert the reader to Joshua. He gets a few questions. I hate to say this, but you have to read the paper in order to understand why the questions are so sparse.

MacDonald doesn’t believe in the Secret Gospel of Mark. #Woot.

MacDonald is up next, announcing in his paper that he will be publishing another book on The Gospels and Homer. He believes in a Q, but not our Q, his Q. He notes that this is a source and his only source. But, Mark uses models. I really like this differing scheme.

He believes there are 2 issues with all Mark commentaries. One, they do not make use of Q parallels and, two, they do not make use of classic Greek poetry. He insists on Homer over Scripture in the narrative sections of this section of Mark.

Adam Winn is next. No need to say anything, really. You just need to buy his book on the Elijah-Elisha narratives and read it and study it. Buy 2 copies.

Matt Montonini was up next, but since I am writing this a day after at this point, I will not even attempt to reconstruct his paper and comments. It is an interesting take though and one worth pursuing.

Here are my comments I gave before my paper:

The goal of this paper was not to use every unprovable thesis I could place in one paper, but rather to propose a very hypothetical premise based on other premises still argued over.

I am not tied to the term chiasm, but found it is suitable for now.

My goal is not to suggest the bi-lingual nature of Daniel is original, as the original author or authors are not needed, only the reception of Daniel as a multi-lingual work.

Further, I realize this is based on reception of a Daniel not commonly assigned to Mark, the original language(s).

With that said, I’ll go on.

I open up the paper with two thoughts embedded from the discussion at the last seminar, mainly triggers and definition of words, namely “source.” I am still not wholly satisfied with my given understanding of “source.”

I propose an overarching use of Daniel by Mark and a pre-determined structure that allows Mark to begin to develop his narrative. I tie this to the Transfiguration scene and the Son of Man scene in Daniel, but go past this to suggest the switching of language in Daniel is mimicked by Mark not in language, but in geographic locales. Such a structure adopted by Mark provides hallmarks, or the ebbs and flows or the narrative so that Mark doesn’t get lost in the woods.

Unlike the use of Elijah-Elisha narratives or other literary sources, the use of Daniel may just be the author’s own self-guiding framework. This may explain, if the structure is indeed present, why the triggers to Daniel are faint at the very best. The structure is only understood by the audience after the Transfiguration and is a secondary event.

When it comes to the connection between Daniel 7 and Mark 9, I am not willing to argue for a singular model here, but believe Daniel’s pericope provides structure to Mark’s passage which allows the Evangelist to supply narrative details and other markers to appeal to his audience.

Presenting in this seminar is the highlight of paper presentations. Sorry. Just is.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.