In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Clement’s description of longer Mark as a “mystic” or “more spiritual gospel” suggests that the added passages focused not so much on the outer facts of Jesus’ life (the “body” of the text) as on the inner theological significance (the “spirit”). To a careless or uninstructed reader, Mark’s most profound mysteries remained concealed behind a literary veil. To those being initiated into the great mysteries, however, the proper exposition of its mystic passages (logia) disclosed esoteric theological teachings. We may never know how Clement interpreted the longer text because his “true interpretation ” was excised from the Letter to Theodore. But as we began to see in the last chapter, LGM 1 and 2 guide their own interpretation by employing literary techniques used elsewhere in the gospel. In order to understand this more spiritual edition of Mark, we need to examine those literary techniques. Accordingly, the following three chapters each examine a distinctively Markan literary technique used in LGM 1 and 2 and describe its implications for the interpretation of the Markan gospel. Chapter 6 demonstrates that these two additions form an intercalation.1 Chapter 7 shows that the raising miracle and the story of the open tomb form a “matched pair” that functions as an interpretative frame around Mark’s passion narrative. And chapter 8 examines the effects of various brief repetitions within LGM 1 and 2 of language and themes that occur elsewhere in the gospel. The upshot of this analysis will surprise most scholars of Mark, many of whom insist that “There is no good reason to regard this expanded version of Mark as any less ‘apocryphal’ than the other gospels to which [Clement] accorded similar recognition”:2 LGM 1 and 2 are as Markan in a literary sense as they are in their vocabulary and phrasing , and they reinforce and elucidate the theology of the canonical gospel. Notes to chapter 6 start on page 268 165 6 Longer Mark’s Use of Intercalation brown_06.qxd 2005/04/26 12:23 PM Page 165 The Formal Characteristics of Intercalation Intercalation (also known as the Markan sandwich technique) is the narrative device of placing one episode (story or scene) within another, separate episode such that the completion of the first episode is delayed by the complete narration of the second episode. Commentators on Mark customarily note six “classic” examples of this procedure: Mark 3:20–35; 5:21–43; 6:7–30 (+ vv. 31–32?); 11:12–22 (+ vv. 23–25?); 14:1–11; 14:53–72.3 The fact that most scholars label these six passages intercalations does not, however , mean that they agree on the nature and extent of this literary phenomenon . A variety of other passages have been deemed intercalations as well, because many scholars do not differentiate intercalation from similar framing techniques.4 Some, for instance, confuse intercalations with interpolations , which are sayings or narrative comments (though not an entire pericope) that on form-critical grounds were not originally part of the passage in which they appear (e.g., Mark 1:23–26 within 1:21–28; 2:5b–10a within 2:1–12; 4:31b within 4:30–32).5 Fortunately, a few scholars have attempted to define intercalation precisely by investigating what the six generally agreed upon examples have in common. Despite some disagreement over particular narrative features and literary effects, these studies offer general conclusions that can help us determine whether the addition of LGM 1 and 2 represents an instance of this technique, and, if so, how these verses make sense within this perspective. James R. Edwards’ definition of intercalation is a useful starting point: “Each Markan [intercalation] concerns a larger (usually narrative) unit of material consisting of two episodes or stories which are narrated in three paragraphs or pericopae. The whole follows an A1-B-A2 schema, in which the Bepisode forms an independent unit of material, whereas the flanking A-episodes require one another to complete their narrative. The B-episode consists of only one story; it is not a series of stories, nor itself so long that the reader fails to link A2 with A1. Finally, A2 normally contains an allusion at its beginning which refers back to A1, e.g., repetition of a theme, proper nouns, etc.”6 LGM 1 and 2 fit this scheme very well. In this case, the A1-story is LGM 1, the B-story is the request of James and John, which culminates in a discipleship teaching (10:35–40...

Share