Oral History and the Beginning and End of Mark's Gospel

EQ 90.1 (2019], 2 4 -3 7 O ra l H is to ry a n d th e B e g in n in g a n d End o f t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k B en C h e n o w e th B en C h e n o w e th is e L e a rn in g C o o r d in a to r /E d u c a tio n a l D esigner, M e lb o u rn e S ch o o l o f T heology, A u s tra lia Key Words: Eyewitnesses; Gospel Structure; Mark's Gospel; Oral History; Oral Tradi­ tion; Textual History. The Gospel of M ark w as, according to m o st biblical scholars, th e firs t gospel to be w ritten . It is th erefo re th e gospel th a t pro vides us w ith th e e a rliest w ind ow into th a t p erio d of tim e be tw e en th e events concerning th e life, m inistry, death, and re su rrec tio n of Jesus, a n d th e w ritte n gospels them selves, a pe rio d of tim e in w hich th e sto ries a b o u t Jesus w e re p assed on orally. It is th e co n ten tio n of th is article th a t th e textual sta tu s of th e M arkan text, specifically th e beginning an d en d of M ark’s gospel, she d s considerable light on th e n atu re of th e oral history concernin g Jesus th a t w as being pro p ag ated by th e church du rin g this tim e period. I. The beginning and end of the Gospel of Mark It has becom e so m eth in g of a scholarly con sensu s to say th a t M ark’s Gospel origi­ nally en d e d a t 16:8. However, as N. Clayton Croy has noted, this con sen sus is r e ­ c e n t (it began to take ho ld in th e 1 96 0s an d w as w ell estab lishe d by th e 1980s] an d o v ertu rn s an equally stro n g ea rlier con sensus th a t th e original en ding of M ark has been lost.1 Croy goes on to argue th a t M ark's Gospel did in d eed originally ex­ ten d beyond 16:8, b u t th a t n eith e r th e so-called S hort o r Long Ending th a t have com e dow n to us in th e textual tra d itio n are th e original ending. I do n o t w ish to re h e a rse Cray’s case here; suffice it to say I found his p re sen tatio n com pelling.2 In particular, I w as stru ck by his po in t th a t th e accep tanc e of an enigm atic, openen de d en ding has com e a b o u t essentially in parallel to th e w id esp read ado p tio n of th e po st-m o d ern w orldview .3 By co n tra st, scribes from tim e p erio d s m uch closer to th e first ce n tu ry th an u s clearly felt th e lack of an a p p ro p ria te ending an d supplied th e ir ow n— namely, th e S hort a n d Long Endings— in re sp o n se .4 J. K. Elliott m akes 3 N. Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel (Nashville: A bingdon P ress, 2003], 13. See also pp. 2 6 -2 8 for m ore on th e dating of th is change in consensus. The in te reste d re a d e r is advised to read Croy’s book. T he force of his arg u m en t is cum ulative. In fact, before read ing Croy’s book I had been perfectly hap py w ith th e thoug ht th a t M ark’s Gospel originally end ed at 16:8. Croy, Mutilation, 3 6 -3 7 (on ’re a d er-resp o n se’ criticism ) and 3 9 -4 2 (on 'th e Z eitgeist of th e 4 T w entieth Century'). Croy, Mutilation, 19 and 63 -6 4. 1 2 O ral H istory a n d the B eginning a n d End o f th e Gospel o f M a rk EQ • 25 a sim ila r po in t: If M ark w a s su b tly leavin g his G ospel w ith a cliff-hanging endin g, e m p h a siz e d by h is d e lib e ra te u se o f th e p ro vocative [g a r], th e n th a t su b tle ty w a s lo st on his im m e d ia te follow ers a n d in to th e n e x t century. B ecause h is p u rp o s e s w e re m isu n d e rsto o d e a rly on, c e rta in ly b efo re AD 180, th e a lte rn a tiv e e n d ­ ings w e k n o w to d a y w e re ta c k e d on.5 C on sequently, Elliott, to o, c o n clu d es th a t M ark’s G ospel orig in ally c o n tin u e d b e ­ y o n d 16:8.6 T he ch ief difficulty w ith th e v ie w th a t M ark's G ospel orig in ally c o n tin u e d b e ­ y o n d 16:8 is h o w th a t final se n te n c e ‘a n d th e y sa id n o th in g to anyone, fo r th e y w e re afra id ' m ig h t c o n tin u e. H ow can th is stro n g neg ativ e s ta te m e n t be im m e d ia te ly o v e rtu rn e d in a c o n tin u in g n a rra tiv e su ch th a t th e w o m e n do in fact go o n to tell s o m e o n e — th e o th e r disciples, a s p e r M a tth e w 28:8 a n d Luke 2 4 :9 — a b o u t Jesu s's re su rre c tio n ? David C atchp ole p ro v id e s a help ful c o m p a riso n w ith M ark 1:4 4a w h e re Je su s c o m m a n d s a m an h e a le d o f le p ro sy n o t to tell anyon e: The g e n e ra liz e d in stru c tio n to k e e p silen ce d o e s n o t p re v e n t d isc lo su re to a sp ecifie d individual. It sim ply re la te s to th e b ro a d m a ss o f p e rso n s, th e public a t large. If th is is so, M ark 16.7 a n d 8b do n o t have to b e re la te d a s co m m an d a n d d iso b e d ie n c e to com m and, b u t as co m m a n d a n d an o b e d ie n c e w hic h b rin g s th e m essag e to c e rta in sp ecifie d p e rs o n s w h ile a t th e sa m e tim e re a l­ izing co rre c tly th a t th e p u b lic a t larg e a re n o t m e a n t to b e b ro u g h t w ith in its sc ope.7 In o th e r w o rd s, th e s ta te m e n t re g a rd in g th e w o m e n ’s silen ce sh o u ld b e lim ited to th e ir b ein g in th e pu b lic sp h e re .8 One p o in t in fav o u r th a t th e se n te n c e d id c o n tin u e is th a t th e im p e rfe c t v erb 5 J. K. Elliott, 'T he L ast Tw elve V erses o f M ark: O riginal o r Not?', in Perspectives on the Ending o f Mark: 4 Views, ed. by D avid Alan B lack (N ashville: B&H A cadem ic, 2 0 0 8 ), 93. 6 Elliott, 'T he L ast Tw elve V erses o f M ark’, 98. See also sim ila r c o n clu sio n s in R o b e rt H. Stein, Mark (G rand R apids: B ak er A cadem ic, 2 0 0 8 ), 7 3 3 -3 7 ; B en W ith e rin g to n III, The Gospel o f Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (G rand R ap ids: E erd m a n s, 2 0 0 1 ), 4 2 -4 9 ; R. T. France, The Gospel o f Mark (G rand R apids: E erd m a n s, 2 0 0 2 ), 6 7 0 -7 3 ; C raig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (N ashville: T h o m as N elson, 2 0 0 1 ), 5 3 8 -3 9 . It sh o u ld be n o te d th a t th e s e re c e n t c o m m e n ta to rs d e m o n s tra te th a t th e c u rr e n t sch o larly c o n se n s u s th a t M ark e n d e d a t 16:8 is n o t a s stro n g as it m ig h t seem ! 7 D avid C atchpole, ‘T he F earful Silence o f th e W om en a t th e Tom b: A S tudy in M ark an T h eo lo g y ’, Journal o f Theology for Southern Africa 18 (1 9 7 7 ), 3 - 1 0 (6). See also L arry H u rta d o , 'D iscip lesh ip in th e G ospel o f M ark—A nd Beyond', in Patterns o f Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. by R. N. L o n g en eck er (G rand R apids: E erd m a n s, 1 9 9 6 ) 9 -2 9 . W ith erin g to n , Gospel o f Mark, 45 , d ra w s a sim ila r co n clu sio n from th e te n s e s o f th e v e rb s u sed : ‘B oth th e fleeing a n d sp eak in g a re a o ris t v e rb s in d icatin g a p a rtic u la r a n d p u n c tilia r actio n m o tiv ated in each case by fear. The te x t im p lies th a t th e fleeing a n d th e sile n ce w e n t on only fo r a specific p e rio d o f tim e, nam ely, fo r th e p e rio d w h ile th e w o m e n w e re afraid. This co m b in atio n o f v e rb s se e m s to s e t u p an e x p ectatio n fo r a seq u el w h e n th e w o m en a re no lo n g e r sc a re d to d e a th a n d no lo n g e r fleeing a n d sile n t, a seq u el in w h ic h th e y p re su m a b ly a re finally o b e d ie n t to th e angelic com m an d.' 8 26 • EQ Ben C h enow eth ephobounto ('they w ere afraid’) would normally be followed by an object in the accusative case.9 Consequently, it is not a great leap to supply a plausible object: ‘the Jewish leaders' or possibly 'the Roman authorities’. It is also possible th at the main verb of the clause eipan ('they said') could be modified by a tem poral clause, thereby giving a time limit to their silence. Thus, a reconstruction might be And they said nothing to anyone, for they w ere afraid of the Jewish leaders, until they came to the place w here the disciples w ere hiding. It is not hard to then imagine the narrative continuing, in sim ilar fashion to Mat­ thew 28 and Luke 24, w ith (a tth e very least) an appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee, som ething th at has been explicitly predicted earlier in Mark’s Gospel (14:28; 16:7) and (quite likely) some so rt of transfer of authority from Jesus to the disciples. This is clearly speculative, bu t it dem onstrates th at a plausible continua­ tion of the narrative is possible.10 That a loss of text has occurred at the beginning of Mark's Gospel, on the other hand, is far less commonly held both in the history of interpretation and in recent scholarship. However, there are still those who have argued for this.*11 In essence, Mark 1:1 is a very terse opening and it connects awkwardly w ith 1:2 w ith its quota­ tion from the Old Testament. As T. W. Manson p ut it (before he himself concludes th at both the beginning and end of Mark are defective), The opening of Mark has long been as difficult a problem to com m entators as its close, in some ways even more difficult. Verse 1 offers a subject with no predicate; verses 2 and 3 a subordinate clause with no main clause; and verse 4 gives a statem ent of fact about John the Baptist, which seem s to have some links in thought w ith w hat has gone before, b ut no obvious gram m ati­ cal connexion.12 Again, Cray's description of the presenting problem is compelling.13 While it is pos­ sible to interpret euangelion in 1:1 in line with its usage elsew here in Mark ('oral proclam ation of good new s’), Cray proposes th at it makes b etter sense to view this 9 Of the 10 o th er occurrences in the NT of the im perfect form of this verb, 9 have an object; of the 9 occurrences in the Septuagint, 8 have an object. By contrast, the aorist form of the verb is more likely to ap pear w ithout an object. Cf. Croy, Mutilation, 51. 10 See James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 503-504, and France, Gospel of Mark, 674, for sim ilar reconstructions. 11 See for example, N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People o f God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 390 n. 67: 1 am among the m inority who think th at the opening and closing of the original are lost, and therefore unavailable for us as evidence of Mark’s intention.' Croy, Mutilation, 125, also lists C. F. D. Moule, Stephen Neill, W. A. Craigie, J. K. Elliott and R. Way-Rider, plus a num ber of other scholars who suggest th at verse 1 is an addition w ithout explicitly stating th at the text beginning at verse 2 is defective. 12 T. W. Manson, 'The Life of Jesus: A Survey of the Available Material. 2. The Foundation of the Synoptic Tradition: The Gospel of Mark’, BJRL, 2 8 /1 (1944), 119-36 (121-22). See also J. K. Elliott, 'Mark 1.1-3—A Later Addition to the Gospel?’, New Testament Studies, 46 (2000), 584-88, who identifies a num ber of other issues. 13 Croy, Mutilation, 113-24. Oral History and the Beginning and End o f the Gospel o f M ark EQ • 27 verse as a later addition, with e u a n g e iio n taking the later sense o f‘written record of Jesus's life'.14 His proposal then is as follows: The beginning of Mark's gospel, like its ending, is defective. Something origi­ nally preceded Mark 1:2 but has been lost. A superscription was added in various forms15 by redactors probably in the second century, not as a title but as a marker with the meaning, 'the text of the Gospel begins here.’ Some such marker was necessary since a manuscript beginning with Mark 1:2 would have been intolerable on the grounds of grammar, style, and coherence.16 To support his proposal, he provides a list of examples where a r c h e (‘beginning’] without the definite article has been used in headings or markers in certain manu­ scripts of the New Testament, the Pentateuch, and in patristic and Greco-Roman writings in precisely the way he proposes for Mark 1:1.17 This makes for a very compelling case. One drawback to Cray's otherwise excellent book is that, while he does explore the consequences of his proposal for the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark, he does not go on to consider any wider ramifications. In particular, he does not con­ sider how this damage impacts on the o r ig in of Mark’s Gospel. I would argue, by contrast, that if Mark’s Gospel was damaged and its ending, and quite probably its beginning too, were lost at a point so early to have left no trace in the textu­ al tradition,18 then this actually provides us with a valuable piece of data. Earlier 14 Croy, Mutilation, 121-22. Markan scholars may dispute Cray's analysis; however, the usage of the word in 1:1 appears to differ from its usage elsewhere in Mark's Gospel. In the other 7 references, the word refers to Jesus’s sayings (not actions) or a summaiy of his teaching. Elliott sees the meaning in 1:1 as referring to messianic action, which 'is a stepping stone towards the even later change in meaning whereby the noun designates a distinctive genre ofliterature recounting Jesus' ministry’ (Elliott, 'Later Addition?', 584-85). Similarly, Robert A. Guelich, "‘The Beginning of the Gospel": Mark 1:1-15’, Biblical Research, 27 (1982), 5-15 (12): ‘Since the "beginning" connotes a definite referent in the following text of 1:4-15, the "gospel,’’ of which the opening section is the "beginning," must refer to the message of good news proclaimed by the Church (13:10; 14:9) and found in the literary work that follows. Thus, Mark does anticipate the second century use of evaggelion as a designation for the literary work we now call the Gospel according to Mark.’ 15 The phrase 'in various forms’ refers to the fact that Mark 1:1 is found in 9 different variants in the manuscripts. See Croy, Mutilation, 114-17. 16 Croy, Mutilation, 124. 17 Croy, Mutilation, 127-29. See also Elliott, ‘Later Addition?’, 585, who notes that arche elsewhere in Mark is temporal: ‘Commentaries often apply this meaning at 1.1 by connecting it to 1.4 (i.e. the chronological beginning of the Gospel is the coming of John the Baptist), but that seems strained... The simplest understanding... is that here now is the start ofthe account of Jesus Christ’s ministiy. But such a meaning is alien to Markan usage.’ It should be noted that Elliott goes on to conclude that Mark 1:1-3 is a later addition. I would argue that this conclusion is not warranted; almost all of the points that Elliott mentions can be dealt with simply by viewing only 1:1 as the later addition. 18 Assuming Markan Priority, neither Matthew nor Luke had Mark’s original ending. Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 416-17, claims (following R. H. Gundry) that the original ending of Mark can be found in Matthew’s gospel in redacted form, implying that Matthew 28 • EQ Ben C h e n o w e th scholars have certainly noted this point but have then gone on to reject the pos­ sibility of a lost ending to Mark’s Gospel on the basis of reductio ad absurdum. For example, F. W. Beare: If the ending was lost, the loss must have occurred before a copy of the manu­ script came into the hands of Matthew or Luke, for they make use of no com­ mon source from this point on. This really involves the assumption that the original manuscript was mutilated before it could be copied; that the author was dead and could not restore the lacuna; and that no one in the Church, until the third century or later, ventured to complete the gap. All this I find totally inconceivable. 19 While Beare’s dating of the later endings is wrong, 20 the conclusion he comes to is not the only one that may be drawn. If Mark’s Gospel suffered damage at an early stage in its existence and was not immediately fixed, then the other possibility is that when it was written down it was actually not greatly valued as a text. For if the gospel had been commissioned (as various traditions associated with Mark's gospel claim] then presumably a number of copies would have been made for the purposes of circulation; however, as Beare noted, this would surely have occurred before the text came to be damaged. Even if the gospel had not been commissioned but the document was still considered to be of value in and of itself, then it would have been fixed if it had been damaged.21 Either way, we would expect that as a result the entire gospel would survive in the textual tradition. That we do not have a complete text strongly suggests that the text of Mark's gospel was not perceived to be of great value at the time it was committed to writing and during the initial period of time following. This then raises the dual questions of why Mark’s Gospel was committed to writing in the first place and why it was not looked after more carefully. II. Oral history These questions can be addressed by looking at the importance of orality in the first century. It should be acknowledged at the outset that our highly literate cul­ ture severely downplays the significance of orality as a mechanism for passing on had an undamaged copy of Mark. There is no way this can be confirmed one way or the other. But it is hard to see if there was an undamaged copy of Mark floating around, that it did not come down to us in the manuscript textual history. Therefore, the damage would have to have occurred at a very early date. 19 F. W. Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962], 240-41. 20 The Long Ending has been dated to the first half of the 2nd century. See Croy, Mutilation, 19. 21 Croy’s hypothesis concerning a codex of Mark losing its outer page, thereby removing at one stroke the beginning and end, is certainly interesting, if unprovable (cf. Croy, Mutilation, 149-53]. Would this be enough to bring about damage that was irreparable? Probably not, since the outer page would still be in existence, allowing for a replacement copy of the text to be easily reconstructed. Further speculation about the specific nature of the damage is probably not fruitful. Oral History and the Beginning and End o f the Gospel o f M ark EQ • 29 in f o rm a tio n , a n d th e r e f o r e u n d e r e s tim a te s w h a t c a n b e a c h ie v e d b y o r a lity in a p r e d o m i n a n t l y i l l i t e r a t e s o c ie ty . J o a n n a D e w e y , f o r i n s t a n c e , s t a t e s : W e k n o w fro m s tu d ie s o f o ra l c u ltu r e s to d a y t h a t a s k ille d s to r y te lle r c o u ld h e a r a s to r y s u c h a s th e g o s p e l to ld o n c e a n d b e a b le to r e te ll th e w h o le n a r ­ ra tiv e . T h e n e w p e r f o r m a n c e w o u ld n o t b e w o r d - f o r - w o r d th e s a m e a s th e o rig in a l ( a lth o u g h th e s to r y te lle r m ig h t a s s e r t t h a t it w a s ), b u t it w o u ld b e s t r u c t u r a l l y t h e s a m e a n d r e t a i n m u c h o f t h e w o r d i n g . 22 A s a n e x a m p l e o f u n d e r e s t i m a t i n g o r a li ty , R o b e r t M c lv e r a n d M a r ie C a r r o l l r a n a s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s o n t e r t i a r y s t u d e n t s in a n a t t e m p t t o d e v e l o p c r i t e r i a f o r d e ­ t e r m i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f w r i t t e n s o u r c e s . 23 W h i l e t h e y b r i e f l y d i s c u s s t h e ‘s t r o n g c u ltu r a l d if fe r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e s tu d e n ts ta k in g p a r t in th e s e e x p e r im e n ts a n d t h e a n o n y m o u s w r i t e r s w h o p r o d u c e d t h e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s ’,24 t h e y c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i r c r i t e r i o n ( 'a n y s e q u e n c e o f e x a c t l y t h e s a m e 1 6 o r m o r e w o r d s t h a t i s n o t a n a p h o r i s m , p o e t r y , o r w o r d s t o a s o n g is a l m o s t c e r t a i n t o h a v e b e e n c o p i e d f r o m a w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t ’) c a n b e a p p l i e d t o t h e G o s p e l s a n d s o p r o v e t h a t c o p y i n g f r o m w r i t t e n s o u r c e s h a s t a k e n p l a c e . 25 H o w e v e r , 1 w o u l d c o n t e n d t h a t 2 1 s t - c e n t u r y W e s t e r n s t u d e n t s a r e n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o l s t - c e n t u r y M id d l e E a s t e r n p e o p l e s , r a i s e d in a p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o n - l i t e r a t e s o c ie ty . I t is a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h o r a l h i s t o r y f r o m o r a l t r a d i t i o n . A s J a n V a n s i n a p u t s it, T h e s o u rc e s o f o ra l h is to ria n s a re re m in is c e n c e s , h e a rsa y , o r e y e w itn e s s a c ­ c o u n t s a b o u t e v e n t s a n d s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h a r e c o n t e m p o r a r y , t h a t is , w h i c h o c c u r r e d d u r in g th e life tim e o f th e in f o r m a n ts . T h is d iffe rs fro m o ra l t r a d i ­ tio n s in t h a t o r a l tr a d i tio n s a r e n o lo n g e r c o n te m p o r a r y . T h e y h a v e p a s s e d f r o m m o u t h t o m o u t h , f o r a p e r i o d b e y o n d t h e l i f e t i m e o f t h e i n f o r m a n t s . 26 C l e a r ly t h e n , in t h e m i d d l e d e c a d e s o f t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y w h e n e y e w i t n e s s e s w e r e s h a r i n g t h e i r a c c o u n t s o f J e s u s , t h e y w e r e s h a r i n g o ra l history, t h e y w e r e n o t p a s s ­ in g o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n s t h a t h a d b e e n p a s s e d o n t o t h e m . E v e n i f t h e s e a c c o u n t s w e r e b e i n g p r o p a g a t e d b y n o n - e y e w i t n e s s e s , w e s ti ll c a n n o t t a l k o f t h i s a s o r a l t r a d i t i o n f o r t h e e y e w i t n e s s e s w e r e ( f o r t h e m o s t p a r t ) s t i l l a l iv e a n d t h e r e f o r e in a p o s i t i o n t o o f f e r ‘q u a l i t y c o n t r o l ’. T h i s w a s c e r t a i n l y t r u e f o r t h e p e r i o d u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e w r i t i n g o f a ll t h r e e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s .27 R i c h a r d B a u c k h a m p u t s i t a s f o llo w s : 2 2 J o a n n a D ew ey, 'M a rk a s A u ral N a rra tiv e : S tru c tu re s a s C lues to U n d e rs ta n d in g ' Theological Review 3 6 /1 (1 9 9 2 ), 4 5 - 5 6 (47 ). Sewanee 2 3 R o b e rt M c lv er a n d M arie C arroll, ‘E x p e rim e n ts to D ev elo p C rite ria fo r D e te rm in in g th e E x iste n ce o f W ritte n S o u rces, a n d th e ir P o te n tia l Im p lic atio n s fo r th e S y n o p tic P ro b lem ', Journal o f Biblical Literature 1 2 1 / 4 (2 0 0 2 ), 6 6 7 -8 7 . 2 4 Ibid., 6 7 7 . 2 5 Ibid., 6 8 0 . T h ey id e n tify 9 s u c h p as s a g e s. 2 6 Jan V an sin a, 1 2 -1 3 . Oral Tradition as History (W isc o n sin : U n iv e rsity o f W isc o n sin P re s s 1 9 8 5 ) 2 7 L uke is u su ally s a id to b e th e la s t o f th e S y n o p tic g o s p e ls to b e w ri tte n . In h is p ro lo g u e, L uke sp e cific ally r e fe rs to ‘e y e w itn e s s e s a n d s e rv a n ts o f th e w o rd ' (L u k e 1:2). 30 • EQ Ben C h enow eth If... the period between the 'historical' Jesus and the Gospels was actually spanned, not by anonymous community transmission, but by the continuing presence and testimony of the eyewitnesses, who remained the authoritative sources of their traditions until their deaths, then the usual ways of thinking of oral tradition are not appropriate at all... So, in imagining how the tradi­ tions reached the Gospel writers, not oral tradition but eyewitness testimony should be our principal model.28 As the earlier quotation from Vansina makes clear, oral history is a cover term that includes eyewitness testimony. One illustrative example of this very process comes from one of the tantalising snippets we have of Papias's lost work, Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. In an excerpt from the prologue to his five-book work, recorded for us in Eusebius’s Ec­ clesiastical History, we read Papias’s own testimony concerning the value he placed on oral history in the period towards the end of the first century: I shall not hesitate also to put into properly ordered form for you [singular] everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down well, for the truth of which 1 vouch. For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who re­ member the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I enquired about the words of the elders— [that is,] what [according to the elders] Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as in­ formation from a living and surviving voice [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4],29 The interpretation of this passage is debated, particularly regarding the period of time Papias is referring to and to the identification of ‘the elders'. However, Bauckham's conclusion, following a distinction in the tense of the verbs 'said' and ‘were saying’, is reasonable: The time when [Papias] collected oral traditions deriving from disciples of Jesus was in the past. At that time most of the disciples of Jesus had died, but at least two such disciples, Aristion and John the Elder were still alive. This must be during or close to the decade 80-90 CE.30 During this period, then, Papias sought whenever possible to hear and record the 'living and surviving voice’ of those who had been with Jesus, apparently transmit­ ted through others since Papias himself was apparently unable to travel to hear 28 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 8. 29 This translation comes from Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 15-16. 30 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 19. Oral History and the Beginning and End o f the Gospel o f M ark EQ • 31 these eyewitnesses personally. What is most interesting, however, is the contrast Papias sets up between this ‘living and surviving voice' and ‘information from books’. Bauckham makes a good case that Papias is not specifically stating a preference for oral history over against written gospels, at least two of which Papias was familiar with by the time he wrote. Rather, he argues that Papias is speaking of the best practice of historians here: His preference for the testimony of eyewitnesses, obtained at second or third hand, is therefore that of a historian, for whom, if direct autopsy was not available (i.e., the historian himself was not present at the events), indirect autopsy was more or less essential.31 How does this inform our thoughts about why the Gospel of Mark was written and why it was not more carefully looked after? Simply this: if someone like Papias, living towards the end of the first century, valued the testimony of eyewitnesses (most of whom had died by his time) over and above written sources, how much more would this be the case in the 60s when many more of the eyewitnesses were still alive? I would therefore suggest this strong preference for oral history and the unrepaired damage that Mark’s Gospel sustained are related. III. Two interrelated proposals My understanding of the relationship between Mark's Gospel and the oral history of the early church rests on two interrelated proposals. The first proposal relates to the nature of the oral history that was being propagated by the early church during the years between the first Pentecost and the writing of the Gospels. The content of this oral history is not in dispute, for it is the material that makes up the Gospels. However, I propose that the form of this oral history did not consist solely of a cloud of disparate and unconnected stories about Jesus. Rather, this oral his­ tory also included an overarching structure: that the eyewitnesses recounted, not an unconnected collection of stories about Jesus that later evangelists then ordered and shaped into their own narratives, but the story of Jesus. Starting with John the Baptist and Jesus's baptism, the eyewitnesses recounted highlights of Jesus’s min­ istry and teaching, before describing in greater detail the Passion and Resurrection, finishing with the commissioning of the apostles. I find it frankly incredible that the early church did not tell at least some of the stories of Jesus within an overarch­ ing framework, as opposed to the traditional form-critical understanding involving individual pericopes being passed down from one generation to the next as com­ pletely separate units that the Gospel writers then stitched together as they saw fit. 31 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 27. See also Loveday Alexander, ‘The Living Voice: Scepticism Towards the Written Word in Early Christianity and in Greco-Roman Texts’, in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration o f Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University o f Sheffield, ed. by David J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 220-47 (244): 'it is the "living voice" of the teacher that has priority: the text both follows that voice (as a record of teaching already given) and stands in a subordinate position to it.’ Ben C h en o w eth 32 • EQ In s u p p o r t o f a v e r y s im ila r p r o p o s a l, J o a n n a D e w e y n o t e s t h a t 's t u d i e s fr o m th e fie ld s o f fo lk lo re , o r a l tr a d i t i o n , a n d o r a l h i s t o r y a ll s u g g e s t t h a t t r a d i t i o n s a r e lik e ly to c o a le s c e in to a c o n tin u o u s n a r r a t i v e o r n a r r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k q u ite q u ic k ly . ' 32 S h e t h e r e f o r e c o n c lu d e s t h a t e a r ly o r a l C h r is tia n ity w o u ld d e v e lo p a c o n n e c t e d o r a l n a r r a t i v e a b o u t J e s u s . I n d iv id u a ls u n d o u b t e d l y w o u ld te ll p a r t i c u l a r e p i s o d e s o f t h e s t o r y o n p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n s , b u t s t o r y t e l l e r s w o u ld s o o n c o m b in e t h e m in to lo n g e r s e q u e n c e s . O n e p e r f o r m a n c e w o u ld b u il d o n a n o t h e r p e r f o r m a n c e , in e a c h c a s e v a r y in g a n d a d a p t i n g to t h e p a r t i c u l a r a u d ie n c e , a n d t h e c o n t i n u o u s n a r ­ r a tiv e w o u ld g ro w . T h is is t h e ty p ic a l w a y t a l e s a r e d e v e lo p e d . 33 In fac t, a c c o r d in g to V a n s in a , f a c tu a l t r a d i t i o n s [ w h a t V a n s in a c a lls a c c o u n ts ) , te n d to c o m e t o g e t h e r m o r e q u i c k ly t h a n fic ti o n a l t r a d i t i o n s [ ta le s a n d e p ic s ) ; a n d o n c e a c c o u n ts a r e f o r m e d th e y c h a n g e le s s . B u t, in te r e s ti n g ly , th e y s till c h a n g e a c c o r d in g to t h e n e e d s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . 34 W h e n w e c o m e to t h e ti m e p e r i o d w h e n M a rk ’s G o sp e l w a s w r i t t e n , s till w e ll w i t h i n th e lif e tim e o f m a n y o f t h e e y e w itn e s s e s , I s e c o n d ly p r o p o s e t h a t t h i s G o s p e l is a snapshot o f t h e o r a l h i s t o r y t h a t c a m e to t h e e v a n g e lis t, a l r e a d y w i t h a n o v e r ­ a r c h in g g o s p e l s t r u c t u r e in t e r m s o f t h e g e n e r a l o r d e r o f p e r ic o p e s . T h is n e e d n o t h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n d o w n a s a w o o d e n ly - d ic ta te d t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o r a l h is to ry . R a th e r, fo llo w in g K e n n e th E. B a ile y ’s 'i n f o r m a l c o n t r o l l e d ’ o r a l t r a d i t i o n m o d e l , 35 t h e w r i t t e n t e x t o f M a rk ’s G o s p e l is t h e e v a n g e lis t’s o w n p e r s o n a l r e te llin g o f t h a t o r a l h is to r y . W it h in t h i s m o d e l, t h e r e t e l l e r o f t h e o r a l h i s t o r y is p e r m i t t e d to u s e t h e i r o w n w o r d s a s a p p r o p r i a t e (h o w e v e r , n o te t h a t t h e w o r d s o f J e s u s a r e o f te n r e c o u n t e d w i t h m o r e fix ity ) a n d p o s s ib ly e v e n to r e a r r a n g e t h e o r d e r o f in d iv id u a l s to r ie s . Y et t h i s r e te llin g o f t h e o r a l h i s t o r y h a s to r e m a i n w i t h i n t h e c o n tr o lle d b o u n d s o f t h e o r a l h i s t o r y f r a m e w o r k . T h is s e c o n d p r o p o s a l, t h e n , f in d s in itia l s u p ­ p o r t in t h e w i d e s p r e a d r e c o g n itio n o f t h e o r a l fl a v o u r o f M a rk ’s g o s p e l a n d t h e fa c t t h a t M a rk ’s g o s p e l c a n b e r e a d o u t lo u d in it s e n t i r e t y to g r e a t e ffe ct. W e r n e r H. K e lb e r p r o v id e s a h e lp f u l l is t o f a n u m b e r o f s ty li s ti c a n d r h e t o r i c a l f e a t u r e s il l u s t r a t i n g t h e o r a l f la v o u r o f M a rk ’s G o sp el, in c lu d in g t h e u s e o f t r ia d s , t h e u s e o f t h e t h i r d p e r s o n p lu r a l, 'e x c e s s iv e ’ e m p lo y m e n t o f t h e h i s to r ic a l p r e s e n t , p r e f e r e n c e fo r d i r e c t s p e e c h , a n d p a r e n t h e t i c a l c la u s e s . ‘T h e ir c u m u la ti v e e f fe c t in M a rk a d d s v i v id n e s s to t h e n a r r a tiv e . A s fo r t h e q u a lity o f M a rk 1s G re ek , fin ally , i t is a c o m m o n p la c e t h a t it is r e m o v e d fr o m A ttic e le g a n c e a n d m o r e a k in to a c o llo q u ia l 3 2 J o a n n a D e w e y , 'T h e S u rv iv a l o f M a r k ’s G o sp e l: A G o o d S to r y T, Journal o f Biblical Literature 1 2 3 / 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , 4 9 5 - 5 0 7 ( 5 0 0 ) . S h e c it e s T h o r le i f B o m a n , der neueren Volkskunde Die Jesus-Uberlieferung im Lichte (G o tt in g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p re c h t, 1 9 6 7 ), a s c o n c lu d in g 't h a t n o h is to r i c a l le g e n d e v e r e m e r g e d o u t o f in d iv id u a l it e m s t h a t c ir c u la t e d f o r d e c a d e s in d e p e n d e n tl y , b u t r a t h e r g r e w in t o a n a r r a t i v e a b o u t t h e p e rs o n '. S im ilarly , Ja n V a n s in a n o t e s t h a t tr a d i t i o n s 'a d h e r e to th e " g r e a t m a n ”' (V a n s in a , Oral Tradition as History, 1 0 8 ). 3 3 D e w e y , 'T h e S u rv iv a l o f M a r k 's G o sp e l', 5 0 1 . 3 4 V a n s in a , Oral Tradition as History, 17. 3 5 K e n n e th E. B ailey , 'I n fo r m a l C o n tr o lle d O ra l T ra d it io n a n d t h e S y n o p tic G o s p e ls ', 2 0 / 2 (1 9 9 5 ) , 4 - 1 1 . Themelios Oral History and the Beginning and End o f the Gospel o f M ark EQ • 33 version of Koine Greek.'36 However, Kelber goes on to claim that the act of writing the Gospel down reduced the oral nature of the text; Kelber refers to this as 'the linearization of language '.37 He therefore rejects the notion that Mark's Gospel is an ‘oral gospel ’.38 In response to this, Dewey provides an excellent sum mary of the various oral composition techniques still evidenced in Mark’s Gospel: The story consists of happenings that can be easily visualized and thus read­ ily remembered. It consists of short episodes connected paratactically. The narrative is additive and aggregative. Teaching is not gathered into discours­ es according to topic but rather em bedded in short narratives, which is the way oral cultures remem ber teaching... Rather than linear plot development, the structure consists of repetitive patterns, series of three parallel episodes, concentric structures, and chiastic structures. Such structures are character­ istic of oral literature, helping the performer, the audience, and new perform ­ ers and audiences rem em ber and transm it the material. From what we know of oral literature there is no reason why it could not have been composed and transm itted in oral form .39 This leads her to conclude 'that Mark is building on an existing oral narrative tradi­ tion of some sort—not connecting the disparate episodes of the synoptic tradition for the first tim e ’.40 Larry Hurtado notes additional evidence, contra Kelber; R. B. Hays has shown persuasively that Paul’s argument in Galatians presup­ poses a familiarity with a story of Jesus, that the Pauline kerygma included 'a basic narrative pattern similar to that which informs the canonical gospels,’ and that Paul's letters 'm ark a point within a historical developm ent towards [emphasis his] the formulation of "gospels," i.e., explicitly literary articula­ tions of the Jesus-story .’41 36 W erner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel [Philadelphia: F ortress Press, 1983), 66. Kelber goes on to discuss repetition [6 6 -6 8 ) and a lack of characterisation (6 8 -7 0 ) as tw o additional features of orality. 37 Cf. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, 106-107. 38 Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, 77. Kelber traces th e origins of th is idea back to Johann Gottfried Herder, before quickly rejecting it. As will be seen shortly, my in terrelated proposals posit quite a different reason for the existence of M ark's gospel as a literary w ork to Herder. However, Kelber’s argum entation against H erder struck me as special pleading: 'M ark’s stories, moreover, are im pressive by th e ir heterogeneity... Given this heterogeneity, th ere exists no im perative need for th e telling of a single, com prehensive sto ry about Jesus. There is as little desire in orality for the ethical data to be added up into a system atic schem e as th e re is for the little stories to be com bined into th e "full" story.' (Kelber, 79) This quotation illustrates precisely w hat I said earlier ab o u t th e m odern tendency to u n d erestim ate orality. 39 Dewey, ‘The Survival of M ark's Gospel’, 499. 40 Joanna Dewey, ‘Oral M ethods of S tructuring N arrative in Mark', Interpretation 4 3 /1 (1989), 3 2 -4 4 (44). 41 Larry Hurtado, 'Greco-Roman Textuality and th e Gospel of Mark: A Critical A ssessm ent of Ben C h e n o w e th 34 • EQ H e g o e s o n t o o b s e r v e t h a t t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y a u t h o r i a l s e l f - d is c lo s u r e (c f. L u k e 1 : 1 - 4 ) o r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n (c f. J o h n 2 1 : 2 4 ) i s 'a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e a u t h o r s a w th e w o r k a s n o t s im p ly h is o w n b u t r a t h e r a te x t t h a t in c o r p o r a te d th e c o n te n ts a n d g e n e ra l s h a p e o f th e J e s u s tra d itio n a lre a d y in c irc u la tio n a m o n g a t le a s t s o m e C h r i s t i a n g r o u p s ’.42 T h e s e t w o i n t e r l o c k i n g p r o p o s a l s a r e c e r t a i n l y n o t n e w . 43 O v e r t h e y e a r s , a n u m ­ b e r o f s c h o l a r s h a v e a r g u e d a lo n g s im ila r lin e s . In 1 9 9 1 , E ta L in n e m a n n s ta te d : B e h in d w h a t t h e G o s p e ls r e p o r t s t a n d t h e w o r d s a n d d e e d s o f J e s u s . T h a t is th e s o u r c e o f s im il a r itie s in c o n te n t a n d s e q u e n c e o f t h e p e r ic o p e s . T h e G o s­ p e ls a ll h a v e th e s a m e f o u n d a tio n : W h a t J e s u s s a id , d id , a n d s u ffe re d ; t h a t le d i n e v i t a b l y t o s i m i l a r i t i e s i n c o n t e n t . 44 S h e w e n t o n to d is tin g u is h b e tw e e n o rig in a l tr a d itio n (th e v e r b a l re c o lle c tio n s o f e y e w itn e s s e s e x p r e s s e d to o th e r s o ra lly a n d e v e n p o s s ib ly in w r itin g ) , s e c o n d a r y tra d itio n (e y e w itn e s s te s tim o n y w r itte n d o w n b y s o m e o n e w h o w a s n o t a n e y e ­ w i tn e s s ) , a n d g a th e r e d c o r p o r a te r e c o lle c tio n s (in w h ic h t h e r e c o lle c tio n s o f m a n y w i t n e s s e s a r e c o l l a t e d ) . 45 I t i s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f L i n n e m a n n ' s f i r s t a n d t h i r d o p t i o n s th a t I am s u g g e s tin g o c c u r r e d in th e e a r ly c h u r c h u n d e r th e a u th o r ity a n d s u p e r ­ v i s io n o f t h e T w e lv e (c f. A c ts 1 : 2 1 - 2 6 ; 6 : 2 - 4 ) , w i t h t h e i n p u t o f a ll o f t h e e y e w i t ­ nesses, in oral form. A s R o b e r t M c lv e r p u t s it, T h e s tro n g so c ia l c o h e s io n k n o w n to e x is t in f i r s t- c e n tu r y M e d ite rr a n e a n g r o u p s , a n d v i s i b l e in t h e b o o k o f A c ts , u n d o u b t e d l y l e d t o a s t r o n g c o lle c tiv e m e m o r y o f th e te a c h in g s a n d d e e d s o f th e o n e c e n tra l to th e e x is te n c e o f th e g ro u p s : Je su s. T h a t e y e w itn e s s a c c o u n ts b o th c o n trib u te d to th is p ro c e s s a n d e n s u r e d th a t th e tr a d itio n s d id n o t s tr a y to o fa r fro m th e re a lity o f th e m e m o ­ r i e s o f J e s u s c a n b e t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d . 46 T h e n , in h is c o n c lu d in g c h a p te r M c lv e r s ta te s : T h e r e lia b ility o f th e w r itte n d o c u m e n ts t h a t e v e n tu a lly g r e w o ra l tra d itio n s s te m s fro m o u t o f th e s e th e in t e r s e c t io n o f t h e c o lle c tiv e m e m o r y o f t h e e a r lie s t fo llo w e rs o f Je su s, e y e w itn e s s m e m o rie s , a n d th e p ro c e s s o f r e p e ti­ tio n a n d re h e a r s a l th a t c o n s titu te d th e te a c h in g m e th o d o lo g y a lm o s t c e r­ ta in ly a d o p te d b y t h e s u r v iv in g d is c ip le s a n d o t h e r e a r ly C h ris tia n te a c h e r s . I w o u ld g o s o f a r a s to d e s c r ib e t h e te a c h in g t r a d itio n s a s c a re f u lly c o n tr o lle d W e r n e r K e l b e r 's 9 1 -1 0 6 The Oral and the Written Gospel’, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 7 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , R . B . H a y s , The Faith o f jesus Christ ( S B L D S 5 6 ; C h i c o , C A : S c h o l a r s (9 9 ) , c itin g P re s s, 1 9 8 3 ), e s p . 2 5 6 -5 8 . 42 H u r t a d o , ‘G r e c o - R o m a n T e x t u a l i t y a n d t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k ’, 1 0 1 . 43 C f ., f o r e x a m p l e , t h e c i t a t i o n s f r o m 44 Is There A Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels ( G r a n d R a p i d s : B a k e r B o o k H o u s e , 1 9 9 1 ) , 1 5 9 . 45 Ib id ., 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 . 46 R o b e r t K. M c lv e r, J o a n n a D e w e y a n d L a rr y H u r ta d o . E ta L in n e m a n n , Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels L ite r a tu r e , 2 0 1 1 ) , 1 2 8 . (A tla n ta : S o c ie ty o f B ib lic a l O ra l H isto ry a n d th e Beginning a n d End o f th e Gospel o f M a rk EQ • 35 o r a l t r a d i t i o n . 47 B a u c k h a m , to o , h a s a r g u e d f o r s o m e t h i n g o f t h i s n a t u r e : W h e n w e r e c o g n iz e t h i s c e n t r a l s ig n i f ic a n c e o f t h e J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h f o r t h e C h r is ti a n m o v e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t P a le s ti n e a n d t h e D ia s p o r a , i t b e c o m e s o b ­ v io u s t h a t i t m u s t h a v e h a d a k e y p la c e in t h e f o r m u l a t i o n a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n o f J e s u s t r a d i t i o n s , e s p e c ia ll y a s , in t h e e a r l y y e a r s , m o s t o f t h o s e C h r is tia n l e a d e r s w h o h a d b e e n d is c ip le s o f J e s u s w e r e b a s e d t h e r e , a lo n g w i t h o t h e r e y e w i t n e s s e s w h o m a y n o t h a v e b e e n in t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e m o v e m e n t b u t w h o s e e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y to t h e w o r d s o f J e s u s a n d t h e e v e n t s o f h i s s t o r y w e r e v a lu e d . I n t h i s c o n t e x t t h e s p e c ia l r o le o f t h e T w e lv e a s a b o d y o f o f f ic ia l w i t n e s s e s , a s L u k e d e p i c t s i t in A c ts ... is r e a d il y in te lli g i b l e . W e s h o u l d p r o b ­ a b ly e n v is a g e a c a r e f u ll y c o m p i l e d a n d f o r m u l a t e d c o ll e c ti o n o f J e s u s t r a d i ­ t io n s , i n c o r p o r a t i n g o t h e r i m p o r t a n t e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y a s w e ll a s t h a t o f t h e T w e lv e th e m s e l v e s , b u t a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e T w e lv e a s t h e o f f ic ia l b o d y o f w i t n e s s e s . 48 S im ila r ly , J a m e s D. G. D u n n a ls o g e t s q u i t e c lo s e to t h i s id e a w h e n h e s a y s ...th e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e S y n o p t ic t r a d i t i o n . . . is w e ll c a u g h t in t h e p h r a s e 't h e s a m e y e t d i f f e r e n t ’— t h e s a m e s t o r y to ld , b u t w i t h d if f e r e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c lu s i o n a n d d i f f e r e n t w o r d in g , t h e s a m e t e a c h i n g b u t d i f f e r e n tl y w o r d e d a n d d if f e r e n tl y g r o u p e d . I t w a s t h i s S y n o p t ic m a t e r i a l . . . w h ic h c o u ld n o w b e m a d e s e n s e o f in t e r m s o f o r a l t r a d i t i o n . T h a t m a te ria l w a s o ra l tra d itio n , i ts d i v e r s i t y f r o z e n in t h e d if f e r in g v e r s i o n s o f t h e S y n o p t ic G o s p e ls . T h e m o d e l o f li t e r a r y i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e c o u ld e x p la in w e ll t h e S y n o p tic p a s s a g e s w h e r e th e r e w a s c lo se v e r b a l a g r e e m e n t. B u t th e lite r a r y m o d e l m a d e little s e n s e o f t h e p a s s a g e s w h e r e t h e v e r b a l a g r e e m e n t w a s le s s t h a n 4 0 % , s o m e t i m e s m u c h le s s . W h e r e a s t h e m o d e l o f o ra l t r a d i t i o n s e e m e d to m e e t t h e c a s e p r e ­ c is e ly . T h e o b v io u s c o n c lu s io n t o b e d r a w n is t h a t la rg e sections o f th e Synoptic tra d itio n a re the v a ry in g o ra l tra d itio n p u t in to w ritin g .49 B o th B a u c k h a m a n d D u n n w o r k f r o m B a ile y ’s in f o r m a l c o n t r o l l e d o r a l t r a d i t i o n m o d e l, a lth o u g h B a u c k h a m s e e s th e le a d e r s h ip o f th e J e r u s a le m c h u rc h a s p ro v id ­ in g t h e c o n tr o l, w h e r e a s D u n n f o l lo w s B a ile y in s e e i n g t h e c o m m u n i t y p r o v id in g t h e c o n tr o l. W h ile I w o u ld a g r e e w i t h B a u c k h a m o n t h i s p o i n t , w h e r e I d e p a r t f r o m t h e s e s c h o l a r s is t o a r g u e , in c o n c e r t w i t h J o a n n a D e w e y ( a n d p e r h a p s L a r r y H u r ­ ta d o ) , t h a t t h e w hole o f w h a t w e k n o w a s M a r k ’s G o s p e l w a s e s s e n t i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d a s o r a l h i s t o r y d u r i n g t h i s ti m e , o n ly b e i n g m a r g in a ll y a l t e r e d w h e n i t w a s c o m m i t ­ t e d t o w r it in g , a s M a r k p e r s o n a l l y r e t o l d t h e a c c o u n t o f J e s u s w i t h i n t h e b o u n d s 4 7 Ib id ., 1 8 5 . 4 8 B auck ham , Eyewitnesses, 2 9 9 . R o b e r t K. M c l v e r ’s a r t i c l e ’E y e w i tn e s s e s a s G u a r a n t o r s o f t h e A c c u r a c y o f th e G o s p e l T r a d i t i o n s in t h e L ig h t o f P s y c h o lo g ic a l R e s e a r c h 'Journal Biblical Literature of 1 3 1 / 3 ( 2 0 1 2 ) , 5 2 9 - 4 6 , p r o v i d e s a p o s i ti v e a s s e s s m e n t o f B a u c k h a m ’s p r e s e n t a t i o n , in r e s p o n s e to m o r e n e g a t i v e a s s e s s m e n t s . 4 9 J a m e s D. G. D u n n , e m p h a s i s o r i g in a l . The Oral Gospel Tradition ( G r a n d R a p id s : E e r d m a n s , 2 0 1 3 ) , 3 0 6 , 36 • EQ Ben C h en o w eth permitted by those exercising control over the oral history. In support of these interrelated proposals, that the Gospel of Mark is a snapshot of an oral history that included an overarching narrative structure, I now submit that valuable piece of data from before: that Mark’s Gospel sustained damage and was not immediately repaired. As argued earlier, if the Gospel had been perceived to be valuable in and of itself (for example, if the Gospel had been commissioned by a church or an individual, like Luke’s Gospel) then surely it would have been dupli­ cated and distributed before it came to be damaged. However, as far as the evidence that we have in the textual history, it was not. The best explanation for this is that the oral history of the eyewitnesses, still readily available in the churches at that time, was seen as superior (or at the very least, of equal value) to Mark’s written version. This would explain why Mark’s gospel was not immediately duplicated in full as soon as it was written down: it was not seen as replacing the oral history of the eyewitnesses. Later though, at a time when more of the eyewitnesses were dying and their eyewitness testimony was becoming unavailable as a result, and when as a consequence the gospels of Matthew and Luke were commissioned, written, and circulated, Mark’s Gospel was itself 'rescued', and only then was it copied and circulated, but only in its already damaged form. It could be additionally argued that when Matthew and Luke came to be written, the authors of these gospels did not follow Mark’s Gospel—indeed, they may not have even known of Mark’s Gospel—but these gospels are themselves later snap­ shots of the same oral history that Mark used, although from a time some years later. However, Matthew and Luke, in their attempts to preserve more of the eye­ witness testimony that was being lost at that time, also incorporate additional oral material that was not part of the overarching gospel structure.50 The fact that the early church made copies of all three Synoptic Gospels, despite the fact that 95% of Mark’s content can be found in Matthew and Luke, implies that Mark’s Gospel was recognised to be a unique instance of the oral history and therefore of value in and of itself. As such, these interlocking proposals regarding the oral history origins of Mark's Gospel could actually lead to a workable solution of the Synoptic Problem. 50 In the Documentary Hypothesis these additional sources of oral material are referred to as ‘Q’ (material common to Matthew and Luke), ’M’ (material unique to Matthew), and ‘L’ (material unique to Luke). However, following my hypothesis, there is no need to posit three distinct sources; all of this material simply comes from the general pool of oral history not already incorporated into the overarching narrative structure. See, for example, James D. G. Dunn’s fascinating article 'Q1as Oral Tradition’, in The Written Gospel, ed. by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 4569, where Dunn concludes that ’the material as we still have it reflects the flexibility of oral performance, of teachers drawing upon resources of Jesus tradition, much at least of it shared with other churches and teachers, and reteaching it with variant details and emphases which reflect their own idiosyncrasies, the vagaries of live performance and the need of particular congregations.’ (69) O r a l H is to r y a n d t h e B e g in n in g a n d E n d o f t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k EQ • 37 IV. Epilogue We are still left with one unanswered question: why was Mark’s Gospel commit­ ted to papyrus if it was not commissioned? That is, why was a w r i t t e n snapshot of the oral history of the eyewitnesses made at all? Unfortunately, the only answers to this question will be speculative. Personally, I can conceive of the possible need of an a id e d e m e m o ir e for someone who wanted to be able to recount the story of Jesus orally but whose memory was not up to the task.51 Whatever the reason, 1 am thankful that the writer took the time to make their written copy. For once the document was seen for what it was—an instance of the early church's oral his­ tory—it has come down to us as its own witness of the account of Jesus’s ministry, passion and resurrection. Abstract The textual status of Mark’s Gospel, specifically the fact that the beginning and end of this gospel were lost at a very early stage, sheds light on the period of time when the stories concerning Jesus’s ministry, death, and resurrection were being trans­ mitted orally. It is proposed that during this time the oral history of Jesus came to include an overarching ‘gospel’ structure, and that Mark’s Gospel is essentially a s n a p s h o t of this oral history, marginally altered as Mark personally retold the ac­ count of Jesus within the bounds permitted by those exercising control over the oral history. Support for these interrelated proposals comes from the fact that Mark’s Gospel sustained damage and was not immediately repaired: it was not seen as replacing the oral history of the eyewitnesses. However, later (when the eyewitnesses were dying out) Mark’s Gospel was rescued, copied, and circulated, but only in its already damaged form. 51 For an exploration of this scenario in historical fictional form, see Ben Chenoweth, R om e Gospel (Melbourne: MST Press, 2017). The Copyright of Evangelical Quarterly is the property of Paternoster Periodicals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.