Geyer on Moeser's Anecdote in Mark

8/12/2019 Geyer on Moeser's Anecdote in Mark

1/6

RBL 08/2003

Moeser, Marion C.

The Anecdote in Mark, the Classical World and the Rabbis

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 227

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Pp. 288. Hardcover. $105.00. ISBN 0826460593.

Douglas W. Geyer

Evanston, IL 60202

The author has published a minor revision of a dissertation completed at theUniversity of Notre Dame in 1998 under the direction of Adela Yarbo Collins.Her book is written in a clear style, its flow of ideas engaging and easy to follow.A literary definition is posited, a set of criteria is established, and an analysisineluctably moves through proscribed sets of material with assured results. Thebooks arguments are stated well and compiled plausibly. The whole enterprisehas a very circumspect feel to it; the book takes few chances of unwarrantedleaps in argument. Conclusions are stated only after much supporting evidenceis set down. We find here a strong commitment to examination of the Gospel of

Mark, and one can but only thank the author and her adviser for an exemplar ofcareful craftsmanship.

Primary texts under examination are Lucian Demonax, Mishnah Moed Qatan(especially early stories about Rabbi Gamaliel II), and Mark 8:2710:45. There arealso expansive forays into Aelius Theon Progymnasmata and related ancienttestimonies concerning epideictic rhetoric. From Greek and Latin rhetoricians,the author uncovers many nuances of argumentation thought possible bypresentation of chreiai(useful stories) and diegemata(narratives).

Critical to the authors project is her definition of anecdote, repeated throughout

the book but first fully stated on page 20:

A brief narrative, either oral or written, describing an incident, including itssetting, which involves one or more persons and which focuses on an action,saying, or dialogue; the function of an anecdote is to entertain, instruct,relate an historical incident, characterize a person, or authoritatively

This review was published by RBL !2003 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on

obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.


2/6

legitimate a specific opinion, a specific practice, or a broader view ofreality.

In chapter 1, this definition emerges after engagement with issues of literarygenre as previously treated by a variety of scholars, including K. Berger,D. Hellholm, D. Aune, and A. Jolles. According to the author, anecdotes must begrasped in their full content, form, and function; otherwise, they will not beproperly understood. Seen in this way, anecdotes can be examined betweencultures. While people, places, and things may vary from group to group,general transformative rules about content, form, and function do not change.Anecdotes are small units of genre that fit into larger host genres, in which theyplay their own smaller rhetorical or logical roles. Anecdotes function well ineither oral or written contexts. The author compares Walter Ongs work on the

nature of oral communication with the plain style discussed in Demetrius OnStyle,noting similarities between them.

Chapter 2 is the part of the book that breaks open the classical world mentionedin the title. It contains reviews of ancient Greek and Latin testimonies aboutnarrative genres, to see if anything from the ancient period is like the definitionproposed by the author. Several ancient rhetorical genres are said to come close:apomnemoneuma, apophthegma, paradeigma, and chreia. A turn to TheonProgymnasmata reveals ten rhetorical units discussed therein, includingparadeigma (exemplum), aphorismos, gnome (sententia), apophthegma, apomnemoneuma

(commentario), and chreia. After comparison and development of a typologyincluding all these rhetorical units, Theons chreiais determined to be the genrecorresponding most to anecdote (71). Theon proposed three types of chreiai: logika(saying chreia), praktika (action chreia), and mixed. Hermogenes of Tarsus laterproposed exercises in use of the types of chreiai, illustrating one exercise calledergasia(elaboration) through which one might bring a chreiainto the service of anencomium, paraphrase, argument from the opposite, argument from analogy,argument from example, argument from authority, or exhortation to heed onewho spoke or acted (paraklesis). The book also reviews other ancient testimoniesabout the elaboration of a chreiaas found in Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Rhetorica ad

Herennium,Nicolaus of Myra. We discover that in antiquity, anecdotes served avariety of purposes, purposes that were consciously discussed and outlined byrhetoricians.

This fact may not come as a great surprise to anyone familiar with Greek andLatin literature, or perhaps any literature whatsoever. However, the authorsburden is to identify and describe ancient anecdotes with detailed definitions




3/6

and criteria that are genuinely period-relevant. Using these results, she examinesLucian Demonaxand reports that in it are no less than fifty-two anecdotes, mostly

chreiaiof each of Theons three types, though primarily the saying-chreiatype (94).The anecdotes (chreiai) fit within the bigger rhetorical genres in Demonax andthereby function either as direct snapshots or as paradeigmata of the literarysubject. They provide information with which to establish the character (ethos) ofthe Demonax. Some anecdotes also establish relevant information about thesetting and times of Demonax (1036).

Turning in chapter 3 to Mishnah Moed Qatan and early stories about RabbiGamaliel II, the author focuses her definition of anecdote on a very different kindof documentation. Unfortunately, even given ancient testimonies about theexistence of the bet ha-midrash in Hellenistic cities, we do not have textual

evidence of rabbinic schoolbooks like Progymnasmata by which we mightestablish period-relevant rabbinic rhetorical theory. But in lieu of that, there isthe work of Jacob Neusner, whose form analyses of Mishnah are foundational forthe book. Especially important are his approaches to sifting out three levels oftradition within the Mishnah. The earliest level contains attributions (Xsaid Z),while latter levels contain attestations (Y said that Xused to say Z). Using herown definition of anecdote, the author counts 180 anecdotes in the Mishnah.They all function within legal arguments. Forty-one of them are in Moed Qatan,making this division the most appealing in the Mishnah for narrative analyses. Inall of Mishnah, there are thirty-six stories about Rabbi Gamaliel II, making stories

about him the most accessible for narrative analyses. Anecdotes are introducedin Mishnah with two basic formulas: maa!ehandpm ht. Both tend to introducesimilar genres. The maa!eh formula typically introduces a brief story includingpersons, settings, implicit or explicit questions, and verbal or action rulings ordemonstrations.

The author proposes a typology of Mishnah anecdotes (120), including recordedversusattested information and sayings versusactions versusdialogues/debates(or combinations thereof). It is also proposed that the Mishnah anecdotes alsofunction within a typology (124) and demonstrate several functions: setting a

precedent, proving from an authority, narrating a law, showing the origin of aruling, haggadah, providing collaborating testimony, and voicing contraryopinions. At least one of each type is found in Mishnah Moed Qatan.The authorreminds us that 47 percent of all early traditions about Rabbi Gamaliel II are innarrative forms that show him to have been a legal authority, a kind person ofmoderate means, and a pious and holy master with disciples (144). AlthoughMishnah stories introduced by maa!ehmay be viewed as hypothetically similar




4/6

to chreiai,the two types are essentially different. First, maa!eh stories focus on thesages concern about proper observance of Torah and legal rulings, whereas

chreiai focus on the character and value of a subjects way of life. Second,formally the maa!eh stories are quite brief, whereas chreiai are longer and manytimes are nested within other genres, often technically elaborated according tospecified rules.

It is in chapter 4 that we more or less find the books raison dtre:an examinationof what New Testament scholars have said before about anecdotes in the Gospeland how this author steps in to up the ante for seriously detailed study.Reviewed are previous form-critical approaches (M. Dibelius, R. Bultmann,M. Albertz, V. Taylor, A. Hultgren, W. Weiss, and R. Tannehill), rhetoricalapproaches (B. Mack and V. Robbins), and approaches that deliberately compare

rabbinic analogies to Gospel anecdotes (D. Daube, G. Porton, A. Avery-Peck,H. Fischel). Generally the conclusion is an acceptance of their strengths and anexhortation to go further. We find assessments such as although his work hadlimitations, Dibelius made an initial and lasting contribution (156), or despitethese criticisms, Bultmanns major, full-scale study of Gospel genres remains aninfluential piece of scholarship today (161), or the methods presented by Mackand Robbins in Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospelhave set an agenda for futureanalysis of Gospel anecdotes (180). The author is lukewarm about VincentTaylor. She writes that Wolfgang Weiss relied too much on previous scholarsand that he got wrong the distinction between chreia and apophthegma (172).

There is not much in this chapter that places any of these scholars in theirbroader theological or cultural contexts, something that would have been anadded bonus for readers. Instead, the author is all business here, focusingattention specifically on matters that pertain to form criticism and anecdotes.

Finally in chapter 5 we find exegesis of Mark. The book avoids the temptation tomove from literary criticism to proposals about historical realia of the author ofMark or the early church. We discover that the Gospel of Mark does notrepresent a single community but probably had a broad audience. Nobodyknows exactly where or when it was written. Although Mark may look like a

biography (D. Aune), it is not a work whose goal was to persuade an audienceabout the kind of life Jesus lived. Instead, the work was an apocalyptic historicalmonograph (A. Collins), with the emphasis on apocalyptic and historical.What once had been prophetically promised was finally unveiled in fulfillmentthrough a specific set of past occurrences implicating Jesus. A rationale ispresented for viewing Mark 8:2710:45 as a unit of analysis (199203), and afterthat the exegesis begins in earnest.




5/6

There are fourteen anecdotes in Mark 8:2710:45. Each is reviewed, its formdetermined, and whenever possible its correspondence to Theons typology

stated. Throughout the analyses, far more information from the classical worldis used than information from the rabbis. Peters Confession is a diegemawithan anecdote. The First Prediction is a mixed chreia, the saying containing anexplanation. Teaching about Discipleship is an elaborated chreia with anargument from authority (reference to scripture). Teaching about Discipleshipand Exorcism is two anecdotes and a collection of sayings, or a combined chreiaand a saying chreia.The Blessing of the Children is a mixed chreia.The Rich Manand Kingdom of God is an advanced confirmation saying chreia,consisting of adiegema containing an anecdote with dialogue and a dialogue with fourinterchanges. The Request of James/John and Reaction of the Ten is twoanecdotes forming a diegema, the second anecdote being an elaborated sayingchreiaarising from a specific situation. Seen in overview, the fourteen anecdotescontain eight chreiai(mostly saying chreiai), four dialogues, one debate, and onecombination dialogue and debate. The analyses are provided strictly in period-relevant literary and rhetorical terms, to the furthest extent possible. Theindividual anecdotes are each interpreted, usually with somewhat unsurprisingresults. In fact, once the formal characteristics of the anecdotes are nailed down,the exegesis of their meaning seems somewhat traditional and uncontroversial.

It is on pages 23942 that the reader might find answers to the question, Sowhat with all these formal identifications? There are purposes for rhetoric and

argumentation, and such purposes give one insight into why information iscompiled as it is. The anecdotes in Mark 8:2710:45 are viewed either as free-standing snapshots, parts of bigger diegemata, or elaborations/confirmations ofchreia, all compiled for purposes of argumentation. As such, the fourteenanecdotes function rhetorically (they make an argument for) to identify Jesusas (1) a persistent and persuasive teacher, (2) the Messiah (3) the suffering Son ofMan, (4) one who functions as a prophet, (5) a suffering as well as heavenlyMessiah whom disciples must negotiate, and (6) a man focused on his death andresurrection. The contents of these . . . anecdotes are therefore meant to shedlight on the meaning of Christian discipleship given Gods activity in Jesus,

Messiah and Son of Man (242).

Is this a conclusion that was in need of the monumental formal analysis thatpreceded it? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that what this exemplary book canreally do for us is point us to the narrative rhetoric and argumentation of theGospel of Mark as the domains of proper attention. Once we know thatanecdotes in Mark were compiled to argue certain points that might have been




6/6



up for debate, we have a better sense of what an apocalyptic historicalmonograph might entail. The anecdotes in Mark do not present dictums of

kerygma but conclusions from the weighing of alternative possibilities. Onceagain, we learn that a story is never just story.

Documents

Geyer on Moeser's Anecdote in Mark