Bible as Literature, Sixth Blog Question

You’re talking to both your friends from before—the nervous believer and the cranky atheist. You’re at the Beanery. It’s late at night.

And they’re both agreeing, with each other, amazingly. The nervous believer says, “well, maybe what you’ve been saying about showing versus telling and the spareness of the language and all that kind of stuff is true for Genesis and the Old Testament. Maybe. I’m not sure. But I know it’s not true for the New Testament. Not for the Gospels! Those couldn’t be clearer! Everything is spelled out and everything is obvious and all you have to do is go to a chapter and read it. You’ll know exactly what to do with your life. You’ll be completely at ease.”

“Right,” says the atheist. “Exactly right. And that’s the problem: no brains, no headaches.”

You clear your throat. Take a sip of coffee.

“Actually, you’re both wrong. The Gospels are a different genre, that’s true. And they’re written in Greek, not in Hebrew. There are lots of important differences. But when you get down to the particulars, they, too, are pretty darned spare and they too show a lot more than they tell. There’s much, much, much that’s like Genesis in style and form.”

Explain. And as you explain, quote a particular example from the Gospel of Mark. And use this quotation from the literary critic and Biblical scholar Reynolds’ Price. (You just happen to have this handy):

What matters to Mark is what mattered to the great writers of Genesis. Their central concern, first and last, is with the literal line which human action makes on the surface of time and place. . . The old authors share the ancient trust of all those who bet their entire hand on story, whether oral or written, the thin compelling thread of an action that is worth our attention.