Brodie, The Crucial Bridge - Elijah-Elisha narrative in Mark

Brodie, Thomas L. The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis - Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

The Gospels are clearly marked by Graeco-Roman ancient biography, but, "the Greco-Roman world does not have one particular account which by itself provides a credible model for the composition of the Gospels" (80).

Brodie argues instead that the Elijah-Elisha narrative provides this model.

Possible connections to Primary History (Gen-Kgs)

• 1.1, "the beginning" to Gen 1.1
• 1.1, "εὐαγγέλιου . . . Ἰῆσου Χρίστου to Rom 1.1
• 1.3-4, "voice cries . . ." to first and last books in the Prophets (Isa 40 and Mal 3) (all from Brodie, 86).

These might be a bit of a stretch, but perhaps we're not so used to listening to Mark's use of OT.

Mark work to reflect the whole range of Primary History (cf. Swartley's Israel's Scripture Traditions) in which "Mark gives a special role to the history's interpretive synthesis, to the Elijah-Elisha foundational model, through which to engage both the larger history and other sources" (86).

Jesus, in Mark, is not simple, but complex. He and his disciples "reflect the complexity and vitality of God. Jesus' identity as the Christ, for instance, is not a simple matter of information, of getting the fact straight, of telling it or keeping it secret. Rather, the secrecy is expressive of mystery, in a context where mystery indicates not a lack of truth but a great richness of it" (87).

History, in Mark, "has an extra mystery-filled divine dimension, and this dimension shows in people's lives" (87; such as the disciples who move from enthusiasm to unreliability to Peter's tears of repentance to a new sense of life upon hearing of Jesus' res.).

History and biography are at work in Mark. That Mark is biographical means "not that Mark gives a life of Jesus, but Mark uses Jesus' life to express the larger reality of history" (87) (While this may be true, there is often historiographic material found in ancient biographies, though the historical bits are included for the purpose of expressing the essence of the subject.)

"Thus biography is at the service of the portrayal of mystery-filled history." (87).

Caution is needed here. Burridge comes from a classical background, so he is more adept in finding Graeco-Roman elements in Mark's story. Brodie admits he has spent 25 years in the E-E narrative, and so is more likely to find strains of E-E throughout. However, E-E is more evident because 1) Elijah is explicitly mentioned at key points throughout the narrative, 2) Mark is writing a biography of Jesus who is a prophet in a long tradition of prophecy; his story fits into the continuing narrative of God's people from Abraham and on. Tread carefully so as to not be overly impressed with either side. It's complex because Mark is leaning on OT narratives, but expressing them through a narrative account of Jesus' actions and teachings, flavoured by Graeco-Roman ancient biography.

If Elijah and Elisha can be placed along side Moses as 'prophets like Moses' because they (or at least Elijah) renewed the old faith in YHWH, then perhaps the E-E narrative can legitimately be held as primary in Mark because Jesus, too, comes to renew the old faith in YHWH, to put it into new terms, into a new context, to call Israel again to obedience.

This is in support of Brodie's statement:
"the Elijah-Elisha narrative is also biographical. Its portrayal of history is accomplished largely through describing the lives of prophets, especially of Elijah and Elisha. Yet biography, as such, never dominates; it is subject to the more basic purpose of portraying the working of the divine in history" (88).

Brodie points to the length of Mark as evidence that E-E is behind its composition. (88) This is a little spurious. Mark fits well within the range of ancient biography, some of which (such as Plutarch) were meant to be heard in one sitting (cf. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then). Brodie suggests that "The similarity of length becomes even closer if parts of the Elijah-Elisha narrative--the formulaic reigns (esp. 2 Kgs 8:16-29; 13:1-13)--are regarded as padding" (88).

I find this unconvincing. It seems more likely that Mark would follow the conventions of his day. However, if, as some claim, Greek was not Mark's first language but Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps he would have been more familiar with Hebrew forms of literature, and thus he framed a Hebrew-minded text based on E-E in a contemporary literary form, namely, ancient biography.

Brodie makes an interesting point connecting the rate of expansion of Mark's episodes. They begin rather disconnected from one another, pieces of narrative, though coherently connected, broken into episodes and not always smoothly leading one into the next. However, when Jesus descends from his Transfig, the narrative becomes nearly unbroken, and from Jesus' clearing of the Temple to his crucifixion is a continuous narrative. This same phenomenon occurs in E-E. Episodic narrative until 2 Kgs 9-13, which proceeds as a single, continuous narrative. Could Mark be emulating E-E's style? (89)

Clear Connections as Key Points: Beginning, Middle, and End (Brodie, 90)

•  BEGINNING
• Malachi's messenger (Mk 1.2) is not anonymous; Mal id's the messenger as Elijah (Mal 3.1, 23)
• Other features recall Elijah: abrupt beginning, wilderness, the Jordan, prophetic speaker's external appearance, animals/ravens, angels, abrupt calling to discipleship (1 Kgs 17.3, 6; 19.4-8, 19-21; 2 Kgs 1.8)
• MIDDLE
• at center of E-E heavenly fire comes down on mt top (2 Kgs 1); fire carries Ej to heaven (2 Kgs 2).
• in Mark, mt-top drama is Transfiguration with heavenly light (rather than fire). The connection is intentional - Elijah's name is mentioned five times.
• END
• Mark's end is abrupt and enigmatic (16.8); Elisha's death and burial are enigmatic, including the dead man's rising to life (2 Kgs 13.21)
• Women flee from the tomb in Mark; pall-bearers flee from the tomb of Elisha
• Jesus is thought to call out to Elijah from the cross אלי אלי rather than אליה אליה.
  (91)

 Further Structural Links

• The way particular events and miracles occur in Mark mirrors or emulates those in E-E. 
• Jesus heals a leper. The only other person to do this in OT/NT is Elijah (Naaman).
• Feeding the 5000/3000 with loaves and fish; multiplying of loaves by Elisha (2 Kgs 4.42-44) (Rather than manna with Moses? I didn't remember his story of Elisha.)
• The focus of Mark and E-E both turn toward the Temple at the end of their narratives (2 Kgs 10.18-27; chs. 11-12)
• anointing and conspiracy (2 Kgs 9.1-11; Mk 14.1-14)
• accession (cheering; cloaks on the ground (2 Kgs 9.12-13; Mk 11.7-10)
• pause before taking over the temple (2 Kgs 12.5-17; Mk 12.41-44);
• challenging authorities (2 Kgs 9.22-10.27; Mk 11.12-12.12)
• giving money for the Temple (2 Kgs 12.5-17; Mk 12.41-44)

According to Brodie, "The Old Testament text does not account for Mark's narrative, but it has made an inextricable contribution." (93)

"While there is no doubt but that Mark had his own specifically Christian sources and that he incorporated a wealth of Greco-Roman features, literary and oral, there can also be little doubt but that, in shaping these sources, he drew on the Elijah-Elisha narrative--the succinct interpretive synthesis which culminates the Scriptures' greatest history. No other explanation accounts so well for the data." (95)