Mark: Odds and Ends

An Odds and Ends blog will conclude the discussion of each New Testament work. This blog will be used to comment on issues that do not merit a separate blog.

The Absence of a Virgin Birth Story (Mark 1: 9-11). Mark does not have a virgin birth story. There are two possible reasons why this is the case. The first is that Mark never heard about this story. The second is that Mark knew of such a story, but decided not to report it. Jesus becomes the Son of God not at birth but as an adult when John baptizes him (Mark 1: 9-11). As I pointed out in the blog on the resurrection, Mark may have been influenced by adoptionists ideas. His Jesus is the most human Jesus depicted in the New Testament, which may explain why he didn’t include a virgin birth story.

It is important to understand the meaning of the designation Son of God to a first century Jew. It has no connection to the second arm of the Trinity. A Son of God was a special human being chosen by God to perform a specific function.

There is one other aspect of this story that I find fascinating. When God designates Jesus as Son of God in Mark’s story, a voice came from heaven. In Matthew’s version of the story (Matthew 3:17), a voice spoke from heaven. At first blush, the differences appear trivial, of no consequence. And yet it is possible that the voice of Mark is private, directed only at Jesus, while in Matthew God spoke for all to hear. What is important is the pattern of editorial changes. When this seemingly minor discrepancy is seen in the larger context of Mark’s Messianic secret, it takes on a new significance. You may not agree.

The Conflict Stories. Mark has a series of Galilean conflict stories involving the Pharisees (see 2:15-22, 3:1-6, 7: 1-23, 8: 11-21, and 10: 1-12). The purpose of these stories is to suggest that the Pharisees played a role in Jesus’ death. This is probably not historical.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were a small party centered in Jerusalem. They represented the common people with a keen interest in the precise interpretation of Jewish Law. The Torah says that a Jew could not work on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were concerned with defining work. They became the dominant party in Judaism after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Before that time, it is difficult to find them.

There are two historical problems with these conflict stories. The first is that Mark places them in Galilee. The problem here is that the Pharisees were an urban party centered in Jerusalem. There is no evidence of Pharisees operating in Galilee at the time of Jesus.

The second problem is that doctrinal disputes within the family of Judaism were common, an accepted way of life, no big deal. It is also important to note that Jesus and the Pharisees agreed on many things—on most of the important issues such as monotheism, election, the gift of Jewish Law and the need for obedience (This point will become absolutely clear when we get to Matthew.), the coming Messiah, and the final judgment. Disagreement over the role of purity rules in Jewish religious life would not be grounds for wanting someone put to death (Mark 7:1-23).

The Romans were responsible for the death of Jesus. They were probably helped by upper class Jews who collaborated with them, but these Jews would not have included Pharisees. Many scholars who have looked at this question argue that these dispute stories reflect a conflict between Jewish Christians centered in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus and the Pharisees from 30 to 70 CE. If this interpretation is correct, Mark used this conflict in creating his stories. That’s how ancient biographies were written.

New Wine/Fresh Skins (Mark 2:22). Nobody puts new wine into old wineskins. This whole discussion suggests that what Jesus is talking about is a new religion. That is what Mark’s gospel posits.

The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20). I hope you read this story and a red light flashed on. What is this guy talking about with this idea of a Messianic secret? In this story Jesus cures a man, and then instructs him to go home and spread the word about what God in his mercy has done for him. No attempt is made to keep this cure a secret.

This story presents evidence that is contrary to the central conclusions about Mark presented in the blog dealing with the Messianic secret. Welcome to the world of New Testament interpretation. Few ideas can be argued with certainty. New Testament evidence is ambiguous at best, often contradictory. So you do the best you can. Here are the passages that relate to an issue. What do they say? What is the best fit? It’s complicated, fun for people like me who like to solve puzzles, but it is best approached with a spirit of humility.

John the Baptist is Beheaded (Mark: 6:17-29). The story presented here belongs in a soap opera. Herod’s wife, Herodias, wants John dead because John is reported to have told Herod that he could not marry her. At Herod’s birthday banquet the daughter of Heriodias dances for Herod and enchants him. In deep appreciation, Herod promises to grant her any wish that she makes. Her mother instructs her to ask for John’s head.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, has a different view. He reports that Herod killed John because he posed a political threat. To prevent John from causing an uprising, Herod took a preventive strike and ordered him put to death. Which story makes more sense to you?

The Young Rich Man (Mark 10: 17-19). The young rich man asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life. He prefaces his question with Good Master. In reply, Jesus asked the man why he called him good. Only God is good. This story does not do much for Christians who hold a Trinitarian view of Jesus.

Now read the story in Matthew (19:16-22), and note the subtle editorial change. The rich man describes Jesus as good in Mark while the deed is described as good in Matthew. Mark’s Jesus is seen as more human than the Jesus developed in Matthew.

Son of Man As Ransom For Many (Mark 10:45). Jesus tells his disciples here that the Son of Man will come to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. In several places I argue that there is no evidence in Mark that Jesus’ death was seen as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. I stand by that conclusion. In this passage, the Greek word for ransom has no connection to sin. Instead it relates to a political hostage. Jesus will give his life for the Jewish people who are political hostages of Rome.

Gethsemane (Mark 14: 32-42) Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane is obviously fiction because there was no one there to witness it. Peter, James, and John were nearby, but they were sound asleep.

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53-65). The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin is reported by Mark to take place during the Passover celebration. It is interesting to note, however, that it was against Jewish Law for the Sanhedrin to meet during Passover. Mark’s mistake provides further evidence that the Passion Narrative was a work of fiction. It also supports the idea that the author was not a Jew or from Palestine. A Palestinian Jew would not make that mistake.