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.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Mark's Passion Narrative
The Passion Narrative is the longest story in the New Testament. It details the betrayal of Jesus, the Last Supper; and Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion. For the versions of the story found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Mark is clearly the author (See Mark, chapters 14 and 15). It is a work of creative fiction that reflects on the meaning of Jesus’ death.
Although some events depicted in the story may have historical roots, there are four historical problems which we cannot ignore. The first is the burial of Jesus. While we have little historical information concerning the events of Jesus’ ordeal, we know a lot about Roman crucifixions. There were hundreds of thousands of political dissidents crucified in the Roman Empire during the period of Rome’s political rule. This form of execution was reserved for Roman prisoners, and there were rules governing its implementation. One of the rules was that the prisoner was not to be buried. Political prisoners were left on the cross after they died so animals could devour their bodies. It was part of the punishment. The goal was to humiliate the victim and to deter potential dissenters by the horror of the spectacle.
The second problem is the trial. Again, we know a great deal about Roman procedures when it comes to crucifixions. Trials were not held. Roman officials would have done little else but conduct these trials if they had been required. But they were not necessary. The Roman military had the authority and the power to deal with the problem. Suspected political dissidents were arrested and put on a cross.
The problems of the burial and the trial raise the question of why was Jesus treated differently? We surely think of Jesus as special, but the Romans didn’t. To the Roman authorities, Jesus was a peasant from Galilee, a province known for producing political troublemakers.
The setting for the Passion Narrative was the Passover celebration in Jerusalem, a time to remember God’s great act of freeing the Jews from Egyptian colonial rule. Thousands of Jews made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the hope that God would intervene again to free them from Rome. Rome sent extra troops to protect against political outbreaks. The idea that Roman authorities would conduct a public trial for a popular political reformer during Passover is not credible. It would be too risky.
A similar problem relates to the portrayal of Pilate during the trial—our third historical problem. The story indicates that Jesus was brought before Pilate, and that Pilate found no case against him. Because the chief priests and the crowd loudly demand that Jesus be crucified, Pilate eventually gives into their demands. The story further indicates that Rome had a policy of freeing one prisoner during the Passover festival. In this case, Pilate agrees to free Barabbas, a man arrested for inciting a riot and murder, in exchange for Jesus, a man Pilate believed to be innocent.
Historians have found no evidence that Rome had a policy to free a prisoner during Passover. No prisoner was freed prior to the crucifixion of Jesus or after. The second problem with the story is the behavior of Pilate during the trial, a trial that almost certainly did not take place. Pilate was famous for his cruelty. Not long after these events, Pilate was replaced by Rome for excessive cruelty. The thought of Pilate trading a known troublemaker for a man he believed was innocent is not credible.
The depiction of Pilate during the trial suggests a possible motive for the story. The author may have been interested in exonerating Rome for Jesus’ death and blaming the Jews. The author’s goal might have been to reduce the chances of Christians being persecuted by the Romans. This distortion of history that the Jews killed Jesus, most fully developed in the gospel of John, has had tragic consequences for Jews throughout history as I will show in a future blog entry.
The final historical problem with Mark’s Passion Narrative is that the story is truncated. Too much happens within too short a time span for the events to be believable. The Last Supper takes place on Thursday night. The trial before the Sanhedrin, the meeting with Pilate, and the crucifixion occur on Friday. Jesus dies before sunset on Friday. The problem is that it usually took two or three days for a person to die on a cross.
As I said at the outset, the Passion Narrative is a work of creative fiction that reflects on the meaning of Jesus’ death. Ancient biographies were written that way. Writers often didn’t have the historical data they needed, and they were primarily concerned with identity, character, and/or meaning. To relate this information, they created stories.
What is Mark telling us about the meaning of Jesus’ death? To begin with, there is no evidence in this story that Jesus was sent by God to die for our sins. The idea of Jesus’ significance as an atoning sacrifice for human sin is not found in Mark. There is much evidence to support the idea of atoning sacrifice in John’s version of the Passion Narrative, but that is a different story. John changes several aspects of the story which I will develop in a future blog.
Jesus died because he threatened the Romans. The key to understanding this important conclusion is the events in the story centering around the Temple. Rome ruled indirectly through the Temple. The High Priest and the Temple authorities collaborated with the Romans. The Temple was also the key to understanding the Jewish faith. God’s presence was known there. The High Priest mediated access to God. Forgiveness was also dispensed through the sacrificial rituals practiced there.
Jesus challenged both the religious and the political aspects of the Temple’s power. Upon entering Jerusalem, the first thing Jesus did was drive out those buying and selling animals for sacrifice. The crowds loved it. He verbally attacks the scribes who worked at the Temple, and then proclaims to his disciples that the Temple will be destroyed which threatened Rome’s political control. Judas may have communicated that threat to the Temple authorities.
We discussed the meaning of his death in the blog dealing with the Messianic secret. Because they define him in traditional Messianic categories, the Jews do not understand the meaning of Jesus’ life or death. The first to get it is the Roman centurion (15:37-39) who participates in Jesus’ suffering. As Jesus dies, the curtain hiding and protecting the mystery of God is torn from top to bottom. The Temple will no longer mediate access to God. Anyone who reflects on and participates in the suffering of Jesus will attain access to God on their own.
As Jesus dies, he is quoted as saying, “My God, my God, why have you deserted me” from Psalm 22 (Mark 15:34). Psalm 22 is about a man who suffers and is later vindicated by God. The Old Testament scripture used here does not point to Jesus, and thus prove the historicity of these events as many Christians believe. The idea that Jesus fulfills Old Testament scripture is not the point of Mark’s using this Psalm. If you read about Jesus’ death in Luke and John, Jesus’ last words are different, taken from different Psalms, and used to describe a very different Jesus. The author of Mark takes these words from Psalm 22 because they support his point. Jesus suffers for all of us, and in doing that he leads us to God.
A new religion has been created. It has nothing to do with atonement for human sin or saving us for heaven. It is about bringing God into our lives. We do it when we participate in the suffering of another because that directs our focus away from self. The message of Mark is both powerful and groundbreaking.
Although some events depicted in the story may have historical roots, there are four historical problems which we cannot ignore. The first is the burial of Jesus. While we have little historical information concerning the events of Jesus’ ordeal, we know a lot about Roman crucifixions. There were hundreds of thousands of political dissidents crucified in the Roman Empire during the period of Rome’s political rule. This form of execution was reserved for Roman prisoners, and there were rules governing its implementation. One of the rules was that the prisoner was not to be buried. Political prisoners were left on the cross after they died so animals could devour their bodies. It was part of the punishment. The goal was to humiliate the victim and to deter potential dissenters by the horror of the spectacle.
The second problem is the trial. Again, we know a great deal about Roman procedures when it comes to crucifixions. Trials were not held. Roman officials would have done little else but conduct these trials if they had been required. But they were not necessary. The Roman military had the authority and the power to deal with the problem. Suspected political dissidents were arrested and put on a cross.
The problems of the burial and the trial raise the question of why was Jesus treated differently? We surely think of Jesus as special, but the Romans didn’t. To the Roman authorities, Jesus was a peasant from Galilee, a province known for producing political troublemakers.
The setting for the Passion Narrative was the Passover celebration in Jerusalem, a time to remember God’s great act of freeing the Jews from Egyptian colonial rule. Thousands of Jews made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the hope that God would intervene again to free them from Rome. Rome sent extra troops to protect against political outbreaks. The idea that Roman authorities would conduct a public trial for a popular political reformer during Passover is not credible. It would be too risky.
A similar problem relates to the portrayal of Pilate during the trial—our third historical problem. The story indicates that Jesus was brought before Pilate, and that Pilate found no case against him. Because the chief priests and the crowd loudly demand that Jesus be crucified, Pilate eventually gives into their demands. The story further indicates that Rome had a policy of freeing one prisoner during the Passover festival. In this case, Pilate agrees to free Barabbas, a man arrested for inciting a riot and murder, in exchange for Jesus, a man Pilate believed to be innocent.
Historians have found no evidence that Rome had a policy to free a prisoner during Passover. No prisoner was freed prior to the crucifixion of Jesus or after. The second problem with the story is the behavior of Pilate during the trial, a trial that almost certainly did not take place. Pilate was famous for his cruelty. Not long after these events, Pilate was replaced by Rome for excessive cruelty. The thought of Pilate trading a known troublemaker for a man he believed was innocent is not credible.
The depiction of Pilate during the trial suggests a possible motive for the story. The author may have been interested in exonerating Rome for Jesus’ death and blaming the Jews. The author’s goal might have been to reduce the chances of Christians being persecuted by the Romans. This distortion of history that the Jews killed Jesus, most fully developed in the gospel of John, has had tragic consequences for Jews throughout history as I will show in a future blog entry.
The final historical problem with Mark’s Passion Narrative is that the story is truncated. Too much happens within too short a time span for the events to be believable. The Last Supper takes place on Thursday night. The trial before the Sanhedrin, the meeting with Pilate, and the crucifixion occur on Friday. Jesus dies before sunset on Friday. The problem is that it usually took two or three days for a person to die on a cross.
As I said at the outset, the Passion Narrative is a work of creative fiction that reflects on the meaning of Jesus’ death. Ancient biographies were written that way. Writers often didn’t have the historical data they needed, and they were primarily concerned with identity, character, and/or meaning. To relate this information, they created stories.
What is Mark telling us about the meaning of Jesus’ death? To begin with, there is no evidence in this story that Jesus was sent by God to die for our sins. The idea of Jesus’ significance as an atoning sacrifice for human sin is not found in Mark. There is much evidence to support the idea of atoning sacrifice in John’s version of the Passion Narrative, but that is a different story. John changes several aspects of the story which I will develop in a future blog.
Jesus died because he threatened the Romans. The key to understanding this important conclusion is the events in the story centering around the Temple. Rome ruled indirectly through the Temple. The High Priest and the Temple authorities collaborated with the Romans. The Temple was also the key to understanding the Jewish faith. God’s presence was known there. The High Priest mediated access to God. Forgiveness was also dispensed through the sacrificial rituals practiced there.
Jesus challenged both the religious and the political aspects of the Temple’s power. Upon entering Jerusalem, the first thing Jesus did was drive out those buying and selling animals for sacrifice. The crowds loved it. He verbally attacks the scribes who worked at the Temple, and then proclaims to his disciples that the Temple will be destroyed which threatened Rome’s political control. Judas may have communicated that threat to the Temple authorities.
We discussed the meaning of his death in the blog dealing with the Messianic secret. Because they define him in traditional Messianic categories, the Jews do not understand the meaning of Jesus’ life or death. The first to get it is the Roman centurion (15:37-39) who participates in Jesus’ suffering. As Jesus dies, the curtain hiding and protecting the mystery of God is torn from top to bottom. The Temple will no longer mediate access to God. Anyone who reflects on and participates in the suffering of Jesus will attain access to God on their own.
As Jesus dies, he is quoted as saying, “My God, my God, why have you deserted me” from Psalm 22 (Mark 15:34). Psalm 22 is about a man who suffers and is later vindicated by God. The Old Testament scripture used here does not point to Jesus, and thus prove the historicity of these events as many Christians believe. The idea that Jesus fulfills Old Testament scripture is not the point of Mark’s using this Psalm. If you read about Jesus’ death in Luke and John, Jesus’ last words are different, taken from different Psalms, and used to describe a very different Jesus. The author of Mark takes these words from Psalm 22 because they support his point. Jesus suffers for all of us, and in doing that he leads us to God.
A new religion has been created. It has nothing to do with atonement for human sin or saving us for heaven. It is about bringing God into our lives. We do it when we participate in the suffering of another because that directs our focus away from self. The message of Mark is both powerful and groundbreaking.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Mark's Resurrection Story
In college I took classical Greek. My goal was to read the New Testament in its original language which I realized my Junior year. My New Testament Greek class was an amazing one. I was the only student. I want to take you back to that class for a brief moment. We had been translating the gospel of Mark for three weeks. As I finished chapter 16 and closed my book, my professor asked: “Did you find those last few verses more difficult to translate?”
“No, I don’t think so,” I responded as I looked over at him.
“Most textual scholars believe that verses 9 through 20 were added to the original gospel by Christian scribes. These verses describing the resurrection do not appear in the oldest manuscripts we have of Mark. The sentence structure is more complex, and the vocabulary is not typical of Mark. One of the reasons we are reading Mark first is because he writes like a journalist with a sentence structure that is both simple and direct. These eleven verses are different.”
“I don’t believe it,” I responded.
“There are two possibilities,” my professor continued. “The first is that the original Mark ends with verse 8 in Chapter 16. If this is the case, the disciples never meet the resurrected Jesus. Before dismissing this possibility out of hand, remember that we noted throughout the gospel that the disciples never understand the true significance of Jesus’ life. Mark may be emphasizing that point, and these last eleven verses are not what the author intended at all. Rather the author intended to conclude his gospel at verse 8. The other possibility is that the last page of a very early manuscript was lost, and the scribes remedied the problem by adding eleven verses from another source.”
My professor went on to explain that there are literally thousands of variant readings among the many different New Testament manuscripts. The term variant reading indicates that other words, different from those found in the text you are reading, appear in other New Testament manuscripts.
For fifteen hundred years, manuscripts were copied by hand until Gutenberg solved the problem with moveable type. In early New Testament manuscripts, all the letters are in small caps, there is no punctuation either within or between sentences, and there is no separation between words. These early manuscripts are nothing but a continuous string of letters with no spaces between words or sentences. Mistakes in copying were easy to make. Once a mistake was made, it was copied again, and again, and again.
Most of the problems are simple errors—misspelled words, words that are omitted, or a line that the copying scribe skipped. And yet there are several significant problems as verses 9-20 in chapter 16 suggest. When an important textual problem exists, it is likely that the copying scribe deliberately made the change.
Mark’s story of the resurrection as found in the disputed verses cited above is a weak one. It is unclear where the event took place, and many details found in other gospels are omitted. It reads like an afterthought, an add-on. The resurrection of Jesus is also not important for Mark’s thinking about who Jesus was. As I pointed out in an earlier blog, the key event was his death on the cross, not the resurrection. With that said, I will leave the discussion of the resurrection in Mark to another time when his account is compared to other gospel treatments, and conclude this blog with three additional examples of significant variant readings.
The lovely story in the gospel of John about casting the first stone (see John 7: 53-8:12) is almost certainly not original. It does not appear in the earliest texts we have of John, and again the vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure are different when compared to the rest of the gospel.
Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Now read it again omitting verses 34 and 35. The passage reads seamlessly. It has been pointed out by many textual scholars that the anti-women verses (34-35) were inserted by a scribe. I will argue when we get to Paul that, like Jesus, he had a very high view of women for a first century man. Many leaders in his early churches were women to cite one piece of evidence that helps make that case. If that is true, verses 34 and 35 are suspect. These verses were probably added by a scribe who wanted to make Paul’s view of women more compatible with the general culture.
Finally, there are several textual problems that relate to a group of early Christians called adoptionists. These first century followers of Jesus argued that Jesus was fully human, not divine. There is only one God. Because Jesus was so righteous, God adopts him as his son. This adoption takes place when Jesus is an adult. There is no virgin birth story. Bart Ehrman in his fascinating book Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, cites many examples of changes in early New Testament texts made by scribes to weaken this adoptionist “heresy.”
As an aside before concluding, I should point out that many scholars argue that Mark’s gospel contains adoptionist ideas. Note that there is no virgin birth story. The gospel opens when an adult Jesus is baptized by John, and a voice from heaven proclaims him to be God’s son.
With that said, two conclusions regarding textual problems within the Bible jump out at you. How can one claim that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God when there is confusion as to what those words are? The fact that New Testament manuscripts were copied for fifteen hundred years by flesh and blood human beings with their own opinions and agendas has led to thousands of variant readings among those texts. Untangling these problems so that the original text can be found is not possible.
Second, there is a danger in insisting on a literal reading of a text. Women have been forced to play secondary roles in many Christian churches for centuries, and yet it is likely that the anti-feminist statements in Paul were inserted by scribes and not original to Paul. Finally, reread the last eleven verses in Mark (16:9-20), the disputed ones. I wonder how many fundamentalists were harmed or even killed by picking up dangerous snakes or drinking a deadly poison when testing their faith.
“No, I don’t think so,” I responded as I looked over at him.
“Most textual scholars believe that verses 9 through 20 were added to the original gospel by Christian scribes. These verses describing the resurrection do not appear in the oldest manuscripts we have of Mark. The sentence structure is more complex, and the vocabulary is not typical of Mark. One of the reasons we are reading Mark first is because he writes like a journalist with a sentence structure that is both simple and direct. These eleven verses are different.”
“I don’t believe it,” I responded.
“There are two possibilities,” my professor continued. “The first is that the original Mark ends with verse 8 in Chapter 16. If this is the case, the disciples never meet the resurrected Jesus. Before dismissing this possibility out of hand, remember that we noted throughout the gospel that the disciples never understand the true significance of Jesus’ life. Mark may be emphasizing that point, and these last eleven verses are not what the author intended at all. Rather the author intended to conclude his gospel at verse 8. The other possibility is that the last page of a very early manuscript was lost, and the scribes remedied the problem by adding eleven verses from another source.”
My professor went on to explain that there are literally thousands of variant readings among the many different New Testament manuscripts. The term variant reading indicates that other words, different from those found in the text you are reading, appear in other New Testament manuscripts.
For fifteen hundred years, manuscripts were copied by hand until Gutenberg solved the problem with moveable type. In early New Testament manuscripts, all the letters are in small caps, there is no punctuation either within or between sentences, and there is no separation between words. These early manuscripts are nothing but a continuous string of letters with no spaces between words or sentences. Mistakes in copying were easy to make. Once a mistake was made, it was copied again, and again, and again.
Most of the problems are simple errors—misspelled words, words that are omitted, or a line that the copying scribe skipped. And yet there are several significant problems as verses 9-20 in chapter 16 suggest. When an important textual problem exists, it is likely that the copying scribe deliberately made the change.
Mark’s story of the resurrection as found in the disputed verses cited above is a weak one. It is unclear where the event took place, and many details found in other gospels are omitted. It reads like an afterthought, an add-on. The resurrection of Jesus is also not important for Mark’s thinking about who Jesus was. As I pointed out in an earlier blog, the key event was his death on the cross, not the resurrection. With that said, I will leave the discussion of the resurrection in Mark to another time when his account is compared to other gospel treatments, and conclude this blog with three additional examples of significant variant readings.
The lovely story in the gospel of John about casting the first stone (see John 7: 53-8:12) is almost certainly not original. It does not appear in the earliest texts we have of John, and again the vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure are different when compared to the rest of the gospel.
Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Now read it again omitting verses 34 and 35. The passage reads seamlessly. It has been pointed out by many textual scholars that the anti-women verses (34-35) were inserted by a scribe. I will argue when we get to Paul that, like Jesus, he had a very high view of women for a first century man. Many leaders in his early churches were women to cite one piece of evidence that helps make that case. If that is true, verses 34 and 35 are suspect. These verses were probably added by a scribe who wanted to make Paul’s view of women more compatible with the general culture.
Finally, there are several textual problems that relate to a group of early Christians called adoptionists. These first century followers of Jesus argued that Jesus was fully human, not divine. There is only one God. Because Jesus was so righteous, God adopts him as his son. This adoption takes place when Jesus is an adult. There is no virgin birth story. Bart Ehrman in his fascinating book Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, cites many examples of changes in early New Testament texts made by scribes to weaken this adoptionist “heresy.”
As an aside before concluding, I should point out that many scholars argue that Mark’s gospel contains adoptionist ideas. Note that there is no virgin birth story. The gospel opens when an adult Jesus is baptized by John, and a voice from heaven proclaims him to be God’s son.
With that said, two conclusions regarding textual problems within the Bible jump out at you. How can one claim that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God when there is confusion as to what those words are? The fact that New Testament manuscripts were copied for fifteen hundred years by flesh and blood human beings with their own opinions and agendas has led to thousands of variant readings among those texts. Untangling these problems so that the original text can be found is not possible.
Second, there is a danger in insisting on a literal reading of a text. Women have been forced to play secondary roles in many Christian churches for centuries, and yet it is likely that the anti-feminist statements in Paul were inserted by scribes and not original to Paul. Finally, reread the last eleven verses in Mark (16:9-20), the disputed ones. I wonder how many fundamentalists were harmed or even killed by picking up dangerous snakes or drinking a deadly poison when testing their faith.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Mark's Jesus and Jewish Eschatology
Many commentators have placed Mark’s Jesus within the Jewish eschatological tradition. To understand what this means, it is helpful to begin with Jewish history. The religion of Israel was created when God made certain promises to Israel. A covenant was established in which God promised to be Israel’s God and to protect her, while Israel agreed to obey God’s law.
A problem with this central tenet of Israel’s faith emerged when Israel came under colonial rule. The first invasion came from Assyria in 721 B.C.E. Israel’s colonial status continued, with few exceptions, into the time of Jesus under the Romans and beyond.
The question became, How do you explain colonial oppression in light of God’s promise of protection? The prophetic answer was that oppression was punishment for Israel’s failure to obey God’s law. This explanation made some sense until the second century B.C.E. when an especially brutal Syrian king tried to destroy the Jewish religion. Jews were killed for circumcising their children and for otherwise obeying religious law.
Thus, a new explanation was needed. The prophet Daniel provided it in the second century B.C.E. He argued that God was a just and a loving God, and was not responsible for the people’s suffering. Rather Satan was, the power of evil. However, at the end of time, when conditions were at their absolute worst, God would intervene, defeat Satan, and establish his kingdom. Jewish eschatology concerns itself with ideas about the end of the world, and the coming of God’s kingdom.
At the time of Jesus, three different approaches to eschatology were swirling around. The first one, apocalyptic eschatology, called for the destruction of the world. It was mean-spirited in that a select group would be taken to heaven while the vast majority of humans would burn. This approach was motivated by revenge. God will intervene to even the score with one’s enemies. A second approach, prophetic eschatology, posited a new order for this world, a renewed Israel in which God’s anointed would rule as king. A third approach, realized eschatology, argued that the kingdom had arrived in the works and acts of Jesus, and that it was essentially a matter of the heart—a kingdom within.
A prominent figure in the apocalyptic drama is the Son of Man, first described in Daniel (see Daniel 7:13). Many Jews came to believe that a Son of Man would return to earth at the end of times from the clouds of heaven to judge the people. Those deemed righteous would be taken with the eschatological judge to heaven to live with God forever. Those deemed unrighteous would receive the wrath of God’s judgment. The Jesus pictured in Mark believes that he is this Son of Man (see Mark 2:28, 9:31, 10:33, 14:21, 14:42, and 14:63).
In addition, it is the contention of Mark’s Jesus that these dramatic events will unfold within the generation of his followers. Read Chapter 13, the eschatological chapter, with special attention to Mark 13:30. See also Mark 1:15, 9:1, and 12:34. All of these passages indicate that the coming kingdom was imminent, within the first century.
The idea of the imminent approach of the kingdom within the generation of Jesus’ followers is reinforced by several stories in Mark. The gospel begins with Jesus being tempted by Satan (1:12-13). Matthew expands the story (Matthew 4:1-11) in a way that suggests that Satan wanted to make a deal with Jesus for joint control of the universe. Jesus rejects Satan’s scheme. It will be war between these two forces.
The healing stories in Mark indicate that the battle against evil at the end of times has already begun in the work of Jesus. For ancient people the cause of disease was not biological but the action of evil forces invading the body, forces controlled by Satan. So when Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons, he is battling evil. It is a sign that the final battle against Satan has begun and that the victory of God over evil is imminent. The kingdom of God is coming very, very soon. It has in fact partially arrived because of Jesus’ war against Satan.
The eschatological focus of Mark’s gospel raises two important New Testament questions. The first relates to the Jesus of history. Who was he—the Son of Man or the prophet of a renewed Israel? Many New Testament scholars argue that the historical Jesus can’t be found. Few doubt that Jesus existed as a first century flesh and blood human being, but determining precisely who he was is not possible from the New Testament record. John Dominic Crossan draws an interesting analogy to quantum mechanics. We cannot see the parts of atoms even with the most powerful microscopes. We can only detect their effects.
The problem with determining who was the historical Jesus is that three voices intermingle within the four gospels, and it is next to impossible to separate them. These voices include that of Jesus, the early Church, and the writer of the gospel. Many scholars argue that the Jesus who claims to be the Son of Man in Mark is an invention of the early Church, that the statements listed above pertaining to the Son of Man were not made by the Jesus of history but put in his mouth by the early Church.
I agree with this conclusion for two reasons. First, I cannot picture a mean-spirited Jesus who will lead a few to heaven while the rest of humanity suffers a horrible end. John the Baptist was an eschatological prophet within this camp. There are some hints in the New Testament that Jesus began his career as a member of John’s movement, but he left. The message of Jesus was one of love, not revenge. Second, Jesus speaks and acts like a prophet of a renewed Israel. His message is prophetic: the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. His actions are prophetic: the cleansing of the Temple, and the performance of miracles modeled after those performed by Elijah (Luke 7:11-17). He tells his disciples that he will drink wine with them in the new kingdom (Matthew 26:29), and he suggests that the disciples will have a special role to perform in a renewed Israel (Matthew 19:28). But the idea that Jesus saw himself as a prophet of a renewed Israel is speculative, my best guess based on evidence reported in Matthew and Luke. The New Testament is ambiguous, often misleading, and yes infuriating when it comes to the question of whether Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man. The gospel of Mark may report his statements accurately.
There is little doubt, however, that the historical Jesus must be understood within this Jewish eschatological tradition. His words and deeds were eschatological as reported in the gospel of Mark. It is also clear that the kingdom of God was expected to come very soon, within the generation of Jesus’ followers. As I point out in my book on Evangelical Christianity, this view of the imminent approach of the kingdom is unanimously held by all New Testament writers.
This leads to a far more important problem for Christians living in the twenty-first century. Jesus was wrong. If Jesus was a prophet of a renewed Israel, his message was not accurate. God did not establish a new state of Israel which was free from colonial rule. If Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man, he has yet to return, his time frame clearly off schedule by some 2,000 years. Mark’s Jesus is pictured fighting and defeating the forces of evil, and yet not much seems to have changed. The message of Jesus was directed at the twelve tribes of Israel. Salvation was seen as a corporate event for the state of Israel, not pertaining to the individual believer which came from Paul and the early Church.
Modern Christians do not read what the Bible says about Jesus. Instead they invent a Jesus that they need and want. The message of salvation in the gospel of Mark has no relevance for Christians living today. As you will see in the weeks that follow, the messages of salvation in Matthew and Luke are no different.
And yet, Mark’s gospel may provide a way out. The creative thrust of this work, the subject of last week’s blog, paints a picture of Jesus that has nothing to do with salvation. The Jews, without exception, see Jesus as a salvation figure, and they miss the point. The one who gets it is the centurion, the Gentile crucifier who encounters the suffering Jesus on the cross. This encounter leads him to God.
The central message of Mark is a powerful one. Participating in the suffering of another leads one to God because the enormity of the experience broadens one’s focus beyond egocentric concerns. In expanded awareness, divine love touches human life. The suffering Jesus shows us the way to God. That is a Jesus that modern Christians can enthusiastically embrace.
A problem with this central tenet of Israel’s faith emerged when Israel came under colonial rule. The first invasion came from Assyria in 721 B.C.E. Israel’s colonial status continued, with few exceptions, into the time of Jesus under the Romans and beyond.
The question became, How do you explain colonial oppression in light of God’s promise of protection? The prophetic answer was that oppression was punishment for Israel’s failure to obey God’s law. This explanation made some sense until the second century B.C.E. when an especially brutal Syrian king tried to destroy the Jewish religion. Jews were killed for circumcising their children and for otherwise obeying religious law.
Thus, a new explanation was needed. The prophet Daniel provided it in the second century B.C.E. He argued that God was a just and a loving God, and was not responsible for the people’s suffering. Rather Satan was, the power of evil. However, at the end of time, when conditions were at their absolute worst, God would intervene, defeat Satan, and establish his kingdom. Jewish eschatology concerns itself with ideas about the end of the world, and the coming of God’s kingdom.
At the time of Jesus, three different approaches to eschatology were swirling around. The first one, apocalyptic eschatology, called for the destruction of the world. It was mean-spirited in that a select group would be taken to heaven while the vast majority of humans would burn. This approach was motivated by revenge. God will intervene to even the score with one’s enemies. A second approach, prophetic eschatology, posited a new order for this world, a renewed Israel in which God’s anointed would rule as king. A third approach, realized eschatology, argued that the kingdom had arrived in the works and acts of Jesus, and that it was essentially a matter of the heart—a kingdom within.
A prominent figure in the apocalyptic drama is the Son of Man, first described in Daniel (see Daniel 7:13). Many Jews came to believe that a Son of Man would return to earth at the end of times from the clouds of heaven to judge the people. Those deemed righteous would be taken with the eschatological judge to heaven to live with God forever. Those deemed unrighteous would receive the wrath of God’s judgment. The Jesus pictured in Mark believes that he is this Son of Man (see Mark 2:28, 9:31, 10:33, 14:21, 14:42, and 14:63).
In addition, it is the contention of Mark’s Jesus that these dramatic events will unfold within the generation of his followers. Read Chapter 13, the eschatological chapter, with special attention to Mark 13:30. See also Mark 1:15, 9:1, and 12:34. All of these passages indicate that the coming kingdom was imminent, within the first century.
The idea of the imminent approach of the kingdom within the generation of Jesus’ followers is reinforced by several stories in Mark. The gospel begins with Jesus being tempted by Satan (1:12-13). Matthew expands the story (Matthew 4:1-11) in a way that suggests that Satan wanted to make a deal with Jesus for joint control of the universe. Jesus rejects Satan’s scheme. It will be war between these two forces.
The healing stories in Mark indicate that the battle against evil at the end of times has already begun in the work of Jesus. For ancient people the cause of disease was not biological but the action of evil forces invading the body, forces controlled by Satan. So when Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons, he is battling evil. It is a sign that the final battle against Satan has begun and that the victory of God over evil is imminent. The kingdom of God is coming very, very soon. It has in fact partially arrived because of Jesus’ war against Satan.
The eschatological focus of Mark’s gospel raises two important New Testament questions. The first relates to the Jesus of history. Who was he—the Son of Man or the prophet of a renewed Israel? Many New Testament scholars argue that the historical Jesus can’t be found. Few doubt that Jesus existed as a first century flesh and blood human being, but determining precisely who he was is not possible from the New Testament record. John Dominic Crossan draws an interesting analogy to quantum mechanics. We cannot see the parts of atoms even with the most powerful microscopes. We can only detect their effects.
The problem with determining who was the historical Jesus is that three voices intermingle within the four gospels, and it is next to impossible to separate them. These voices include that of Jesus, the early Church, and the writer of the gospel. Many scholars argue that the Jesus who claims to be the Son of Man in Mark is an invention of the early Church, that the statements listed above pertaining to the Son of Man were not made by the Jesus of history but put in his mouth by the early Church.
I agree with this conclusion for two reasons. First, I cannot picture a mean-spirited Jesus who will lead a few to heaven while the rest of humanity suffers a horrible end. John the Baptist was an eschatological prophet within this camp. There are some hints in the New Testament that Jesus began his career as a member of John’s movement, but he left. The message of Jesus was one of love, not revenge. Second, Jesus speaks and acts like a prophet of a renewed Israel. His message is prophetic: the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. His actions are prophetic: the cleansing of the Temple, and the performance of miracles modeled after those performed by Elijah (Luke 7:11-17). He tells his disciples that he will drink wine with them in the new kingdom (Matthew 26:29), and he suggests that the disciples will have a special role to perform in a renewed Israel (Matthew 19:28). But the idea that Jesus saw himself as a prophet of a renewed Israel is speculative, my best guess based on evidence reported in Matthew and Luke. The New Testament is ambiguous, often misleading, and yes infuriating when it comes to the question of whether Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man. The gospel of Mark may report his statements accurately.
There is little doubt, however, that the historical Jesus must be understood within this Jewish eschatological tradition. His words and deeds were eschatological as reported in the gospel of Mark. It is also clear that the kingdom of God was expected to come very soon, within the generation of Jesus’ followers. As I point out in my book on Evangelical Christianity, this view of the imminent approach of the kingdom is unanimously held by all New Testament writers.
This leads to a far more important problem for Christians living in the twenty-first century. Jesus was wrong. If Jesus was a prophet of a renewed Israel, his message was not accurate. God did not establish a new state of Israel which was free from colonial rule. If Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man, he has yet to return, his time frame clearly off schedule by some 2,000 years. Mark’s Jesus is pictured fighting and defeating the forces of evil, and yet not much seems to have changed. The message of Jesus was directed at the twelve tribes of Israel. Salvation was seen as a corporate event for the state of Israel, not pertaining to the individual believer which came from Paul and the early Church.
Modern Christians do not read what the Bible says about Jesus. Instead they invent a Jesus that they need and want. The message of salvation in the gospel of Mark has no relevance for Christians living today. As you will see in the weeks that follow, the messages of salvation in Matthew and Luke are no different.
And yet, Mark’s gospel may provide a way out. The creative thrust of this work, the subject of last week’s blog, paints a picture of Jesus that has nothing to do with salvation. The Jews, without exception, see Jesus as a salvation figure, and they miss the point. The one who gets it is the centurion, the Gentile crucifier who encounters the suffering Jesus on the cross. This encounter leads him to God.
The central message of Mark is a powerful one. Participating in the suffering of another leads one to God because the enormity of the experience broadens one’s focus beyond egocentric concerns. In expanded awareness, divine love touches human life. The suffering Jesus shows us the way to God. That is a Jesus that modern Christians can enthusiastically embrace.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Mark's Messianic Secret
Mark identifies Jesus as the suffering servant who leads his followers to God. Jesus accomplishes this important mission on the cross. By participating vicariously in Jesus’ suffering, the divine/human relationship is healed. For the first time, humans are able to relate directly to God on their own. Special mediators and/or institutions are no longer necessary.
Mark makes the case for this Jesus in a very creative way. In this gospel, Jesus reveals his glory by performing many wondrous deeds. He teaches about the coming kingdom in parables, he addresses crowds. The problem is that no one grasps the meaning of his message—not his disciples, his family, the Jewish leaders, or the crowds. They all expect a Messiah who will usher in a new kingdom.
Because of this deeply held belief in a coming Messiah, the Jews of Palestine are unable to understand the central meaning of Jesus’ life which is to bring people back to God. The only person to get it is the Roman centurion (Mark 15: 39), a Gentile and one of the people crucifying him. In this dramatic fashion, Mark delivers his message and signals that the future of the Church has moved from Palestine to the Hellenistic world.
Here’s the evidence. The disciples don’t get it in three boat scenes (4:40-41, 6:50-52, 8:14-21). They further miss the point in three passion scenes (8:32-33, 9:32, 10:32-41). His family does not understand him (3:21-35), nor do the crowds (4:10-12), or the people in his hometown (6:1-6).
In contrast, demons understand his identity (1:25, 1:34, 3:12), but Jesus silences them. He tells the people he heals (1:44, 5:43,7:36) to tell no one.
Interestingly, this is all part of God’s plan. When Jesus teaches in parables (4:12), the listeners do not understand because their hearts are hardened. The same circumstances prevent the disciples from understanding the real meaning of Jesus’ feeding the 5,000 and his walking on water (6:52). Their minds are closed.
In a fascinating combination of stories, Peter comes close to understanding. When Jesus asks the disciples about his identity (8:27-30), Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus responds by demanding that the disciples not reveal this secret. Sadly, when Jesus explains that he must suffer grievously (8:31-33), Peter protests. He ultimately doesn’t get it, and Jesus rebukes him with the words, “Get Behind Me Satan.”
Peter is like the blind man that Jesus heals in stages (8:22-26), a story found only in Mark. Peter sees Jesus as the Messiah, but his vision is blurred. Peter is like the blind man at the initial stage of his healing when he can only see trees.
This idea of Jesus’ secret identity which is hidden from the Jews is unique to Mark. In Matthew, when Jesus walks on water (Matthew 14: 13-34), the disciples worship him, and proclaim him to be the Son of God. Again in Matthew, when Jesus teaches the disciples in parables (13:11), he does so in order to reveal the secrets of heaven. When you read about the miracles in Luke, no attempt is made to hide Jesus’ identity. In John (see chapter 9), Jesus cures the blind man so that the works of God may be on display for all to see.
The gospel of Mark reaches a climax on the cross. There, as he watches and experiences the suffering of Jesus (Mark 15: 37-39), the Roman centurion gets it. “In truth this man was a Son of God.” The centurion is the first person in the gospel to recognize the meaning and purpose of Jesus’ life. The contrast with Matthew on this point is interesting (see Matthew 27:54). The centurion makes the same statement about recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, but for different reasons. The miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ death rather than his suffering on the cross are what lead the centurion to become a believer in Matthew.
As Jesus dies in Mark’s account, the veil of the Temple was torn from top to bottom. This symbolic act is extremely important. The God of the Jews was believed to reside in a small room in the Temple in Jerusalem where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. The High Priest of the Temple entered this room, symbolically for all Jews, once a year during the Passover celebration. The veil of the Temple kept the Ark hidden, and thus protected the hiddenness and mystery of God.
Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross tears open that room. God is revealed for all to see. The High Priest is no longer needed. Worshippers can now relate directly to God without mediation by a priest or the controlling power of an institution. Jesus heals the divine/human relationship. This is the central meaning of his life. The fact that the only one to get it is a Gentile signals, as I said above, that the future of the church is in the Gentile world. Mark reinforces this point with the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12).
There is a long tradition in Jewish thought that suffering unites God and humans (see Isaiah 52:13-53:12). The suffering servant in Isaiah (Chapters 40-55) dies not as a sacrifice for sin but to open people’s eyes to God. That is Mark’s point. There is not even a hint in this gospel that the meaning of Jesus’ life and death can be understood as an atoning sacrifice for human sin. The idea of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for human sin comes from Paul and the early Church, not Mark. Participating in the suffering of another takes our focus away from self, and creates a space for God to enter.
When you look back at this gospel, this is strange stuff. The disciples are sent out to preach the good news and to cast out devils. They are given the power to heal, they witness miracles, they help feed the 5,000, they are with Jesus when he walks on water, and not one of them gets it. Jesus has a reputation for being a great teacher, he teaches with authority (1:22), and yet the crowds don’t understand his mission. The great teacher is unable to enlighten the Jewish people as to who he is. In setting after setting, Jesus deliberately chooses to keep his identity a secret.
The author of Mark is not interested in history. God does not harden hearts or close people’s minds. Although there may be nuggets of historical truth in these stories, the author carefully selects them from among many possible stories about Jesus and shapes them to make his point. This gospel is about creative writing that reveals the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his life. That’s how ancient biographies work. In my next blog, I hope to make clear just how revolutionary these conclusions of Mark are.
Mark makes the case for this Jesus in a very creative way. In this gospel, Jesus reveals his glory by performing many wondrous deeds. He teaches about the coming kingdom in parables, he addresses crowds. The problem is that no one grasps the meaning of his message—not his disciples, his family, the Jewish leaders, or the crowds. They all expect a Messiah who will usher in a new kingdom.
Because of this deeply held belief in a coming Messiah, the Jews of Palestine are unable to understand the central meaning of Jesus’ life which is to bring people back to God. The only person to get it is the Roman centurion (Mark 15: 39), a Gentile and one of the people crucifying him. In this dramatic fashion, Mark delivers his message and signals that the future of the Church has moved from Palestine to the Hellenistic world.
Here’s the evidence. The disciples don’t get it in three boat scenes (4:40-41, 6:50-52, 8:14-21). They further miss the point in three passion scenes (8:32-33, 9:32, 10:32-41). His family does not understand him (3:21-35), nor do the crowds (4:10-12), or the people in his hometown (6:1-6).
In contrast, demons understand his identity (1:25, 1:34, 3:12), but Jesus silences them. He tells the people he heals (1:44, 5:43,7:36) to tell no one.
Interestingly, this is all part of God’s plan. When Jesus teaches in parables (4:12), the listeners do not understand because their hearts are hardened. The same circumstances prevent the disciples from understanding the real meaning of Jesus’ feeding the 5,000 and his walking on water (6:52). Their minds are closed.
In a fascinating combination of stories, Peter comes close to understanding. When Jesus asks the disciples about his identity (8:27-30), Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus responds by demanding that the disciples not reveal this secret. Sadly, when Jesus explains that he must suffer grievously (8:31-33), Peter protests. He ultimately doesn’t get it, and Jesus rebukes him with the words, “Get Behind Me Satan.”
Peter is like the blind man that Jesus heals in stages (8:22-26), a story found only in Mark. Peter sees Jesus as the Messiah, but his vision is blurred. Peter is like the blind man at the initial stage of his healing when he can only see trees.
This idea of Jesus’ secret identity which is hidden from the Jews is unique to Mark. In Matthew, when Jesus walks on water (Matthew 14: 13-34), the disciples worship him, and proclaim him to be the Son of God. Again in Matthew, when Jesus teaches the disciples in parables (13:11), he does so in order to reveal the secrets of heaven. When you read about the miracles in Luke, no attempt is made to hide Jesus’ identity. In John (see chapter 9), Jesus cures the blind man so that the works of God may be on display for all to see.
The gospel of Mark reaches a climax on the cross. There, as he watches and experiences the suffering of Jesus (Mark 15: 37-39), the Roman centurion gets it. “In truth this man was a Son of God.” The centurion is the first person in the gospel to recognize the meaning and purpose of Jesus’ life. The contrast with Matthew on this point is interesting (see Matthew 27:54). The centurion makes the same statement about recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, but for different reasons. The miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ death rather than his suffering on the cross are what lead the centurion to become a believer in Matthew.
As Jesus dies in Mark’s account, the veil of the Temple was torn from top to bottom. This symbolic act is extremely important. The God of the Jews was believed to reside in a small room in the Temple in Jerusalem where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. The High Priest of the Temple entered this room, symbolically for all Jews, once a year during the Passover celebration. The veil of the Temple kept the Ark hidden, and thus protected the hiddenness and mystery of God.
Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross tears open that room. God is revealed for all to see. The High Priest is no longer needed. Worshippers can now relate directly to God without mediation by a priest or the controlling power of an institution. Jesus heals the divine/human relationship. This is the central meaning of his life. The fact that the only one to get it is a Gentile signals, as I said above, that the future of the church is in the Gentile world. Mark reinforces this point with the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12).
There is a long tradition in Jewish thought that suffering unites God and humans (see Isaiah 52:13-53:12). The suffering servant in Isaiah (Chapters 40-55) dies not as a sacrifice for sin but to open people’s eyes to God. That is Mark’s point. There is not even a hint in this gospel that the meaning of Jesus’ life and death can be understood as an atoning sacrifice for human sin. The idea of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for human sin comes from Paul and the early Church, not Mark. Participating in the suffering of another takes our focus away from self, and creates a space for God to enter.
When you look back at this gospel, this is strange stuff. The disciples are sent out to preach the good news and to cast out devils. They are given the power to heal, they witness miracles, they help feed the 5,000, they are with Jesus when he walks on water, and not one of them gets it. Jesus has a reputation for being a great teacher, he teaches with authority (1:22), and yet the crowds don’t understand his mission. The great teacher is unable to enlighten the Jewish people as to who he is. In setting after setting, Jesus deliberately chooses to keep his identity a secret.
The author of Mark is not interested in history. God does not harden hearts or close people’s minds. Although there may be nuggets of historical truth in these stories, the author carefully selects them from among many possible stories about Jesus and shapes them to make his point. This gospel is about creative writing that reveals the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his life. That’s how ancient biographies work. In my next blog, I hope to make clear just how revolutionary these conclusions of Mark are.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Introduction to Mark
We begin with Mark because Mark was the first gospel to be written. How do we know that? There are several important pieces of evidence that support this conclusion.
There are 661 verses in Mark. Ninety percent of these verses also appear in Matthew, fifty percent of them appear in Luke. If Matthew was written first as many Christians believe and Mark was derived from Matthew, why does Mark not contain a virgin birth story or a Sermon on the Mount? Mark’s omission of these prominent stories is best explained by the proposition that Mark’s gospel came first.
There is also a great deal of evidence that the writers of Matthew and Luke edited material they received from Mark. Mistakes in grammar are corrected. More importantly, stories are changed.
The story of Jesus’ baptism by John at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry presented a real problem for the early Church because only sinners were baptized. Read Mark’s version of the story (1:9-11). Matthew takes this story and changes it (see Matthew 3: 13-15). In Matthew’s version, John tries to talk Jesus out of being baptized. John further suggests that Jesus is the one who should be baptizing him. In Luke (3:21-22), the writer reduces the impact of the story. We don’t see it happening. We only hear about it.
Matthew and Luke also edit Mark’s obvious mistakes. In the Passion Narrative, Mark (15:43) makes Joseph of Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin that convicted Jesus. He also points out that Joseph is a follower of Jesus. The problem comes in 14:64 when Mark says that all members of the Sanhedrin vote to convict Jesus. This would include Joseph. Matthew corrects the problem by taking Joseph out of the Sanhedrin (Matthew 27: 57-58). The verdict remains unanimous, but Joseph does not vote. Luke makes Joseph a member of the Sanhedrin who voted against conviction (Luke 23:50-51). The decision was not unanimous according to Luke. Matthew and Luke correct Mark in different ways in order to achieve consistency.
Please read the passages cited above. It won’t take but half an hour. It’s important that you see for yourself Mark’s material being edited. The writers of the New Testament gospels were first and foremost editors. These blogs will present examples of subtle and not so subtle editorial changes that occur throughout the New Testament. Figuring out the meaning of these changes is the work of New Testament scholarship. It’s fun.
A final argument supporting the idea that Mark’s gospel was written first is a matter of literary style. Mark developed many of his stories like an oreo cookie (see Mark 11: 15-33). The main story contains within it a minor story. Event A is introduced, event B is introduced and finished, and event A is concluded. The purpose of event B is to illustrate and embellish the meaning of event A. Mark has nine such story complexes. Matthew repeats five, Luke four. If Matthew was written first, you would expect that he would have included as many if not more of these unique story complexes.
A second and related question pertains to authorship. Who wrote Mark? The only honest answer is that we do not know. Some scholars have presented theories as to the author of Mark, but the evidence is speculative and not very convincing. There is no hard historical data to help in this matter.
For me, the identity of the author is not important. What is important is the fact that whomever the author was he was not an eye witness to the events he reports. There is a great deal of evidence to support this conclusion.
To begin with, the earliest manuscripts of Mark were written in Greek. Gospels were written because churches wanted a written account of Jesus’ ministry and great deeds for their worship. It took several years for the Christian church to move from its origins in Palestine to the Hellenistic world where Greek was the universal language. This time frame made it unlikely for eye witnesses to still be around.
Within the gospel, there are many inexact and sometimes inaccurate descriptions of Palestinian geography which suggests that the author of Mark had never traveled there. The audience for the gospel was clearly non-Palestinian and not Jewish. Read the story in Mark where the author reports on one of Jesus’ well known confrontations with the Pharisees (7: 1-13). Note that the author explains the religious significance of Jewish purity rules for his readers (verses 3-5). Such an explanation would not be necessary in Palestine before a Jewish audience. In verse five, he refers to the Jews as them, suggesting that they are different from the people for whom the gospel is addressed.
The final introductory question pertains to date of writing. Most New Testament scholars date the writing of Mark within a narrow range of years between 68 and 70 C.E.
The dating of New Testament materials is fraught with difficulty because writers did not date their work, and because the gospels contain little hard historical data to provide accurate reference points. In the case of Mark, the consensus year of 70 is chosen because of dramatic historical events which appear to echo or resonate throughout the gospel. In 66 C.E. the Jews of Palestine revolted against Rome. The rebellion was not put down until 73 C.E. In 69-70 C.E., the mass murder of tens of thousands of Jews took place. After that time, Jews that survived were exiled from Palestine and scattered throughout the Hellenistic world.
For many Jews, these horrible events signaled the end of the world. This theme plays a prominent role in Mark, and is the subject of a future blog. Mark never makes specific reference to this Roman invasion; however, the vivid tone of his gospel echoes these events. The Roman invasion provides a backdrop for many of Mark’s stories that helps to explain the tone of immediacy of the coming kingdom and the dark pessimism. That’s the main argument for a date of 70 C.E. It’s all the evidence we have. Dating the gospels is an inexact art!
In preparation for beginning a more detailed study of Mark, please read through the gospel in its entirety. Do this in one sitting as if you were reading a gripping novel. It shouldn’t take more than a few hours.
This exercise will introduce you to the genre of ancient biography. Note that the author of Mark has no interest in what Jesus looks like, his early childhood, members of his family, or whether Jesus was married. The focus of ancient biographies was identity. Who was this person, what made him great? In my next blog, I will provide Mark’s answer to these questions.
There are 661 verses in Mark. Ninety percent of these verses also appear in Matthew, fifty percent of them appear in Luke. If Matthew was written first as many Christians believe and Mark was derived from Matthew, why does Mark not contain a virgin birth story or a Sermon on the Mount? Mark’s omission of these prominent stories is best explained by the proposition that Mark’s gospel came first.
There is also a great deal of evidence that the writers of Matthew and Luke edited material they received from Mark. Mistakes in grammar are corrected. More importantly, stories are changed.
The story of Jesus’ baptism by John at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry presented a real problem for the early Church because only sinners were baptized. Read Mark’s version of the story (1:9-11). Matthew takes this story and changes it (see Matthew 3: 13-15). In Matthew’s version, John tries to talk Jesus out of being baptized. John further suggests that Jesus is the one who should be baptizing him. In Luke (3:21-22), the writer reduces the impact of the story. We don’t see it happening. We only hear about it.
Matthew and Luke also edit Mark’s obvious mistakes. In the Passion Narrative, Mark (15:43) makes Joseph of Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin that convicted Jesus. He also points out that Joseph is a follower of Jesus. The problem comes in 14:64 when Mark says that all members of the Sanhedrin vote to convict Jesus. This would include Joseph. Matthew corrects the problem by taking Joseph out of the Sanhedrin (Matthew 27: 57-58). The verdict remains unanimous, but Joseph does not vote. Luke makes Joseph a member of the Sanhedrin who voted against conviction (Luke 23:50-51). The decision was not unanimous according to Luke. Matthew and Luke correct Mark in different ways in order to achieve consistency.
Please read the passages cited above. It won’t take but half an hour. It’s important that you see for yourself Mark’s material being edited. The writers of the New Testament gospels were first and foremost editors. These blogs will present examples of subtle and not so subtle editorial changes that occur throughout the New Testament. Figuring out the meaning of these changes is the work of New Testament scholarship. It’s fun.
A final argument supporting the idea that Mark’s gospel was written first is a matter of literary style. Mark developed many of his stories like an oreo cookie (see Mark 11: 15-33). The main story contains within it a minor story. Event A is introduced, event B is introduced and finished, and event A is concluded. The purpose of event B is to illustrate and embellish the meaning of event A. Mark has nine such story complexes. Matthew repeats five, Luke four. If Matthew was written first, you would expect that he would have included as many if not more of these unique story complexes.
A second and related question pertains to authorship. Who wrote Mark? The only honest answer is that we do not know. Some scholars have presented theories as to the author of Mark, but the evidence is speculative and not very convincing. There is no hard historical data to help in this matter.
For me, the identity of the author is not important. What is important is the fact that whomever the author was he was not an eye witness to the events he reports. There is a great deal of evidence to support this conclusion.
To begin with, the earliest manuscripts of Mark were written in Greek. Gospels were written because churches wanted a written account of Jesus’ ministry and great deeds for their worship. It took several years for the Christian church to move from its origins in Palestine to the Hellenistic world where Greek was the universal language. This time frame made it unlikely for eye witnesses to still be around.
Within the gospel, there are many inexact and sometimes inaccurate descriptions of Palestinian geography which suggests that the author of Mark had never traveled there. The audience for the gospel was clearly non-Palestinian and not Jewish. Read the story in Mark where the author reports on one of Jesus’ well known confrontations with the Pharisees (7: 1-13). Note that the author explains the religious significance of Jewish purity rules for his readers (verses 3-5). Such an explanation would not be necessary in Palestine before a Jewish audience. In verse five, he refers to the Jews as them, suggesting that they are different from the people for whom the gospel is addressed.
The final introductory question pertains to date of writing. Most New Testament scholars date the writing of Mark within a narrow range of years between 68 and 70 C.E.
The dating of New Testament materials is fraught with difficulty because writers did not date their work, and because the gospels contain little hard historical data to provide accurate reference points. In the case of Mark, the consensus year of 70 is chosen because of dramatic historical events which appear to echo or resonate throughout the gospel. In 66 C.E. the Jews of Palestine revolted against Rome. The rebellion was not put down until 73 C.E. In 69-70 C.E., the mass murder of tens of thousands of Jews took place. After that time, Jews that survived were exiled from Palestine and scattered throughout the Hellenistic world.
For many Jews, these horrible events signaled the end of the world. This theme plays a prominent role in Mark, and is the subject of a future blog. Mark never makes specific reference to this Roman invasion; however, the vivid tone of his gospel echoes these events. The Roman invasion provides a backdrop for many of Mark’s stories that helps to explain the tone of immediacy of the coming kingdom and the dark pessimism. That’s the main argument for a date of 70 C.E. It’s all the evidence we have. Dating the gospels is an inexact art!
In preparation for beginning a more detailed study of Mark, please read through the gospel in its entirety. Do this in one sitting as if you were reading a gripping novel. It shouldn’t take more than a few hours.
This exercise will introduce you to the genre of ancient biography. Note that the author of Mark has no interest in what Jesus looks like, his early childhood, members of his family, or whether Jesus was married. The focus of ancient biographies was identity. Who was this person, what made him great? In my next blog, I will provide Mark’s answer to these questions.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Biblical Literacy Project
September 11th was a wake-up call for many, a life changing event. For me, it was a day of lost opportunity. My publisher had arranged book signings for my two novels in several major bookstores in the Charlotte North Carolina metropolitan area. It was an opportunity to take the sales of these books to a new level.
The drive to Charlotte from our home in the North Carolina mountains takes about two hours. When I arrived at the first store at 9:45 a.m., the news was both horrifying and shocking. People were glued to television sets throughout the store. Few customers were interested in buying books, no one was interested in conversation with an author. My four appearances were cancelled.
On the drive home, I reflected on the events of the day. They were scary, deeply disturbing, hard to believe. As a self-declared religious scientist, the one thought that kept coming back to me was that a religion of certainty is extremely dangerous. Radical Islam has both distorted the teachings of Mohammad, and lashed out in ways that are very dangerous for the peace and security of the world. In acting this way, the Islamic terrorists violate both the teachings and the spirit of their great founder.
A corollary to this idea also occurred to me on that trip home: fundamentalist Christianity has produced similar negative consequences. If religious people of all stripes are honest with themselves, you cannot escape the conclusion that religion has more often been the cause of societal and global problems than the solution. In the case of Christianity, the examples of the Crusades, the Christian inspired anti-Semitism in Europe that allowed Nazism to develop and thrive (a future blog topic), Rwanda, the recent violence between Serbs and Croats in the former Yugoslavia, and gay bashing (another future blog entry) readily come to mind.
On that trip home, I vowed to fight religious fundamentalism. If God is transcendent, beyond human definition and control, black and white answers to religious questions are not possible. Religious scripture in all its manifestations is a human creation. Scriptural literalism can be hazardous to the health of your neighbor, a situation that flies in the face of Jesus’ great teaching on the subject, and the similar teachings of all of the world’s spiritual founders.
The Biblical Literacy Project will fight this problem as it relates to the New Testament. We will proceed book by book. In many ways, the weekly entries posted each Monday morning will serve as an introduction to the New Testament. I will focus on the central themes that dominate each New Testament writing, and the religious issues that derive from these writings that interest me. I hope that the blog entries will be both informative and provocative.
I am not a New Testament scholar with certifiable credentials. I spent most of my career as a university professor with a Ph.D. in Latin American politics from Tulane University. On the other hand, the study of the New Testament has been my passion for the last forty years. I have taught an adult Sunday school class in two Protestant churches. I have also written a book on these issues entitled The Case Against Evangelical Christianity published by Charles River Press.
There is no better way to present this material than in a blog because a blog allows for written feedback, responses from you the reader, that are shared and available to all readers of the blog. Because I am not an expert on these questions, I hope you will be encouraged to respond. The wonderful thing is that no one is an expert when it comes to a transcendent God. Such a God is discovered in mystery, in an encounter of awe and wonder. Human writings can never capture this experience. Instead the best we can do is write about the experience in ways that reflect our many limitations as human beings.
In developing my positions on New Testament issues, I will cite biblical references to illustrate the major points I make. These references will come from The Jerusalem Bible, a book I purchased more than forty years ago at the recommendation of the college professor teaching the New Testament course in which I was enrolled. The Jerusalem Bible is written in a contemporary literary style, which may mean that the text will vary somewhat from the one you are using. This should not present a problem; but if it does, you will have entered the realm of New Testament scholarship. Discovering an accurate rendering of the text is often the first task in interpreting a New Testament passage.
So please join me in this collective attempt at illumination. We begin next week with Mark. For those of you who come on board once the blog is in progress, I recommend that you start at the beginning with “An Introduction to Mark.” Later blog entries will assume information introduced in earlier blogs.
The drive to Charlotte from our home in the North Carolina mountains takes about two hours. When I arrived at the first store at 9:45 a.m., the news was both horrifying and shocking. People were glued to television sets throughout the store. Few customers were interested in buying books, no one was interested in conversation with an author. My four appearances were cancelled.
On the drive home, I reflected on the events of the day. They were scary, deeply disturbing, hard to believe. As a self-declared religious scientist, the one thought that kept coming back to me was that a religion of certainty is extremely dangerous. Radical Islam has both distorted the teachings of Mohammad, and lashed out in ways that are very dangerous for the peace and security of the world. In acting this way, the Islamic terrorists violate both the teachings and the spirit of their great founder.
A corollary to this idea also occurred to me on that trip home: fundamentalist Christianity has produced similar negative consequences. If religious people of all stripes are honest with themselves, you cannot escape the conclusion that religion has more often been the cause of societal and global problems than the solution. In the case of Christianity, the examples of the Crusades, the Christian inspired anti-Semitism in Europe that allowed Nazism to develop and thrive (a future blog topic), Rwanda, the recent violence between Serbs and Croats in the former Yugoslavia, and gay bashing (another future blog entry) readily come to mind.
On that trip home, I vowed to fight religious fundamentalism. If God is transcendent, beyond human definition and control, black and white answers to religious questions are not possible. Religious scripture in all its manifestations is a human creation. Scriptural literalism can be hazardous to the health of your neighbor, a situation that flies in the face of Jesus’ great teaching on the subject, and the similar teachings of all of the world’s spiritual founders.
The Biblical Literacy Project will fight this problem as it relates to the New Testament. We will proceed book by book. In many ways, the weekly entries posted each Monday morning will serve as an introduction to the New Testament. I will focus on the central themes that dominate each New Testament writing, and the religious issues that derive from these writings that interest me. I hope that the blog entries will be both informative and provocative.
I am not a New Testament scholar with certifiable credentials. I spent most of my career as a university professor with a Ph.D. in Latin American politics from Tulane University. On the other hand, the study of the New Testament has been my passion for the last forty years. I have taught an adult Sunday school class in two Protestant churches. I have also written a book on these issues entitled The Case Against Evangelical Christianity published by Charles River Press.
There is no better way to present this material than in a blog because a blog allows for written feedback, responses from you the reader, that are shared and available to all readers of the blog. Because I am not an expert on these questions, I hope you will be encouraged to respond. The wonderful thing is that no one is an expert when it comes to a transcendent God. Such a God is discovered in mystery, in an encounter of awe and wonder. Human writings can never capture this experience. Instead the best we can do is write about the experience in ways that reflect our many limitations as human beings.
In developing my positions on New Testament issues, I will cite biblical references to illustrate the major points I make. These references will come from The Jerusalem Bible, a book I purchased more than forty years ago at the recommendation of the college professor teaching the New Testament course in which I was enrolled. The Jerusalem Bible is written in a contemporary literary style, which may mean that the text will vary somewhat from the one you are using. This should not present a problem; but if it does, you will have entered the realm of New Testament scholarship. Discovering an accurate rendering of the text is often the first task in interpreting a New Testament passage.
So please join me in this collective attempt at illumination. We begin next week with Mark. For those of you who come on board once the blog is in progress, I recommend that you start at the beginning with “An Introduction to Mark.” Later blog entries will assume information introduced in earlier blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
