Scriptural literacy

[Greediguts]

---Since reading Daniel, I went backward and have started going over Ezekiel....that is some wild imagery there! Wanted to comment on the fig stories-----

It appears to me that the author of Mark made Jesus more human and (to me, at least) more likeable most of the time. The story of the fig tree shows that quite well. It's easy to imagine (even empathize) with Jesus walking for a long time, seeing a fig tree in the distance, and then approaching it hoping to find food. Forgetting its not fig season and then taking his anger out on the plant because he made a wasted trip, gives Jesus human qualities.

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. "(Mark 11:13-14)

Here is Matthew:

"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! "(Matthew 21:18-20)

Matthew removes "for the time of figs was not yet. " and places the fig tree "in the way" instead of "afar off". The tree dies right there and then as well. Matthew changes everything in the wording that makes Jesus appear to be more human. Matthew's Jesus would know when fig season is and would not walk a great distance only to discover he made a mistake. Also, his power is greater. The plant dies immediately.

I bring this up not to nit-pick, but to point out what appears to be a constant theme of Matthew's treatment of Jesus, compared to Mark's treatment of Jesus. It's almost like Mark wants to describe what happened and get the reader to empathize, whereas Matthew is more worried about getting the theology correct. Is this a fair assessment?

Or in the end does it turn out that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are correct when they hold up their signs and loudly proclaim" GOD HATES FIGS!!!"

 

[Piggy]

---Since reading Daniel, I went backward and have started going over Ezekiel....that is some wild imagery there!

Indeed it is. I was thinking about commenting on some of that imagery and its relationship to changes in Jewish practice and thought.

It's almost like Mark wants to describe what happened and get the reader to empathize, whereas Matthew is more worried about getting the theology correct. Is this a fair assessment?

Yeah, I think that's fair.

I think Mark is generally closer to the earliest story traditions, which would show Jesus as more human.

Matthew takes more time to explicitly link Jesus to prophecy.

It may be that Matthew removed the reference to the season of figs because he was uncomfortable with Jesus making such a mistake. And perhaps he streamlines it because he sees it as a mere parable that does not directly associate Jesus with earlier prophecy and which has an explanation that is not concerned with the mystery of the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Compare, for example, Mark and Matthew's treatment of the parable of the sower and you'll see that Matthew spends a good deal of time on that one and doesn't cut important elements or truncate the timeline.

Luke also includes this one, and tidies it up even more than Matthew, but still, all the elements are there.

Mark's rendering of the parable of the sower

Matthew's version of that parable

Luke's rendition of the parable

In contrast, Matthew and Luke may have been much less interested in the withering of the fig tree because it was not central to the message of their gospels.

Like I said, it's a Balrogs-and-wings kind of topic. There are many possible readings and explanations.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

Now it starts to become clearer to me of how reading the Book of Daniel symbolically, within its historical context, instead of literally helps to give more meaning and a clearer understanding of the text. I know, most of you are saying, "Well, duh..." but I think I've gotten so used to talking (or arguing) with fundamentalist Christians that I actually have started viewing the Bible in a literal sense more often than not.

I think the distinction (fundamentalism) is not made nearly often enough. Assuming all Christians (or religious) are cut from the same cloth is a fundamental error made by too many, I feel.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.


M.

 

[Moochie]

Comment.

This is a terrific discussion. Please keep 'em comin'.

Seconded. Keep in mind that for some readers this may be their first exposure to such discussion.


M.

ETA: Sorry for these late responses -- I'm only now catching up with the posts. Thanks.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Ok, more detail on the question: Did Jesus teach peace and love, or fire and brimstone.

A: Both.

The core of Jesus' teaching, by all accounts, was the coming of the Kingdom of God; that is, the Day of Wrath in which all people would be judged -- both the living and the dead, because the dead would be bodily resurrected -- and the wicked punished, and the righteous spared, and the reign of Heaven on Earth established.

Other apocalyptic cults also preached the coming of the Kingdom of God, but they differed on the question of who would be considered righteous.

Remnant theology was prevalent among these cults -- that is, that the true righteous remnant of Israel would survive. The Essenes considered themselves the true remnant because they alone -- so they thought -- followed the Law, and the Law was the path to righteousness.

The Jesus movement, however, was anti-legalistic, and held that the Law could not save you. They held that love and mercy were the marks of those who obey the will of the Father. So peace and love, so to speak, were the means to survive the coming fire and brimstone.(snip)

This is one thing that's confused me the most. How are his teachings of peace and love logically or ethically consistent, in any way, with his teachings that the world will be engulfed in fire and brimstone? Perhaps it's just my modern view of things, but it seems to me more like war and hatred are the things that would most threaten to plunge the world into flames.

If the world is going to end, why bother with peace and love? I'm not asking because this is a view I hold, mind you, I'm asking because this is a view that a lot of doomsday Christians hold even today. Some have said that a war triggered by Israel's tense position in the Middle East would be a fulfillment of this prophecy. Some have argued for the exploitation of the world, in that a single tree left standing by the time the Apocalypse arrives would be a waste. There is also a disturbingly high number of morons who believe the world will end within their lifetimes, and that it would be absolutely marvelous to watch everyone who believes differently to be tortured from then until eternity.

Peace and love sound like precisely the things that would avert the end of the world, or at least dramatically alter its meaning to perhaps indicate an end of an era of history. I know this probably flies in the face of what scripture says, but I'm admitting right here and now that it's based more on my own views; I tend to think of his message of the reign of Heaven on Earth, not as an apocalyptic warning, but as part of the same lesson of peace and love. It was hatred and bigotry that oppressed his people and condemned him to death, therefore it's up to those who believe in him to work towards his goals of peace and love, and in doing so bring about Heaven on Earth. A person like Jesus could not exist for long in a world ruled by hate, after all.

Again, those are just my opinions and my own drawn conclusions, and I'm aware that I'd be taking just as many liberties if I tried to find much in scripture to justify them.

 

[Piggy]

This is one thing that's confused me the most. How are his teachings of peace and love logically or ethically consistent, in any way, with his teachings that the world will be engulfed in fire and brimstone? Perhaps it's just my modern view of things, but it seems to me more like war and hatred are the things that would most threaten to plunge the world into flames.

If the world is going to end, why bother with peace and love?

Well, yes, you have a point here.

The practice of mercy, justice, and love has a twofold importance.

For the early followers of the Jesus movement, it was their means to salvation. (When Paul expanded the Jesus movement outside the Jewish community, faith in the resurrection of Jesus became the means to salvation, but for the moment let's stick to the early core community who considered themselves followers of the rabbi Jesus.)

When the Day of Wrath came, they would be judged righteous because they loved God and loved their neighbors.

And by all accounts, the early Xians were very active in charity and in physical ministry to the poor and the sick, including those who were considered "unclean" and were therefore shunned by other religious schools.

Of course, this salvation was open to everyone. And if all of Israel -- or for that matter, all of the world -- heeded the call of God's true prophet to repent and to turn to the practice of love, justice, and mercy, then God would delay the Day of Wrath.

This is the point of Luke's parable of the fig tree. If the tree were to begin producing figs after being fertilized with the Word, then God would not uproot it.

But the world did not heed. Israel did not heed. The violence continued. People continued to be selfish and unkind, to steal and murder, to believe that the Law would save them, so according to their theology, the Day of Wrath was imminent and only a remnant would be spared.

In other words, just because they practiced mercy and love, this did not mean that the apocalypse was not imminent.

So you practice peace and love whether God is bringing on the end of the world or not. If everyone else joins you, then the earth is spared the wrath of God. If they don't, then you are spared the wrath of God.

I'm asking because this is a view that a lot of doomsday Christians hold even today. Some have said that a war triggered by Israel's tense position in the Middle East would be a fulfillment of this prophecy. Some have argued for the exploitation of the world, in that a single tree left standing by the time the Apocalypse arrives would be a waste. There is also a disturbingly high number of morons who believe the world will end within their lifetimes, and that it would be absolutely marvelous to watch everyone who believes differently to be tortured from then until eternity.

They forget that none knows the day or the hour. Not even the Son, but only the Father.

And if they think they're going to get pleasure from watching the world go down in flames, then they've just identified themselves as one of the ones who'll be going down with it, because if they feel that way, then they do not love their neighbors as themselves, they do not love their enemies, and they do not love mercy, so they will not be spared.

What we're getting down to here is the difference between the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and the Jesus of Paul, especially as interpreted by much of modern Xiandom.

Paul's theology is easier, because it rests in faith in the resurrection and salvation through belief in Jesus Christ.

Many Americans have taken Paul's theology and turned it into a religion of convenience. All you have to do is to believe something -- that's it. Once you do that, you're good to go.

It's the ultimate convenience religion. It's the Domino's Pizza version of religion, except you don't even have to pay.

They believe themselves saved by faith. And sure, grace without works is dead, so you do good works, but at the end of the day, a thought in your head is all you need to spare you from the wrath of God.

The rabbi Jesus would have found this a very strange idea indeed.

 

[Hokulele]

This may be a bit of a digression, but I was interested in anyone's take on the word logos as it applies to the NT. I was re-reading Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, and in the intro to an early chapter, the author made a throw away observation that logos in Greek also means ratio, and given the importance of mathematics in Greek philosophy, John 1:1 makes more sense when read "In the beginning was the ratio, and the ratio was with God, and the ratio was God." In the context of Greek influence on the thinking of the time, this sounds reasonable to me. I can provide more from that book if it helps. Thoughts?


ETA: Especially when taking all of John and his apparent mysticism into account.

 

[Brian-M]

This may be a bit of a digression, but I was interested in anyone's take on the word logos as it applies to the NT. I was re-reading Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, and in the intro to an early chapter, the author made a throw away observation that logos in Greek also means ratio, and given the importance of mathematics in Greek philosophy, John 1:1 makes more sense when read "In the beginning was the ratio, and the ratio was with God, and the ratio was God." In the context of Greek influence on the thinking of the time, this sounds reasonable to me. I can provide more from that book if it helps. Thoughts?

I always thought "logos" meant "logic".
I just looked it up on wikipedia, and found it refers to something spoken.

Logos (Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. It derives from the verb λέγω legō: to count, tell, say, or speak.[1] The primary meaning of logos is: something said; by implication a subject, topic of discourse, or reasoning. Secondary meanings such as logic, reasoning, etc. derive from the fact that if one is capable of λέγειν (infinitive) i.e. speech, then intelligence and reason are assumed.

BTW
Piggy, keep it up. We're actually learning stuff now.
(And Radrook seems to have vanished. I wonder if there's any connection?)/

 

[Hokulele]

I always thought "logos" meant "logic".
I just looked it up on wikipedia, and found it refers to something spoken.

The difficult thing is that like many words, logos has several translations depending on whether you are talking about mathematics, philosophy, religion, etc. It could very well be that John was implying more than one meaning, much as modern poets do. I have seen other people translate logos as action, which is almost the opposite of something spoken. Let's not even get into Carl Jung here.

I was mostly curious as to what others have found in their reading, as I have found John 1:1 to be one of those verses that has been used to support, well, almost anything in Christianity. Is there any standard or official reading?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The difficult thing is that like many words, logos has several translations depending on whether you are talking about mathematics, philosophy, religion, etc. It could very well be that John was implying more than one meaning, much as modern poets do. I have seen other people translate logos as action, which is almost the opposite of something spoken. Let's not even get into Carl Jung here.

I was mostly curious as to what others have found in their reading, as I have found John 1:1 to be one of those verses that has been used to support, well, almost anything in Christianity. Is there any standard or official reading?

I don't think there can be (though most English translations still use "Word"). I think the main reason logos works so well is that it has so many meanings/connotations (and the translation "Word" is also suitable ambiguous, though it clearly refers back to "Let there be light"). I really like 'ratio' there, though. Different people can approach it from different angles, and the same person at different times of life or simply in different readings can find something new each time. One of the things that has always struck me as strange is that if God, knowing us, really wanted to communicate unambiguous teachings for us to lead our lives, why in the world would he use language? Language is inherently ambiguous and stories even more so. Biblical literalism is such a contradiction in terms that it gives me a chuckle.

I've been wondering about another issue that I think I can see in Mark, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

There are several 'miracles' in Mark's gospel that seem like they were invented for that gospel and might not have been part of traditional stories floating around. In particular, I mean the blind man who was cured in stages immediately before Peter for the first time 'sees' that Jesus is the Messiah; and the miracles of the loaves and fishes that are paired with discussion of the leaven of the Pharisees (trust in the holy spirit, not what the Jones' are saying); and Jesus walking on water in the storm, looking like a ghost. The miracle of the loaves and fishes (a miracle that is specifically repeated in Mark to show how dense the disciples are) and Jesus on water (paired with the teaching about the miracle of the loaves) seem like direct references to the spirit, and, for some reason, for the past several years I've been of the opinion that the author of Mark invented those stories for just that rhetorical effect -- the Transfiguration comes soon after in the sequence, as well. While it is always possible, and even likely, that Mark collected these stories and arranged them for that rhetorical purpose (the rest of the book seems like that with several tales showing Jesus' authority in the beginning, then moving onto another topic), those particular miracles just don't seem to read that way to me. What do you guys think?

 

[Piggy]

There are several 'miracles' in Mark's gospel that seem like they were invented for that gospel and might not have been part of traditional stories floating around. In particular, I mean the blind man who was cured in stages immediately before Peter for the first time 'sees' that Jesus is the Messiah; and the miracles of the loaves and fishes that are paired with discussion of the leaven of the Pharisees (trust in the holy spirit, not what the Jones' are saying); and Jesus walking on water in the storm, looking like a ghost. The miracle of the loaves and fishes (a miracle that is specifically repeated in Mark to show how dense the disciples are) and Jesus on water (paired with the teaching about the miracle of the loaves) seem like direct references to the spirit, and, for some reason, for the past several years I've been of the opinion that the author of Mark invented those stories for just that rhetorical effect -- the Transfiguration comes soon after in the sequence, as well. While it is always possible, and even likely, that Mark collected these stories and arranged them for that rhetorical purpose (the rest of the book seems like that with several tales showing Jesus' authority in the beginning, then moving onto another topic), those particular miracles just don't seem to read that way to me. What do you guys think?

Wow, there's a lot to say about all that. It's all quite interesting.

I'd like to chime in here on one point:

The miracle of the loaves and fishes (a miracle that is specifically repeated in Mark to show how dense the disciples are)

Actually, this miracle is not repeated.

The feeding of the 5,000 in Galilee with 12 loaves and 2 fishes is one miracle (the only miracle story to be reported in all 4 gospels) and the feeding of the 4,000 in Syria with 7 loaves and "a few" fishes is another.

It's not surprising, actually, that Matthew -- a Jew writing to Jews -- repeats both, while the Greek evangelists Luke and John omit it. They probably saw it as redundant, but it is not. The catch is, you have to be hip to traditional Hebrew iconography to note the difference.

In Mark, Jesus mentions the first miracle when performing the second, and tries to make the disciples understand by asking how many baskets were left over from the 12 loaves (12) and how many from the 7 loaves (7).

The 12 loaves represent the 12 tribes of Israel (and the 2 fishes the 2 kingdoms of Israel and Judah), and the 7 loaves represent the 7 neighboring nations (and "a few" fishes the various kings of those nations). In the first miracle, Jesus is feeding Galileans (Jews). In the second miracle, Jesus is feeding Syrians.

The words "bread" and "life" in Hebrew are similar, and bread is traditionally associated with life.

In the first miracle, Jesus is offering life to Israel (the Jewish people). In the second, he is again aligning himself with Daniel's vision of the Son of Man as not only a prophet to his own people but also as the eventual judge of all nations when the Day of the Lord comes by offering life to the surrounding nations as well.

As for the disciples, rhetorically they often act as, well, like the sidekicks in the Dr. Who series -- there has to be someone there for the hero to explain things to in order for the audience to hear those explanations and understand what's going on, especially in a tale where there are others who explicitly do not (or cannot) understand what's going on.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Actually, this miracle is not repeated.

The feeding of the 5,000 in Galilee with 12 loaves and 2 fishes is one miracle (the only miracle story to be reported in all 4 gospels) and the feeding of the 4,000 in Syria with 7 loaves and "a few" fishes is another.

It's not surprising, actually, that Matthew -- a Jew writing to Jews -- repeats both, while the Greek evangelists Luke and John omit it. They probably saw it as redundant, but it is not. The catch is, you have to be hip to traditional Hebrew iconography to note the difference.

In Mark, Jesus mentions the first miracle when performing the second, and tries to make the disciples understand by asking how many baskets were left over from the 12 loaves (12) and how many from the 7 loaves (7).

The 12 loaves represent the 12 tribes of Israel (and the 2 fishes the 2 kingdoms of Israel and Judah), and the 7 loaves represent the 7 neighboring nations (and "a few" fishes the various kings of those nations). In the first miracle, Jesus is feeding Galileans (Jews). In the second miracle, Jesus is feeding Syrians.

The words "bread" and "life" in Hebrew are similar, and bread is traditionally associated with life.

In the first miracle, Jesus is offering life to Israel (the Jewish people). In the second, he is again aligning himself with Daniel's vision of the Son of Man as not only a prophet to his own people but also as the eventual judge of all nations when the Day of the Lord comes by offering life to the surrounding nations as well.

As for the disciples, rhetorically they often act as, well, like the sidekicks in the Dr. Who series -- there has to be someone there for the hero to explain things to in order for the audience to hear those explanations and understand what's going on, especially in a tale where there are others who explicitly do not (or cannot) understand what's going on.

I didn't mean to say that it is the exact miracle repeated in all respects, but that the nature of the miracle is repeated -- because it doesn't seem to be a miracle but a metaphor, so let me explain.

He feeds the multitudes in Galilee and we get the 12 basketsful of bread and pieces of fish. The next thing that happens is the walking on water bit where the disciples (about to drown) see Jesus and "thought it was a ghost". And then we get this bit in the next few lines....."they were completely and utterly dumbfounded because they had not seen what the miracle of the loaves meant; their minds were closed." The walking on the water and Jesus appearing like a ghost is directly linked to the miracle of the loaves.

Then, there's a bit about the Pharisees and clean and unclean (hint, hint), the daughter of the Syrophonecian woman (the children should be fed first, and all), healing a deaf man and then the second miracle of the loaves. After the second miracle of the loaves the Pharisees ask for a sign and then Jesus explicitly tells his followers to beware the leaven of the Pharisees.

"And they said to one another, 'It is because we have no bread'" to which Jesus replies, "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you not yet understand?"

All of this seems constructed so as to get across the point that this isn't about bread as a physical object, but bread as life, as spiritual sustenance, the word, the spirit (why I think Jesus is seen as a ghost, symbolizing the spirit and the word he preaches is supposed to be the good leaven that feeds the multitudes spiritually to prepare the way for God's imminent judgment).

Then we get the blind man cured in stages, the prophecy of the passion, conditions for following the messiah (who has now been revealed) and the transfiguration.

I don't know, but it seems to me like many of these stories were specifically constructed as metaphors to demonstrate the basic theme of the gospel -- that no one seems to understand that Jesus is the messiah because he suffers and dies.

 

[Piggy]

I don't know, but it seems to me like many of these stories were specifically constructed as metaphors to demonstrate the basic theme of the gospel -- that no one seems to understand that Jesus is the messiah because he suffers and dies.

Oh, that's certainly true. The gospels are brilliant books.

What the gospel writers did was to take the multiplicity of traditions that were circulating and to weave them into a narrative.

Many of the OT redactors did the same thing, but they were often hampered by having to retain conflicting traditions in one document, which the gospel writers apparently did not feel compelled to do.

The question of whether they invented any material out of whole cloth is one that can't be answered conclusively. But I tend to doubt it, for the most part, because totally new material would have been suspect by the Xian community, and because we know that so much of what they wrote is in line with tradition, that they were borrowing from similar sources and in some cases from each other.

What they did was to nuance the material, arrange it, provide commentaries and explanations, that kind of thing.

Then again, perhaps they did invent some of the matieral themselves. It had to come from somewhere.

There are certainly precedents for the practice, such as the writing of the book of Deuteronomy. And someone added the spurious endings to Mark at some point.

But chances are, the genealogies, birth stories, parables, sayings, miracle stories, confrontation stories, etc. had been circulating by the time the gospels were written, a generation or two after Jesus' death.

They just tidied them up a bit.

 

[Greediguts]

As for the disciples, rhetorically they often act as, well, like the sidekicks in the Dr. Who series -- there has to be someone there for the hero to explain things to in order for the audience to hear those explanations and understand what's going on, especially in a tale where there are others who explicitly do not (or cannot) understand what's going on.

Isn't there a difference in how the disiples are portrayed by Mark as compared to Matthew? Mark's disciples seem somewhat dense, as if they never can quite understand Jesus' teachings, his mission, or the necessity of the crucifixion and resurrection.

"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." (Mark 9:32)

Matthew's treatment:

"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry."( Matthew 17:22-23)

When Jesus tries to explain again, in Mark, of what is about to happen to him, yet again they fail to grasp it, and 2 disciples ask for their positions to be enhanced.

" And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,
Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? " (Mark 10:32-38)

Matthew has the mother come and request the honor for the sons.

"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"(Matthew 20:17-22)

In regards to the 2 stories about the fishes and the loaves, if it is 2 seperate examples, then doesn't it amplifiy the obtuseness of the disciples even more (as Ichneumonwasp stated)? Here's the first verses of the second telling of the fishes/loaves miracle:

"In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them,
I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat:
And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.
And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? " (Mark 8:1-4)

If the disciples had just recently witnessed Jesus feed 5000, then their reaction becomes even more pointed.(BTW Piggy, I also cannot find mention that he is feeding Syrians, as the account does not really say if he is among Gentiles. May I ask what you base that on?)

This discussion reminded me of part of a larger argument regarding Mark. I dug my Who Wrote the Gospels by Helms back out and he stated the differences are because the author of Mark held the view that the real "secret of the kingdom of God" was that the job of the Messiah is not to rule, at first, but to suffer and die before returning to rule. To quote the author," Mark combined the political idea of the Messiah, widely popular and devoutly wished for in first-century Palestine (as Josephus attests, and based on such biblical passages as Isiah 11 and Daniel 7 where the "son of man" will come on the clouds to assume kingly power), with Second Isaiah's concept of the Suffering Servant. A concept of the Messiah "pierced for our transgressions, tourtured for our iniquities" by whose "scourging we are healed" (Isa. 53:5), was a concept so radical, in Mark's view, that not even the disciples understood it."

This would also explain why Jesus, in Mark's book, keeps telling people to be quiet about the miracles he performs ( Mark 1:24, 1:34, 3:12, 5:43, 8:30,etc.). Mark looks at Christianity as a secret knowledge to be passed onto a select few and that those who do follow need to realize a key theme of the Christian faith is suffering.

 

[Piggy]

BTW Piggy, I also cannot find mention that he is feeding Syrians, as the account does not really say if he is among Gentiles. May I ask what you base that on?

I'm sorry, at that point he had returned from Syria and crossed the Gaililee and was in the Decapolis in the Tetrarchy of Philip.

 

[Piggy]

Isn't there a difference in how the disiples are portrayed by Mark as compared to Matthew? Mark's disciples seem somewhat dense, as if they never can quite understand Jesus' teachings, his mission, or the necessity of the crucifixion and resurrection.

I think that's a valid way to look at it. And there may be more than one reason for this.

As the earlier gospel, Mark's audience may have required more explanation of the theology of the Xian movement than Matthew's somewhat later audience who may have been more familiar with it.

And if Matthew's audience is indeed primarily a Jewish one, they may have required less explanation of some of the images, allusions, and principles.

This discussion reminded me of part of a larger argument regarding Mark. I dug my Who Wrote the Gospels by Helms back out and he stated the differences are because the author of Mark held the view that the real "secret of the kingdom of God" was that the job of the Messiah is not to rule, at first, but to suffer and die before returning to rule. To quote the author," Mark combined the political idea of the Messiah, widely popular and devoutly wished for in first-century Palestine (as Josephus attests, and based on such biblical passages as Isiah 11 and Daniel 7 where the "son of man" will come on the clouds to assume kingly power), with Second Isaiah's concept of the Suffering Servant. A concept of the Messiah "pierced for our transgressions, tourtured for our iniquities" by whose "scourging we are healed" (Isa. 53:5), was a concept so radical, in Mark's view, that not even the disciples understood it."

I think that's right on the mark. Jesus' crucifixion required some splainin', and the early Xians mined the Hebrew prophetic tradition for explanations.

The notion of the despised prophet wasn't new, but to my knowledge it had never been combined with Messianism before the Xians.

This would also explain why Jesus, in Mark's book, keeps telling people to be quiet about the miracles he performs ( Mark 1:24, 1:34, 3:12, 5:43, 8:30,etc.). Mark looks at Christianity as a secret knowledge to be passed onto a select few and that those who do follow need to realize a key theme of the Christian faith is suffering.

Yes, Jesus is explicit on this point in several passages, especially in his explanation of the parable of the sower to "the twelve and the others who were with him" -- that is, the early members of his school -- in Mark, where he tells them flat out that they are given to understand, but to others it is not given to understand.

There are other reasons for this trope, as well, though. For example, when Jesus heals the leper early in Mark, he tells him to tell no one, but to go and offer payment at the Temple for his healing.

This would have been an odd scene. A man shows up at the Temple and wants to give an offering for a healing. The priests would have said, "But you haven't received a healing". Then he would have told the priests about Jesus, so the message of the presence of the true Power would have been given to them.

In contrast to the Temple priests, Jesus does not ask for payment, and he does not seek recognition. This casts him as pure and righteous against the corruption of the Temple.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Isn't there a difference in how the disiples are portrayed by Mark as compared to Matthew? Mark's disciples seem somewhat dense, as if they never can quite understand Jesus' teachings, his mission, or the necessity of the crucifixion and resurrection.

"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." (Mark 9:32)

Matthew's treatment:

"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry."( Matthew 17:22-23)

When Jesus tries to explain again, in Mark, of what is about to happen to him, yet again they fail to grasp it, and 2 disciples ask for their positions to be enhanced.

" And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,
Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? " (Mark 10:32-38)

Matthew has the mother come and request the honor for the sons.

"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"(Matthew 20:17-22)

In regards to the 2 stories about the fishes and the loaves, if it is 2 seperate examples, then doesn't it amplifiy the obtuseness of the disciples even more (as Ichneumonwasp stated)? Here's the first verses of the second telling of the fishes/loaves miracle:

"In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them,
I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat:
And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.
And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? " (Mark 8:1-4)

If the disciples had just recently witnessed Jesus feed 5000, then their reaction becomes even more pointed.(BTW Piggy, I also cannot find mention that he is feeding Syrians, as the account does not really say if he is among Gentiles. May I ask what you base that on?)

This discussion reminded me of part of a larger argument regarding Mark. I dug my Who Wrote the Gospels by Helms back out and he stated the differences are because the author of Mark held the view that the real "secret of the kingdom of God" was that the job of the Messiah is not to rule, at first, but to suffer and die before returning to rule. To quote the author," Mark combined the political idea of the Messiah, widely popular and devoutly wished for in first-century Palestine (as Josephus attests, and based on such biblical passages as Isiah 11 and Daniel 7 where the "son of man" will come on the clouds to assume kingly power), with Second Isaiah's concept of the Suffering Servant. A concept of the Messiah "pierced for our transgressions, tourtured for our iniquities" by whose "scourging we are healed" (Isa. 53:5), was a concept so radical, in Mark's view, that not even the disciples understood it."

This would also explain why Jesus, in Mark's book, keeps telling people to be quiet about the miracles he performs ( Mark 1:24, 1:34, 3:12, 5:43, 8:30,etc.). Mark looks at Christianity as a secret knowledge to be passed onto a select few and that those who do follow need to realize a key theme of the Christian faith is suffering.

That fits nicely with much of my way of reading Mark; maybe I should give a little background.........

I don't have the scholarly background in this area as some of you do, but a few years ago I decided to read the gospels purely as literary texts. Of the synoptics, Mark stood out, to me, as a singular example of what looked to me like an argument, constructed through a series of stories. Matthew and Luke looked like different takes on the same material with additional material thrown into the mix (Q document, as well as M and L) that they re-worked in new ways.

I came to see Mark as a separate text that served as fodder for Matthew and Luke but did not necessarily rest as firmly on a traditional base of pre-existing stories (I think many of the stories in Mark are traditional, but some of them seem constructed). Instead, I began to wonder if Mark might simply be the origin of many of these tales -- at least the ones I pointed out and probably many more (and I think this includes the the cure of the deaf man in the sequence mentioned above).

The authors of Matthew and Luke obviously think Mark got some of it wrong, at least the emphases, as the Jesus movement grew and changed over time (one weird thought I had at one point was what if Luke referred not to Mark in his intro about wanting to set the story straight but Matthew?). But what if they were re-framing stories that Mark created whole-cloth for the purpose of demonstrating his theme -- that no one really understands who Jesus is?

I once got into a long discussion here with Malachi51, who believes that Jesus never existed, the discussion revolving partially about the interpretation of Mark. He feels that Mark is really a story about the favor of God being transferred from the Israelites to the Romans, written after the destruction of the Temple and within a Pauline community (I disagree, in part, because he thought that Paul spoke only of a mystical Jesus and I think Paul believed in an actual human being who was favored by God and so Mark also appears to have thought). Part of his analysis (which is quite extensive) depended on the metaphorical aspects of many of Mark's stories. While I was able to agree with him about what I also see as the metaphorical origin (perhaps too strong a word, but that's how it seems to me) of many of Mark's stories, I feel that the emphasis rests strongly on the issue of Jesus being the Messiah that no one recognizes as Messiah. Malachi appears to believe that Mark was mis-interpreted by the authors of Matthew and Luke as discussing a real person as the Jesus movement changed when, as he thinks, it referred only to a mystical 'being' who represented the favor of God, rejected by the Israelites.

As another example of the same phenomenon (but from a different gospel), I think the miracle at Cana is pure metaphor as well. When I re-read John a few years ago, it struck me that the text is based on a Eucharist ceremony (not completely, but at least in part). The first miracle is the water into wine at the marriage in Cana, and when Jesus dies the soldiers act to break everyone's legs, but they find that Jesus is already dead. They had earlier given him vinegar (wine), and when they pierce his side get water and blood. There are frequent references, as I recall, about water=wine=blood, all having to do with 'life' just as bread is a symbol of life.

 

[Piggy]

Btw, another reason I come down on the side of minimal invention -- but a lot of selection, omission, arrangement, commentary, and some embellishment -- on the part of the synoptic gospel writers, besides certain assumptions about their purposes in composing their books, is that these gospels were included in the NT (there were others circulating) because they were among the widest in circulation, they were among the most commonly accepted as scriptural, and they were among those that most closely matched the theology of those who compiled the NT.

The fact that they match the 1st 2 criteria is relevant here, because their wide use and common acceptance as scriptural indicates that they were in close alignment with the existing tradition.

The farther afield that a gospel was from the accepted tradition, the less likely it was to be accepted as genuine.

Of course, what "the tradition" was changed over time, and varied according to the community, especially whether it was Jewish or gentile. So by the time we get to John, even the timeline of events is totally out of sync with the synoptics, yet it is accepted among the communities where it circulates.

It seems to me that Mark is highly likely to have been very much in line with extant materials circulating at the time. This view is further reinforced by Mark's style, which tends toward syndeton, the stringing together of various elements with coordinating conjunctions.

To my mind, it is more likely that the synoptics conformed with the existing tradition, for the most part, than that they invented large amounts of new material.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, of course, you are probably correct.

My conjecture is partly based on one very important datum, though -- Mark was the first. As far as we know there was no tradition of gospel writing before it (there may have been quite a bit of written story-telling/sayings, but no organized gospel account). It is possible that the author invented some -- I don't suppose for a second, all -- of the stories, for theological effect. Exclusion of texts based on deviation from tradition makes sense only when a tradition exists, and it isn't clear how solid a tradition there was before Mark.

Or, to put it another way, I view the author of Mark as believing fervently that Jesus was the suffering Messiah and telling (sometimes creating) stories to push that message while the authors of Matthew and Luke believed fervently in the stories handed to them by tradition, arranging them to fit their particular theological perspectives. It may very well be that the author of Mark did the same, but it just feels different to me, reading his account. Admittedly, I have nothing more on which to base such conjecture.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, of course, you are probably correct.

My conjecture is partly based on one very important datum, though -- Mark was the first. As far as we know there was no tradition of gospel writing before it (there may have been quite a bit of written story-telling/sayings, but no organized gospel account). It is possible that the author invented some -- I don't suppose for a second, all -- of the stories, for theological effect. Exclusion of texts based on deviation from tradition makes sense only when a tradition exists, and it isn't clear how solid a tradition there was before Mark.

Or, to put it another way, I view the author of Mark as believing fervently that Jesus was the suffering Messiah and telling (sometimes creating) stories to push that message while the authors of Matthew and Luke believed fervently in the stories handed to them by tradition, arranging them to fit their particular theological perspectives. It may very well be that the author of Mark did the same, but it just feels different to me, reading his account. Admittedly, I have nothing more on which to base such conjecture.

The scholarly consensus is that a wide variety of codeces, not to mention oral traditions, were circulating by the time the first gospel was written.

Perhaps Mark was the first, perhaps not. But it's the earliest we know about.

Mark's mission does not appear to have been to generate an entirely new narrative, but rather -- like the redactors of Genesis, Exodus, etc. -- to give shape to the fragments then in circulation and forge a narrative from them.

By the time of Mark's writing, it's very likely that a justifying theology would have already arisen to explain Jesus' crucifixion and the delay of the Day of the Lord. In fact, we would expect that to happen in fairly short order, and we would expect it to be linked to re-interpretation of Hebrew scripture.

Of course, there's always the possibility that, like Deuteronomy, Mark's gospel is simply invented out of whole cloth, that it uses the existing tradition (young as it would have been) merely as a jumping-off point to promulgate an entirely new theology, and does so by inventing a good deal of original material.

That's possible.

But personally, I find it less likely. Can't prove I'm right, tho... not by a long shot.