Wednesday, June 18, 2014

A Study of Mark - Part 1

Introduction

I used to not like the Gospel of Mark. Over the last several years, however, Mark has grown to become my favorite of the four.

John and Matthew are the most frequently read of the Gospels, and have been since antiquity. Both have episodes that quickly come to mind as unique to each Gospel (e.g., Matthew: the birth story with Wise Men, infant slaughter, and flight to Egypt; the Sermon on the Mount; Peter being named the rock and getting the keys to Heaven; finding the coin in the fish’s mouth to pay taxes; posting of guards at Jesus’ tomb and claim that disciples stole his body; John: pretty much all of it).     

Luke is also frequently read because it is (mistakenly) believed to be the most “historical” (i.e. chronological and factually accurate) in its recording of the sequence of events in Jesus’ life. Luke also has a lot of unique and memorable episodes. Luke's birth narrative features the Christmas story, in which Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a census, baby Jesus is laid in a manger, and angels announce his birth to shepherds.
Also unique to Luke is John the Baptist's birth story and the story of the 12-year-old Jesus at the Temple. More than a dozen of Jesus’ most memorable parables are unique to Luke, including the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Luke also tells the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

In contrast, try to think of an episode that is unique to the Gospel of Mark...
...
...
...

It’s hard, isn’t it?

Because Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels and over 90% of Mark is included in some form in Matthew, Mark is an oft-neglected Gospel. Until the 19th Century, Mark was actually considered to be merely a summary of Matthew (which is why it is placed after Matthew in the Bible), and was read less frequently as a result. A little of this stigma still hangs over Mark: think about it – why read the abbreviated version when Matthew has much more detail and depth? As a result, Mark still lags behind the others in how frequently it is read and how much people know about it.

However, this perspective only focuses on the quantity of events recorded within the Gospel. But each Gospel presents a unique picture of Jesus, reflecting a blending of the author’s perspective, the audience the work was written to, the issues being faced by the community at the time the work was written, and the aspects of Jesus’ character the author wished to emphasize. Even events that are present in all four Gospels (e.g. feeding the 5000) give different representations of Jesus when read in context. To neglect Mark simply because nearly all the events are also in Matthew is to ignore a unique portrayal of the character of Jesus, one that is just as theologically deep, as literary, and as artistic as any of the other three Gospels.

So, this is my chance to support the “underdog” of the Gospels. Hopefully by the end of this study, you will have gained a greater appreciation for the Gospel of Mark, just as I did as I learned to let it stand as a work of literature in its own right.

To introduce the study proper, let me give you some background information to the Gospel:

·         Mark is considered by almost all scholars to be the earliest written of the four Gospels. It was probably written after the start of the Jewish War in 66 AD but before the destruction of the Temple in 70, most likely near 68-69 AD.

·         Mark was written to a predominantly Gentile (Greek and Roman) audience, rather than to Jews. Many scholars think Mark was written to Christians in Rome.

·         Mark’s structure and storytelling show influences of Greco-Roman popular biographies, dramas, novels, and epics.

·         The author is never named within the Gospel, and there are up to three different Marks mentioned in ancient Church tradition: John Mark, traveling companion to Paul and Barnabas (mentioned multiple times in Acts), Mark the cousin of Barnabas (mentioned in the closings of Philemon, Colossians, and 2 Timothy), and Mark the Evangelist, not mentioned in the New Testament but associated in patristic tradition with Peter and not with Paul. Whether or not these multiple Marks were one and the same is somewhat unclear.

·         Mark is frequently described as “a passion narrative with an extended introduction.” The suffering of Jesus is a central focal point to the Gospel, and fully 1/3 of the Gospel is devoted to Jesus’ last week.

I am assuming that, if you are reading this study, you have at least a passing interest in the historical and cultural context of the New Testament. However, for people who may not find this information as incredibly fascinating as I do, why does any of it matter?

·         Knowing that Mark was most likely written during the Jewish War can help give context to some of the more subversive and apocalyptic language in the Gospel. And if it was written to Christians in Rome, the subtle jabs at the Emperor become that much more forceful.

·         Understanding the background of Mark’s audience can help explain some of the ways Jesus is characterized, as well as the Greco-Roman influences on the structure and style of the narrative.

·         Recognizing that even early Christian fathers weren’t sure about how many Marks there were can redirect us to what matters in our reading of the narrative. Regardless of who the author was, what he has to say is ultimately more important.

·         Understanding the central focus helps to explain the author’s decisions about pacing the narrative: namely his speeding up the events in Jesus’ ministry and pushing the action towards Jesus’ Passion Week in Jerusalem.

Finally, before we jump into Mark itself, let me explain a little bit about the standpoint from which I will be writing this study:

I will be looking at Mark from a blending of 3 perspectives:

·         Historical criticism – I will be reading with questioning eyes, treating the text as an intentional document whose purpose is to make the author’s points. The author is writing down what he believes to be the single most important and life-changing message of his age. It is not done haphazardly. He is telling the story to present the message. As such, I will be asking questions about authorial intent (e.g., Why would the author choose to write this episode in this way?). Can we ever completely know what was on “Mark’s” mind when he was writing? Of course not, but we can read between the lines and infer quite a lot about the author’s perspective.

·         Theological – I will be examining the theological message(s) intended for the original audience. Jesus’ teachings were recontextualized as early Christian communities formed their community theologies, dealt with individual struggles, persecutions, disagreements, and splits, and tried to live in a multicultural world. I will not be attempting to determine what the “original” words of Jesus were. This is not a quest for the historical Jesus; this is an examination of how Jesus’ teachings were integrated into the community receiving the Gospel of Mark.

·         Literary – I will be looking at the literary elements of the Gospel; particularly at the characterization of the protagonist, secondary characters, and antagonists, the themes and motifs, the structure, tone and mood, the symbolic and figurative language, and the influences from other literary genres. I will take Mark as standing alone, as much as possible bringing no interpretive clues from outside sermons or theology. I will not “harmonize” (i.e. attempt to reconcile seeming contradictions with other Gospels). I will also do my best to avoid anachronism; that is, the literary interpretation has to make sense in 1st C. Greco-Roman-Jewish context. In other words, I will not read the Gospel as a 21st C. American biography.

With that said, we can begin reading the Gospel of Mark:

1:1 The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Despite this being only a single sentence, it is loaded with information. We can learn a lot about the text by unpacking this sentence.

·         We are told this is the “beginning” of something
·         We are told this is a “gospel”
·         We are told that this is a work either about Jesus or recording his message
·         We are told that Jesus has a title, “Christ”
·         We are told that Jesus has another title, “Son of God”

The first verse of Mark appears to function as a title or chapter heading. It is unclear, however, whether this “beginning” refers to the entire Gospel, the ministry of John the Baptist recorded in the next 8 verses, or is intended to make an allusion to Genesis 1:1 (in the context of Jesus’ appearance being a “new beginning”). I think that one of these interpretations is more likely than the other two, but I will come back to this verse and explain my thoughts at the end of the study. For now, you decide which makes more sense to you and go with that.

The word “Gospel” is a translation of the Greek word “evangelion,” meaning “good news.” Mark introduces his book as a “gospel.” It could be enough to say that Mark is recording the “good news” about Jesus. However, Mark does not explain specifically what the message is that would make his book good news (if you have read it, then you know the original ending doesn’t really close on a positive note). This hints at the idea that by the time Mark was written down, the word “Gospel” had evolved into a technical term describing a specific narrative style (as a biography of Jesus’ life, ministry, and death) conveying a specific message (the saving power of God through the death of Jesus), and was something that did not need to be explained to the audience, because they already knew what it was.

The phrase “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” contains a series of genitive cases (marked by “of” in English). Genitives in Greek can show possession/ownership or can be “objective.” These different meanings lead to two possible interpretations of the phrase:
1) the gospel about Jesus Christ (i.e. Jesus’ life and ministry is the gospel message); or
2) the gospel message that belongs to Jesus (i.e. what Jesus himself taught).

This could be an example of an intentionally ambiguous sentence structure by the author. By using the language the way he does, the author is able to convey both meanings simultaneously: that the message that Jesus taught was the message about himself.

The titles given to Jesus in Mark 1:1 (Christ and Son of God) give us an understanding of the Christology (understanding concerning the person or nature of Christ) of Mark’s community. Mark does not explicitly tell us what the title “Christ” means, so it is up to us to figure out from the text. In Jewish context, Christ, “anointed one,” came to mean a king who would come at the end of time, one who would be far greater than all God's previous messengers to Israel, ruling in justice and glory, or a king who would overthrow the yoke of Roman domination and reestablish Israel’s preeminence as a world power. However, we will see through our study that Mark redefines what the term “Christ” means. The Christ in Mark had to suffer and die, suggesting that, for Mark, Jesus can only be fully understood in that context.

Mark also does not explicitly state what he means by the title “Son of God,” nor when sonship was given to Jesus. The term "Son of God" had a specific range of Jewish meanings. One of the most significant of these was a king at his coronation, adopted by God as his son, legitimizing his rule over Israel. But in Greco-Roman culture, the phrase had a different meaning; it meant a “divine man.” Legendary heroes like Hercules, specific Roman Emperors, or famous philosophers like Plato all had the status of “divine men.” I already stated that Mark was written to a Greek and Roman audience. It makes sense, then, that Mark would use a framework that Gentiles would understand. When Mark calls Jesus “Son of God,” the intention is not to identify him as a Jewish ruler but to place him in the class of Greek and Roman divine men, the “sons of God” who were endowed with divine authority and power to perform healings, exorcisms and other miraculous deeds. However, Mark also redefines the title “Son of God,” pushing the character of Jesus beyond just that of another in a series of Greco-Roman heroes, leaders, and miracle-workers. As we read through Mark, keep in mind the ways in which Mark will redefine expectations about these titles (and the others Jesus receives).

Another interpretation puts a more subversive spin on the sentence. A writing from 9 BC known as the Priene Calendar Inscription declares the birth of the “god” Augustus (Caesar) as the “beginning of the good news for the world” and naming Augustus as “savior.” However, by the late 60’s AD, the “Golden Age” ushered in by Augustus had degenerated into chaos and disorder. Julius Caesar and the Emperor Augustus had been deified after their deaths, but Augustus was the only Roman Emperor to have that status conferred on him (Claudius had his divine status rescinded by the Emperor Nero). Nero was forced to commit suicide in 68 AD, and by that time, the Jewish War had been waging for 2 years, and had been going rather badly for the Romans. After Nero’s suicide, Rome was thrown into a period of civil war and assassination called the “year of four Emperors.” However, even within the period of moral decay, paranoia, instability, and murder, the propaganda of each Emperor’s coronation would have been the same as that of Augustus, a divine herald of a new golden age. If Mark was written around 68-69 AD (which is a very probable date of composition), and written to Christians in Rome (as is thought by many scholars), then this single sentence introducing the Gospel of Mark would have been very powerful and takes on much more significance. Craig A. Evans describes the impact of this sentence very well:

          “the social backdrop [in Rome] would have been one of anxiety and foreboding.   One emperor after another, each seemingly worse and more impotent than his   predecessor, had failed—and each one had been hailed “son of God”! The      emerging cynicism would have been equalled only by the growing fear and alarm.             It was against this setting that the Markan evangelist dared to put forward the           Christian gospel and declare that the true son of God was Jesus, the Messiah of           Israel and “king of the Jews”— not some would-be Roman emperor.”  


Whew! That’s a lot of information contained in one sentence!

“The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”
(Future postings will cover more verses, I promise.)

At the beginning of this introduction, I had challenged you to think of some episodes unique to the Gospel of Mark. Because you are probably dying to know, here are some examples:
·         The quote, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”
·         Jesus’ family trying to restrain him because they think he is crazy
·         The Parable of the Growing Seed
·         James and John having the name “Boanerges"
·         Jesus using Aramaic in his healing commands
·         The two-stage healing of a blind man
·         The naked young man running away when Jesus is arrested
·         Pilate being surprised that Jesus died so quickly




No comments:

Post a Comment