Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-10-2010, 07:02 PM | #1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
|
Professor Larry Hurtado on the Gospel of Mark
Professor Larry Hurtado has another excellent blog entry on the Gospel of Mark.
It can be found at http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...shape-of-mark/ Here’s a key quote: “Indeed, it is striking that many of the most notable Markan ‘omissions’ involve matters which are not susceptible of imitation, including the virginal conception and the pre-eschatological resurrection. Mark’s whole story of Jesus can be read as a blueprint for the Christian life: It begins with baptism, proceeds with the vigorous pursuit of ministry in the face of temptation and opposition, and culminates in suffering and death oriented towards an as-yet unseen vindication.” The whole story was crafted as a blueprint for the Christian life. Presumably in the same what that the whole story of the Good Samaritan can be read as a blueprint for morality. So why should either story be taken as historical? Especially as the Gospel of Mark has such exemplars for Christian life as Simon of Cyrene picking up the cross and following Jesus, the centurion seeing Jesus die and calling him the Son of God, and such bad examples as the disciples who betrayed and denied Jesus. |
08-10-2010, 07:26 PM | #2 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Quote:
Let's all celebrate Hurtado's 'Christian blueprint' - a master plan of disrespect which above all else wants to separate the artistic creation from the original artist all in the name of 'serving and honoring' God the Creator. But what about man the creator, the creator of the gospel? He doesn't exist for people like Hurtado. |
|
08-11-2010, 12:46 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 708
|
Quote:
I think at least on this prof. Hurtado is right. The Marcus to which the relative canonic Gospel has been credited, although he has been a real historical figure did not had, however, nothing to do with Christianity (or chatolic-Christianity), since such a character was a heathen, and remained so until to the his death (however it is possible that he may have felt sympathy for the Judaism) The historical character Marcus, was none other that the official Roman which picked the Peter's confession, before he was crucified by order of Nero.(*) The same character you occupied then to set such a material, collected during the Peter's confession, in the imperial archives, where it remained until the early years of the 140 decade, when was decided to use it for the composition of the first canonical Gospel, which, for such a reason, was called 'Gospel of Marcus'. The Marcus of Rome, therefore, had nothing to do with the 'Marcus' of Alexandria: a character quite distinct from the first, despite the efforts of forger fathers to do us believe that they were the same person. Greetings ______________________________ Note: (*) - Peter, in fact, with his gang of killers, probably the same with which massacred the couple Ananias and Sapphira, had attempted to the life of Simon Magus, which was became a highly influential character at the court of Nero, as to be considered almost one person of the Nero's family. Hence the decision to crucify Peter with head towards down: a typical sentence for those guilty of the crime of 'lese majesty' in the person of the Emperor. Littlejohn . |
|
08-11-2010, 10:48 AM | #4 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 186
|
Hurtado goes into this in more depth in this (or via: amazon.co.uk) book esp p309-314. Essentially he sees Mark's Gospel as saying, 'If you want an example of how a Christian life should look, here it is...' In other words, it's outlining Jesus life as an example for Christians to look at and copy.
That, according to LH, explains why there's no birth tradition (a Christian life begins at baptism). And- this theory has grown on me a lot- why there's no resurrection tradition, even though it's clearly assumed (Mark 10:34). The resurrection happens to us after our Christian life finishes. Given priority of Mark, he wouldn't have known that you're 'supposed' to have resurrection appearances; and given his aim, he wouldn't have thought to put them in. Everyone in the church knew Jesus had been resurrected and it didn't fit Mark's agenda to include it. Why in contrast to the Good Samaritan, is it not to be read as an ahistorical moral parable? LH says that Mark is writing against the background of the AD70 troubles, and he has decided to write a bios style account to motivate believers to hold firm. If Jesus suffered and was prepared to pay the ultimate price, Christians need to be prepared to copy his (real life) example. The whole Markan approach is, “follow this man's example, he actually suffered and you may also have to”, rather than, “follow this parable”. |
08-11-2010, 11:06 AM | #5 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Obviously Hurtado is an informed authority and much of what he says comes as a result of thoughtful reflection on the familiar sources. The question though is whether there is more to Mark's gospel than what a European tradition which denies the Evangelist a place among the apostles has passed on to us. I think there is.
Hurtado's understanding of Mark is really what we might call a reverse inference. Here is what the European Church has always stood for. Mark must be the original gospel writer. All we have to do is draw a straightline backwards from us to Mark through the writings of the Church Fathers. That has some validity certainly but is that all there is? |
08-11-2010, 11:17 AM | #6 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Quote:
I think LH is wrong about a lot, including this. If it's not the primary theme of "Mark" than one of the main ones is that the historical Disciples were not promoting the resurrection of Jesus. A significant segment of "Mark's" audience did not know that Jesus was claimed to be resurrected because "Mark" is the original narrative making the claim. What I've never seen discussed before is that because "Mark" is clearly Separationist, there is no point in a Jesus/Disciple reunion. Jesus is a nobody from Galilee who receives the Christ Spirit at baptism. At the crucifixion the Christ leaves him and it is Jesus who is resurrected, not the Christ which has gone back to Heaven. The only thing the audience needs to know is that Jesus was resurrected. Jesus has gone back to Galilee to resume nobodiness and even if the Disciples met him there, he wouldn't have anything to say to them anyway without the Christ Spirit. Jesus Christ had already explained during the la-la that false Christs would appear and the only way to recognize the real Christ would be through signs. The implication is that you could not recognize the return of Christ through physical appearance. That's not how you recognize Spirits. The Christ Spirit is returning, but it could be into anyone. Regarding LH, also check out his blog for his nonsense on Mark 16:8. Joseph |
|
08-11-2010, 12:54 PM | #7 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
|
|
08-11-2010, 12:57 PM | #8 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
Quote:
Mark follows Paul's resurrectional schema - you imitate Christ, you will be raised after death (donning something imperishable). But Mark knows that to follow Jesus you have to give up on this world - "good teacher what must I do to earn eternal life ?". And Jesus answers "why do you call me good ?" ...go and sell what you have and give it to the poor. Certainly there is no useful (!) moral precept in that. Mark simply wants to show why the grandiose Spirit passes. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Best, Jiri |
|||||
08-11-2010, 03:54 PM | #9 | ||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
There is no nativity in the Petrine epistles but Peter was supposed to be an apostle of Jesus. There is no nativity in the epistle of James but he was supposed to be called the Lord's brother. There is no nativity in the Epistle of Jude but he was supposed to be a sibling of Jesus. The gospel according to John has no nativity but is supposed to be written after gMatthew and gLuke. Revelation by John has no nativity. "No nativity" may be an indicator of a late writing. And the Pauline writers mentioned JESUS over 150 times and that he was a Messiah who was betrayed, crucified, had died, resurrected and was the Creator of heaven and earth. In the NT Canon, the Pauline Jesus was a God/Man not a "pneumatic". Quote:
The visitors to the tomb in gMark ran away trembling with fear. See Mark 16.8. Please explain how running away and trembling with fear follows Paul's resurrectional schema? Quote:
You are not following your own PAULINE SCHEMA. You forgot that YOUR "Paul" traveled to Jerusalem and ARGUED about his "pneumatic Christ". You forgot that your "Paul" persecuted the church and wasted it. Your Markan and Pauline SCHEMA is flawed. Quote:
The gospel called according to Mark is NOT about YOUR "pneumatic Christ". gMark is about JESUS the Messiah who lived and preached in Galilee. The Markan Jesus was on trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate and was crucified by soldiers on earth. The gMark is about the gospel of Jesus the God/man Messiah and the coming of the kingdom of God according to perceived prophecy in Hebrew Scripture like Joel 2.10&31. There is ZERO about your "pneumatic Christ" Mr 1:1 - Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The author of gMark appears to have used NOTHING from the Pauline writings, not even a sentence. |
||||||||
08-11-2010, 03:55 PM | #10 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
What in reality must happen is that we are born into eternal life (as 'stream entrant' in Buddhism), where we first realize that we are eternal beings and so conclude that we have an option to not die (this is based on the basic premiss that if eternal life is real ours must not be = first step in awakening). Mark does not know anything about that and so remains a total outsider to the event from which follows that there will be no resurrection and so he just predicates religion for the sake of relgion without any justification for faith itself wherein the believer is supposed to find relief in understanding. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|