Malachi151

I don't have this fully published on my site yet, I'm finishing up this draft now.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Summary:

The Gospel of Mark is best explained as a fictional allegory, which was written in reaction to the destruction of Judea in 70 CE. The author almost certainly had no intention of passing the work off as real history, the point of the story is symbolic and allegorical. What Christians have called "prophecy fulfillment" for centuries is nothing more than literary allusion. The Gospel of Mark was also based on the letters of Paul and makes allusion to them. Mark's Jesus is a character based on Paul himself. The Gospels of Matthew and John were largely created by expanding upon the scriptural references made within the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is pure fiction, and the other three canonical Gospels are purely based on the Gospel of Mark, making them also pure fiction, even if the writers of the other Gospels may or may not have realized this themselves.

Jayrok

Very interesting read, Malachi. Looking forward to the completed piece.

I wonder if anyone has thought of doing an exercise of constructing another story from the Hebrew scriptures. Such a story could be used to demonstrate how the author of Mark sat and used the scriptures to write his tale. It would have to be different, of course... but it seems it could be done with all the prophecies in the OT. If for nothing else, just to show how midrash could be construed as historical events given favorable conditions and the desire of future readers for it to be historical.

Maybe someone has already done this, I don't know.

aa5874

Irenaeus, as early as the 2nd century, in Against Heresies, did write about many versions of Christ using OT. And Josephus claimed that is was a common belief among the Jews there would be some kind of Messiah based on the so-called prophecies of Daniel. Even today some Jews still maintain another version of the Messiah based on the OT.

Malachi151

Its basically finished at this point.

The final version is basically the print version:

http://www.lulu.com/content/1332768

There are some changes in the print version that I didn't copy over into the web version, mostly due to laziness.

Malachi151

I'm currently looking into how to get an improved version of this peer reviewed.

In the mean time, are there any criticisms that I should address?

gurugeorge

That's an amazing piece of work Malachi. Noticed one major typo ("It was the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and John that specifically attempted from frame the actions of the Jesus figure as fulfillment of prophecies"), but couldn't spot anything else.

Your highlighting of the Pauline element in Mark is particularly excellent.

I honestly can't think of any criticisms - in the terms you've set, you've done an excellent job so far as I (an amateur tiddler) can see.

traveling

It's very well.

Malachi151

That's one of the things I fixed in the print version but haven't gotten fixed in the on-line version yet.

I think this is really the most significant aspect of the whole thing.

Some of the wording in several places can definitely be improved, but for the most part, as far as the main points, that all seems to be in good shape, and I hate to say it, but I think that this basically explains everything as far as the development of the Gospels goes.

There are certainly more specific details to explain, but I think that this lays out a solid fundamental framework for completely explaining the Gospels.

jules?

Very informative and a good detailed deconstruction. Interpreting allegory is the fun bit but i wonder if it was not so much Jesus the revolutionary but jesus the revolution in the context of class war and the battle of the underdog. And in light of the academic nature of the author 'mark' who would have been the audience?

renassault

While it does have some good points (the lack of mention of Christ's crucifixion near the Passover from Paul and Hebrews), the examples you provide are actually too subjective to be convincingly shown as sources for Mark. Many are prophecies (that much is an opinion), others such as the little apocalypse in Mark can be easily explained by traditional apocalyptic imagery and not a direct dependence of any kind (the stars in Isaiah 13 and Mark 13 or Mark 14.27 vs Zechariah 13.7), and still others are not even directly connected such as Mark 14.3-9 vs 2 Kings 9.6, 1 Samuel 10.1 where the connection is simply an anointing, or the walking on water in Mark 6 vs Isaiah 43 where you admit that there seems to be little connection and that Mark may have decided to take 'the level up a notch,' but that is exactly the notch you are supposed to explain with these comparisons (Isaiah 43 nowhere mentions an actual walking on water, but a passing through water as later it adds "when u walk through fire" so this cannot be said to be a Markan expansion)!

You have exactly 2 examples, possibly 3 that raise suspicion: the depiction of John the Baptist's clothing which is identical with Elijah's, the feeding of the 4000 and 5000, and maybe the betrayal in Mk.14 vs. Proverbs 27.6, especially Amos 2.16.

In the case of John the Baptist and Elijah, this is the closest it gets to a clear dependence and in that case all three Synoptics focus on John the Baptist as an allusion to Elijah, thus not hiding anything 'borrowed', but the fact that the comparison between the two is emphasized suggests that the dependence is to emphasize it, so the only thing you can claim is a historical inaccuracy (one that is purposeful, albeit this is undemonstratable and it may simply be that Mark described John's attire to say that he was in essense Elijah symbollically; a device not uncommon for ancient Jewish literature). This is also emphasized by the fact that Mark (and I assume the other two) add after the clothes, eating wild honey (which some have interpreted to mean John was an Essene, the location of Qumran being in the desert where the only food was such).

The feeding of the 4000 and 5000 could certainly qualify, but one point I want to make is that in 2 Kings 4.43 Elijah talks about the act of feeding 100 people with 20 loaves and some grain being a fulfillment of what God has said, whereas this is absent from Mark's two feedings, and even more so in Matthew, who seeks to fulfill absolutely everything! Even if it is suggested that the Gospel writers were looking for Old Testament verses to fulfill, Matthew who has over 50 (65 according to someone I read), would surely have used Deuteronomy 8.3 'man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.' where this was the same thing with which Jesus responded to the Devil when he asked Him to turn the stones into bread, yet Matthew does not do this! Not only this, but the feeding of both the 4000 and 5000 are found in all four gospels, which for any pericope is rare, making the tradition behind them as reliable as it can be.

In the case of the betrayal of Jesus and Proverbs and Amos, Proverbs 27.6 is the most uncertain: 'Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.' The emphasis is clearly not on the fact that an enemy is kissing the person, but the fact that your friend would not want to cause you harm, and an enemy will always try to appear on your good side. The only questions that can be raised from this is whether Mark is using traditional Jewish imagery to identify Judas as an enemy of Jesus' (thus making Judas' kiss a historical fiction), but this is not what Mark had in mind for the kiss, but that it was a signal to identify Jesus (14.44). The only similarity between the two is that the enemy tries to appear friendly, something that was no mystery to Proverbs.

In Amos 2.16 here we have the strongest candidate (of the few that can be found) of a Markan dependence on the Old Testament. It is in the middle of fulfilling a prophecy (14.49-50), so Mark can be accused of historical fiction (though whether a naked person fled or not from Jesus' arrest hardly affects anything else, except of course inerrancy if shown to be so). It certainly would seem that Mark is using Amos, but I want to point out that the super-prophecy-fulfiller, Matthew, does not have this, which may mean that either it is not original to Mark, or of course the option that Amos simply prophecized what happened. Regardless, if you have any suggestions for historical fiction, this would be it (the theory that this was Mark himself is highly unconvincing), but it is a judgment call.

The other passages with 'dependence' are unconvincingly shown. The only place where you have a case is the prophecies, albeit this is assumed to be so because prophecies simply can't exist. In spite of this, if Mark really did base the life of Jesus in his gospel on the prophecies in the Old Testament, he certainly decided to omit, and not anything small! For example, in Mark 15.17-20 it says,

"And they clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him. 18 And they began saluting him, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' 19 They struck his head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt down in homage to him. 20 After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him."

versus Micah 5.1 "with a rod they strike the ruler of Israel upon the cheek." and 5.6 "I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting." Yet the most important abuse in Micah, the pulling out of the beard, which would not grow and was almost like a prerequisite for priesthood (Leviticus 21.5, where they are forbidden to shave the head or "edges" of the beard, one that would be nonexistent after Micah 5.6), is omitted! How the high priest in Hebrews does not have a beard and Mark does not bother to record this shameful humiliation (to emphasize the glory of Christ's Resurrection) is inexplicable!

Furthermore, the burial in Mark 15 and the description in Isaiah 53.9 do not match if Mark used it as a source, since in Isaiah 53 Jesus is buried with other common criminals, something that would have especially interested Mark if he were borrowing from Isaiah 53 (the expression can mean either burried with others physically or simply to emphasize that the death was like one, hence "tomb with the rich," but Mark would have hardly chosen the latter if using Isaiah 53), yet Mark places him in a private tomb cut out of rock (15.46 along with the luxury of wrapping in linen).

Finally, the omission of Paul and the author of Hebrews regarding Jesus' death on the Passover is not as solid an evidence as it may seem. Firstly, Paul does not mention in many places that Jesus died, only in Galatians 3.13 and even there it is a reference to an Old Testament quote (hung on a tree). This and other scant references to a historical Jesus (Galatians 4.4 and 1 Corinthians 10-11) has lead many to suggest Paul only thought of a spiritual Jesus in the first place! That Hebrews does not mention it may be a mystery, but neither Hebrews nor Paul mention that Jesus did not have a physical Father, something that by the time of Mark (which is the same time period as Hebrews and only 10 years from Paul) existed (see Mark 12.35-37 where Psalm 118 is interpreted by Jesus as a reference to His divinity), which may suggest it wasn't as relevant as it may seem if both Paul and Hebrews omit the symbolism, and against this theory is the fact that the only connection Mark makes is that the temple's curtain was ripped in half [15.38], whereas Matthew has that plus an earthquake and raised holy people; why Mark would put so little emphasis on the fact that Jesus' death took place on the Passover, a fabricated according to you event, becomes a mystery.),