TedM

Some possible evidences:

1. Mark takes few pains to create a historical context, yet there is one: Jesus' ministry begins after John the Baptist is 'taken into custody'. Herod and Pilate are in power. Jesus is crucified during Passover in Jerusalem. There is no great attempt to convince the reader that this is a historical account. If Mark believed Jesus was a spirit and wanted to make him appear as a human, it seemed he would have wanted to do this. Not doing so seems to me to either be very clever fiction or evidence that Mark believed his Jesus was historical.

2. The writer mentions his mother Mary and his brothers and sisters and his hometown, but says nothing about his birth or Davidic lineage which could have further boosted his case for him being the prophecied Messiah according to scripture. Nothing is mentioned AT ALL about his life prior to his ministry. If Mark were making up a story it seems odd that he would not have made up more about his life prior to the ministry. If he were basing the story on traditions within Christianity of a man who never really existed, it seems there would have been traditions of his life prior to his ministry given the detail found in his traditions of Jesus' ministry.

3. Following the baptism, Mark starts with Jesus' ministry which appears to be very short. From what I can tell, his ministry may well have lasted only a few months as there is no mention of more than one passover. And, if Jesus really did have a short ministry, might the truth be that he didn't do or say near the things attributed to him--ie that he was much less known than portrayed?

4. Mark's Jesus has four brothers and at least two sisters (6:3). If Mark were making up a Jesus, or if traditions developed of a historical Jesus, why 4 brothers and 2 sisters instead of being an only child?

5. Mark twice mentions Jesus' mother and brothers--even mentioned them by name, yet does not even mention Joseph. In the second mention, it is in reference to what his hometown people were saying: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" If Mark were making up a story it seems odd that he would not have mentioned the fathers name: 'the son of XXX', or that an explanation would be given for why the mother is mentioned but not the father. Perhaps the same could be said if it is based on tradition..not sure what to make of that.

6. Mark's Jesus was highly offensive to those that adhered to Jewish Law--in particular to the pharisees. He is shown to violate Jewish law on a number of occasions, and he cavorted with tax collectors and sinners. While perhaps just a good story plot--giving plenty of incentive to the Pharisees to kill him, it also can be seen as somewhat embarrassing, with need for explanation. Mark provides the explanations with clever quotes from Jesus. However, the embarrassment may be seen as evidence of some authenticity.

7. Mark states in 6:5 that Jesus, who he had performed many miracles up to this point, was not able to perform miracles in his own town, and that his own people 'took offense at him'. This embarrassment also may be seen as evidence of some authenticity.

8. Mark's John the Baptist was the returning Elijah, prophecised to make way for the coming of the Messiah (in Malici 3-4). He announces Jesus as the One, and Jesus begins his ministry as soon as JTB is taken into custody. His Jesus confirms the belief that JTB was Elijah (implied on 9:13), and his Jesus uses the cultural belief that JTB was a prophet to further taunt/test the chief priests and scribes and elders in 11:29. YET, John's disciples fasted while Jesus did not. Why is this mentioned in 2:18?
Since other evidences (John, Acts) support the idea that JTB followers were mostly unaccepting of Jesus as Messiah, why portray them as more devoted to God than Jesus himself unless there was some truth to the story?

9. Mark's Jesus believed in JTB's message that the kingdom of God was at hand, believed he was the One chosen to usher it in, and said that he was to give his life as a 'ransom for many', which was from Isaiah 53, a passage considered Messianic. Given John's fate, and Jesus' continual run-ins with the pharisees, might it not be a stretch to see how Jesus' orchestrated his own death? Might that not have been his intent when the very first thing he did in Jerusalem was to throw out the money-changers in the temple? Either a clever plot line, or the thinking of a man convinced of his role as Messiah? Alternatively, Jesus may have just offended the pharisees and the Herodians so much that they had more to do with his arrest than any conscious planning by Jesus.

10. Jesus spoke in parables, often tried to escape the crowds, and commanded the demons to be quiet and not reveal who he is, told healed persons to not tell others, and often healed in secret away from the crowds. In addition, the disciples seemed ignorant of obvious miracles Jesus performed. Might these not be evidences of a more 'minimal' Jesus than is portrayed?

11. The most ancient Mark manuscripts have the disciples returning to their own homes after the crucifixion and Jesus making no appearances, yet with the tomb empty. If we assume Mark made up his Jesus, why didn't he have Jesus doing or saying something after being raised? Why were the disciples ignorant of his statements about being raised throughout Mark? How does that link in with a made-up Jesus in the story of the origins of Christianity? Might it not support the idea that there was no early belief in his resurrection by his closest disciples--ie the first actual historical followers of Jesus?

In all, it seems to me one would have to conclude that Mark was quite clever in some ways and very deficient in other ways and with some strange references if he knowingly made up a story about a fictional Jesus. Might not a reasonable explanation be that Mark was passing along traditions which included mythological development regarding an actual historical Jesus about whom not much was really known?

Comments?

aa5874

And if Mark's Jesus was human why would he claim Jesus walked on the sea and was transfigured?

In gMark, the disciples thought Jesus was a Spirit.

Mr 6:49 - Mark's Jesus was far lighter than water at least.

TedM

Hi aa,

I'm looking for comments about what I wrote so have no reply to your above question. I also have no desire to argue the above topics. I'm more interested in knowing the counter arguments and any further insights about them. tia,

ted

dog-on

Ted, what if Mark's Christ merely possessed the body of Jesus at the Baptism?

Apply this scenario to your questions.

Huon

Why, and above all, how could we make assumptions about the intentions of the writer called Mark ? Jesus was the son of God, not Joseph.

dog-on

Make 'em up, of course.

Huon

This is not history. This is religion.
I do not believe that the Christians follow simply a Yeshua ben Joseph, who was a good guy, said something, and was killed by order of Pilate (Pilate is historically known).

dog-on

That sure sounds like possession, Huon.

Huon

GLuke, Chapters 1 and 2, gMatthew Chapters 1 and 2, fill this lack.
Their data are completely historical, especially gMatt Ch. 2 !

TedM

My intention is to discuss the assumption that Mark was writing fiction about a person who never existed, so I'd like the focus to be on Mark. The comments provided so far need to be explained and applied to my specific questions. tia..