Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WILLOWTREE · 11-27-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

In the tradition of Rick Sumner I thought I'd put up some remarks here on books I have been reading lately. One of this is Mary Ann Tolbert's Sowing the Gospel.

Tolbert's thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is essentially a piece of Greek popular literature aimed at a variety of audiences. The gospel follows the conventions of such works. For example, such literature typically consists of episodic narrative at the beginning and middle and ends with a series of recognition scenes in which the question of identity is crucial, and in which chronology is carefully controlled. So it is with Mark. In Greek popular literature the minor characters pop in and out quickly, and the major character does not undergo psychological change and growth, but instead suffers the vicissitudes of life in which his monolithic character is displayed. Another feature of Greek popular literature is that it contains synopses which lay out the story for the reader/listener, just as Mark does....

...she divides Mark into two great divisions, 1:14-10:52, and then 11:1 and on. The parable of the sower in Mark 4 sets up the typology of the characters in the first half of the gospel, thus serving as a synopsis. If you recall, Jesus names four groups of seed/earth configurations. They are

*seed thrown on the way and eaten by birds (those whom Satan causes to reject the message). In Mark those are the chief priests, scribes, and other Jewish authorities

*seed thrown on rocky ground, grows quickly but withers in the sun. In Mark those are the disciples but especially Peter, for whom "rocky" is a play on his name.

*seed thrown in thorns, which choke it. Those who are distracted by considerations of wealth and power, such as the Rich Man in Mark 10, and Herod.

*good earth which multiplies it a hundredfold. Those who have faith and are healed and spread the word of the kingdom of God.

Thus, in GMark the real key is not the seed, but the earth. Her reading of the disciples as the rocky ground is absolutely fascinating and heavily documented. The various events in the gospel then play out this typology.

In the second half of the Gospel the controlling parable is the Parable of the Tenants. I haven't read that closely yet, but it looks very promising.

This is a great book that I can't recommend enough. Very insightful and full of stimulating ideas and analysis. The background material on the gospels in light of Greek popular literature alone is worth the price of admission....

Vorkosigan

All scholarship agrees that Mark wrote to gentiles in Rome or Egypt.

I prefer Egypt because traditions say he was martyred there.

Mark is writing to these gentiles to prove Jesus was the Son of God.

Yet, his gospel is the shortest and contains the most references of Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man".

That title to a Jew has Divine connotations via apocalyptic literature that they would be well versed in. However, to a gentile "Son of Man" means son of a man and not God.

If Mark is a liar why would he quote Jesus in such way as to hurt his story/claim of Jesus as Son of God ?

Vorkosigan · 11-27-2004, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

All scholarship agrees that Mark wrote to gentiles in Rome or Egypt.

Many scholars have located Mark elsewhere. Ted Weeden, one of the foremost Mark scholars of our time, puts him in Caesarea. Burton Mack has him in southwestern Syria, as I recall.

Quote:

Mark is writing to these gentiles to prove Jesus was the Son of God.

How do you know? Many scholars read Mark in different ways. That's the beauty of Mark.

Quote:

That title to a Jew has Divine connotations via apocalyptic literature that they would be well versed in. However, to a gentile "Son of Man" means son of a man and not God.

Willow, can you do some research here? Mark uses son of man in three ways (1) as a reference to "this person" (2) as a solemn title and (3) as a messianic title. What this meant to the Gentiles is anyone's guess. Whether Jesus ever referred to himself as "Son of Man" is difficult to know.

Quote:

If Mark is a liar why would he quote Jesus in such way as to hurt his story/claim of Jesus as Son of God ?

What are you talking about? I am splitting this to form a new thread, as this one is about Tolbert's ideas in Sowing the Gospel.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer · 11-27-2004, 07:17 PM

Besides, Jesus is the Son of Man, the Son (Bar) or Man (Adam) shows that he was only human, whether or not he is God's son. I think it leans towards a later coat that Jesus was only human by either Mark or his immediate predecessor.

BTW: St. Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, as it was only later named after him.

Intelligitimate · 11-27-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

If Mark is a liar why would he quote Jesus in such way as to hurt his story/claim of Jesus as Son of God ?

Because he is writing fiction constructed out of the OT, and not actually reporting any real events. If his readers don't get it, that's their problem.

WILLOWTREE · 12-02-2004, 12:09 PM

Willowtree:

That title to a Jew has Divine connotations via apocalyptic literature that they would be well versed in. However, to a gentile "Son of Man" means son of a man and not God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VORK

Willow, can you do some research here? Mark uses son of man in three ways (1) as a reference to "this person" (2) as a solemn title and (3) as a messianic title. What this meant to the Gentiles is anyone's guess.

To a gentile NOT aware of the apocalyptic literature of Enoch and Daniel it means son of a man and NOT God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VORK

Whether Jesus ever referred to himself as "Son of Man" is difficult to know.

IOW, Mark is a liar.

OR he simply reported what Jesus called Himself.

Willowtree:

If Mark is a liar why would he quote Jesus in such way as to hurt his story/claim of Jesus as Son of God ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VORK

What are you talking about?

Mark is writing to convince his audience that Jesus is the Son of God/Messiah/Divine Redeemer.

Mark is writing to gentiles who do not know that the title "Son of Man" is derived from Enoch and Daniel where it means Divine Messiah.

Jews know what "Son of Man" means but very few gentiles (if any) know.

If Mark is a liar making up tales of resurrection and Divinity pertaining to Jesus, THEN why doesn't he have Jesus calling Himself "Son of God" instead of "Son of Man" ?

Mark has Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man" BECAUSE Jesus referred to Himself as Son of Man via the meaning of Enoch and Daniel.

But to gentiles it hurts his aim to prove Jesus Son of God/Redeemer/Messiah.

The point:

Mark is an honest reporter.

WT

Amaleq13 · 12-02-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

To a gentile NOT aware of the apocalyptic literature of Enoch and Daniel it means son of a man and NOT God.

On what basis do you assume that Mark's audience was unaware of this literature? It seems to me that the author depicts Jesus as speaking with an audience he assumes was familiar with Jewish Scripture.

Quote:

Mark is writing to convince his audience that Jesus is the Son of God/Messiah/Divine Redeemer.

Where does the author state this? How do you know that the author was not writing to an audience that already believed?

Quote:

Mark is writing to gentiles who do not know that the title "Son of Man" is derived from Enoch and Daniel where it means Divine Messiah.

Even if we assume you are correct, it seems to me that the author makes this meaning of the title fairly clear in the text so there would appear to be no basis for your claim that he was hurting his own efforts by using an allegedly confusing term.

Do you know of any reports from missionaries where they have encountered this sort of confusion you are claiming when they present the Gospel story to folks who are unaware of the Enoch/Daniel connection?

andrewcriddle · 12-02-2004, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

On what basis do you assume that Mark's audience was unaware of this literature? It seems to me that the author depicts Jesus as speaking with an audience he assumes was familiar with Jewish Scripture.

Passages like Mark 7:3-4

Quote:

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

MAY indicate that the audience had limited familiarity with Judaism, if they need that sort of elementary explanation.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan · 12-03-2004, 03:35 AM

But it seems in so many other places the writer of Mark assumes a certain amount of familiarity with Jewish practice. For example, in Mark 1:44 Jesus says to the leper:

"See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."

I suppose one could regard the "Moses" there as a thumbnail explanation, but the reference to the priests isn't clear. You'd sorta have to know something about Jewish purity laws to really get the sense of that one. There are probably some other things, like Sabbath references (although Jewish respect for the Sabbath was probably widely known in antiquity), the direct quotes of "scripture," the Sanhedrin -- he quickly switches to boule I think in part to make the council more familiar to readers and listeners. He doesn't explain what "Christ" is either.....reading 7:3-4 I think there is another explanation for that strange aside. Just let me think of it

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer · 12-03-2004, 04:30 AM

Obviously Vorkosigan Mark wasn't really written for anyone but the Jewish Christians in mind around 80-90 CE.

Knurd · 12-03-2004, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Mark is writing to these gentiles to prove Jesus was the Son of God.

Yet, his gospel is the shortest and contains the most references of Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man".

That title to a Jew has Divine connotations via apocalyptic literature that they would be well versed in. However, to a gentile "Son of Man" means son of a man and not God.

If Mark is a liar why would he quote Jesus in such way as to hurt his story/claim of Jesus as Son of God ?

ummm..... Isn't there a larger question here?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that, as you say,
The purpose of the Gospel of Mark is to prove Jesus to the Gentiles.
"Son of Man" would have confused (maybe even disproved) the diety of Jesus to the same Gentiles.

What kind of a God would have that purpose and then have Mark write contrary to that purpose?

It seems far more likely, given the starting points you make, that one would conclude either that the Gospel of Mark wasn't written by God, or that it wasn't written for the purpose of converting the gentiles.

12-03-2004, 03:35 AM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	But it seems in so many other places the writer of Mark assumes a certain amount of familiarity with Jewish practice. For example, in Mark 1:44 Jesus says to the leper: "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people." I suppose one could regard the "Moses" there as a thumbnail explanation, but the reference to the priests isn't clear. You'd sorta have to know something about Jewish purity laws to really get the sense of that one. There are probably some other things, like Sabbath references (although Jewish respect for the Sabbath was probably widely known in antiquity), the direct quotes of "scripture," the Sanhedrin -- he quickly switches to boule I think in part to make the council more familiar to readers and listeners. He doesn't explain what "Christ" is either.....reading 7:3-4 I think there is another explanation for that strange aside. Just let me think of it Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-27-2004, 07:17 PM	#3
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Besides, Jesus is the Son of Man, the Son (Bar) or Man (Adam) shows that he was only human, whether or not he is God's son. I think it leans towards a later coat that Jesus was only human by either Mark or his immediate predecessor. BTW: St. Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, as it was only later named after him.

12-03-2004, 04:30 AM	#9
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Obviously Vorkosigan Mark wasn't really written for anyone but the Jewish Christians in mind around 80-90 CE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.