Prof Mendez’ posts have got me thinking about context and how it is almost impossible to determine the context of a work from only the work itself. If we understood the context in which Mark was produced a lot of its weirdness would probably make perfect sense. Divorced from context the gospels become mirrors in which we see what we want. In the end I think we are left with reading them for their literary value. Trying to look “behind” them becomes a fruitless effort.
Robert said
Mark’s work was never intended to be an enduring religious work for the centuries. Rather it was written for believers facing some persecution and expecting the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Matthew and especially Luke would rehabilitate Mark’s work for more long-term purposes.
In Mark’s narrative, the theme of the disciples’ incomprehension seems to track with the messianic secret theme. In the first half of the Gospel, the disciples don’t understand that Jesus is the messiah, and then when Peter figures it out, and when several disciples witness the transfiguration, the disciples are told to keep quiet about his messiahship. The motif that seems to be developed in Mark’s Gospel is that none of the disciples, and in fact no human being besides Jesus himself, understands that his being the messiah means he must be crucified. So, if Mark is writing for a persecuted community which was struggling with the meaning of their persecution, the intertwined themes of messianic secret and the disciples’ incomprehension may have been intended to give comfort to the persecuted community. They should know that their suffering is part of God’s plan, just as Jesus’ death was part of God’s plan, even when the disciples themselves didn’t understand it. So, the disciples’ incomprehension is a crucial element of the consoling narrative Mark wants to give to his community. There may not be anything strictly historical about the way Mark tells the story. However, there might, just might, be something historical about the fundamental challenge that Jesus’ death presented to those of his followers who believed he was a messianic figure. The conflict between the ideal of messiahship and the reality of Jesus’ crucifixion was the fundamental issue that both Paul and the Gospels, in varying ways, have to resolve for their listeners and readers.
So where are we with the ethnicity of the author of Mark? I understand the arguments as to why it is thought he is most probably a gentile, but what about the possibility he is a Hellenized diaspora Jew? The reason I wonder is because I’m tempted to ask why a gentile would be so obsessed with the nature of the Jewish messiah. A Jew would struggle with the disconnect resulting from contemplating a crucified Messiah, right? Would that be a major concern for a gentile convert? The author is iffy on Palestinian geography and customs but he is intimate with the idea of the messiah. A gentile would certainly fit the former but would he fit the latter? A Hellenized diaspora Jew could fit both. (Doubtless his audience would include gentiles.)
Some might argue that if Jesus was real he is lost to history. I think the fact that his memory was kept alive though oral tradition¹ for a few decades is what makes him a hazy figure. It’s hard to comprehend someone you have never met, especially if you believe them to be a supernatural being. Trying to make sense of multiple stories that tell the same general narrative but offer conflicting details probably made it appear as if those relaying the stories were telling tales about a being whose essence was difficult to perceive.
Another simple secular view might be that the man himself was charismatic and unusual. An eccentric and unpredictable public speaker who never let anyone get to close to him and was thus always mysterious to his followers. Most people like that end up being exposed and disgraced as exploitative cult leaders. We have no reason to believe Jesus ever used his limited influence for personal gain. That is a strange thing.
1. I’m not against the idea that maybe somebody wrote something down about Jesus but during the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** it was destroyed.
Related question to the incomprehension theme: How might the idea hold up that the messianic secret functions as a partial (literary) answer to the (historical) question as to why, if he were messiah and the massive miracle worker as narrated, was Jesus a relative unknown and his following relatively small during his ministry?
…whether or not Mark wrote for a purely gentile community or audience. It is pretty clear to me that this is not likely to have been the case. There are just too many items of high interest to Jews and Jewish proselytes to rule out the presence of at least some Jewish Christians within Mark’s intended audience.
Yes it makes sense that Mark’s audience is mixed. Of course this raises the vexed question as to nature of the first gentile converts. There seems to have been a non-Pauline gentile ministry. But were the first gentile converts already involved with Jewish practice in some way? Why would a gentile who knew nothing about Judaism be interested in Jesus in the first place? Later of course gentiles could create a non-Jewish context for Jesus but what about a minor Jewish sect attracted non-Jewish converts?
I’m not against the idea that maybe somebody wrote something down about Jesus but during the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** it was destroyed.
Perhaps but what the revolt did do in any case was to destroy any connection to the milieu in which the original Jesus movement arose. It is a fascinating historical question as to what would have happened if Jewish Christianity had flourished in its homeland instead of been marginalized.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)