Robert said
According to your interpretation of Mark’s text, the angels are sent to do nothing at all and there’s no point in their being there. Most readers, however, including Matthew, are capable of understanding the clear sense of Mark’s text.
But its not the clear sense of Mark’s version is not that the angels will do the gathering. The son of man comes with great power and glory. The angels might just be heralding this coming. They might be going off to destroy the abomination that causes desolation, while the son of man does the gathering.
The point is Mark doesn’t say what they’re doing.
There’s nothing in the surrounding text which needs smoothing over so why should we think this does?
Its only in comparison to Matthew’s version that it Mark’s looks secondary. An easy edit to make of Matthew’s version is to say the son of man does the gathering, after they’re his elect whom he has chosen. And the purpose of the angels being sent is then left unsaid.
Matthew’s invented dialogue does indeed address the issue of whether or not Jesus needs to be baptized with John’s baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew has John question the very fact that Jesus comes to him for baptism, instead declaring that it is he John who should be baptized by Jesus.
No the author has just told us that Jesus’s baptism (with the holy spirit) is far more powerful than John’s. John confirms this saying he should be baptized by Jesus, not the other way around.
Nowhere does John say to Jesus you have no need of baptism for you have never sinned. Its never addressed, either in Matthew nor in Mark. The forgiveness of sins issue can’t be used in deciding between Markan or Matthean priority.
The only issue addressed is the status of John to Jesus. Matthew implies that John is temporarily above Jesus, Mark doesn’t.
I wouldn’t discount the possibility that bren got this fixation of his precisely because taking such an extreme minority view (some qualified scholars might advocate Matthean priority, but not for the reasons bren gives) makes him feel special. Same reason some people who are not Shakespeare scholars like to say somebody else wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Or the Flat Earth Society–still around! And conspiracy theorists (including many atheists) everywhere you look. Because people like to believe they have secret knowledge, not shared by the general populace. This thing of bren’s is relatively harmless. But still wrong.
godspell said
“Could not do” means Jesus didn’t have the power to do it. That is unequivocal. Mark isn’t editing Matthew, Matthew is changing Mark. Matthew’s Christology is higher, so his Jesus can do miracles whenever he wants to, and has chosen not to in Nazareth, because the people in Nazareth have proven themselves unworthy.
But its not unequivocal because Mark’s Jesus was able to do miracles in Nazareth – he could put his hands on people and heal them despite being amazed at their lack of faith. But putting his hands on people and healing them is exactly what he had done in capernaum where people were amazed and said “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority!”
How is Nazareth and different to Capernaum? It isn’t in Mark’s version but it is in Matthew’s where Jesus “did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith”.
Matthew’s Jesus isn’t God (even John’s Jesus is merely manifestation of God’s power in human form), but he’s not dependent on the faith of others to work wonders. Mark’s Jesus can lose power to do anything when surrounded by unbelievers, and a prophet is not without honor except in his homeland–or hometown. Obviously this incident of Jesus returning to Nazareth and being unable to make anyone believe in his power is a real memory, that Mark interprets in his own way. But the way he interprets it is quite different from Matthew, and denotes a lower Christology–a fully human Jesus, who has no power other than what comes from his own faith and that of those around him.
John’s Jesus is the word of god who in the beginning was with god and was god. John’s gospel ends with the one who doubted finally declaring Jesus to be Lord and God.
John might have a strange comprehension of God but his Jesus is undoubtedly God. This is the same Jesus who mistakenly thought moses had given circumcision to the Jews. This Jesus also can do nothing by himself.
So for 1st Century christians a man who can do nothing by himself might still be god. We must take each gospel as a whole, not one verse on its own, to determine if the author believes him to be god.
Nobody actually does miracles in Jewish scripture. You should know this. Not Moses, not Elijah, not Elisha. Samson has no strength unless God gives it to him. God is the prime mover behind all miracles, and Jesus is merely a conduit for God’s power. Truthfully, Matthew and Luke believe the same thing, more or less, but they can’t imagine Jesus’ faith ever failing him, because their Jesus isn’t fully human, is partly divine, due to his divine conception. That’s why Matthew’s Jesus isn’t baptized for the forgiveness of sins, because he was born without sin. Mark’s Jesus was born the way all of us are born, and was unable to hear God’s voice, accept his mission as Messiah, until he was cleansed by baptism. But he is still capable of doubting, of sinning, and of failing. He’s still just a man, however special.
But Jesus’s faith never leaves him in Mark – its the faith missing from the nazarenes that stopped him doing miracles there (even though he could still do miracles in nazareth).
If Mark’s Jesus was born the way all of us are born why did come “not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”.
If Jesus is born just like the rest of us and is still capable of doubting of sinning and of failing, why according to Mark is his blood the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many?
If Jesus is born just like the rest of us and is still capable of doubting of sinning and of failing, why is he the Lord of the end times who gets to chose those who will be saved? Why does he sit at the right hand of the mighty one and come on the clouds of heaven?
Why does Mark introduce him as the Lord of Isaiah? why does David call him Lord 900 years before he is born?
Which when you think about it, helps explain why he could be taken and crucified, and why he cries out to God in anguish. Even his faith can fail at times. He prays to let the cup pass his lips–God woudln’t do that. He’s just a mortal man, with mortal fears, mortal weaknesses, mortal doubts. But when he has faith, the power of God flows through him, and he tells people they can have the same power flowing through them–in the Kingdom, all will have this power.
This is so obvious. Why do you refuse to see it?
Historically a man like the rest of us being taken and crucified and crying out in anguish to god makes perfect sense. But what doesnt make sense is why Mark would write a book about this man and think his death was a ransom for many, whos blood was poured out for and is the blood of the covenant.
It’s possible that one of Mark’s sources is about a “just a mortal man, with mortal fears, mortal weaknesses, mortal doubts. But when he has faith, the power of God flows through him, and he tells people they can have the same power flowing through them–in the Kingdom, all will have this power.” but Mark’s gospel certainly isn’t.
John’s Jesus is an expression of God, in the same way the Holy Spirit is, but even John draws a distinction between Jesus and God. None of the gospel authors, or Paul, believed that. They did lay the groundwork for that belief, but you’re reading ahead, anticipating later Christian beliefs. It took time to get there.
If Mark thinks a human being can’t get to heaven and be with God, then explain the story of the Transfiguration? Moses and Elijah were both taken up into heaven, and Jesus can do the same–that’s the point of the story. He’s not so much greater than they, as he is more significant, since he is (Mark believes) the final prophetic figure, as well as the Messiah–the end of the OT narrative.
godspell said
Later, when Jesus is accused of working wonders through the devil, and he gives his House Divided speech, it’s interesting to see how he says that those who say his power is demonic are slandering the Holy Spirit. Meaning that his power comes not from himself, but from the Holy Spirit, that entered him when he was baptized. They are right to say he has no power himself, to harm or cure, but they are mistaken as to the source. Mark did think this out in some detail (working from earlier sources we don’t have), and it’s slandering him to say he just copied and edited Matthew. (And in worse Greek than Matthew, which is truly weird–unless Matthew was copying and rewriting Mark, in better Greek).
“Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark’s rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible” – Mark Goodacre, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Matthew didn’t just copy Mark either, of course. He had sources Mark didn’t have. He tells this story in less detail–he does not have Jesus say that people are slandering the Holy Spirit by accusing him of having a demon. He also says, please note, that Jesus is working his wonders through the power of God (a little higher Christology than saying it’s the Holy Spirit, a proxy of God’s).
But Matthew does say its the spirit of god 12:28 “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Matthew doesn’t believe Jesus is God either. None of the gospel authors went that far. John came the closest. Yes, he is Lord to all of them, but Lord in the same sense that Pilate had the power of life and death over Jesus, and yet was not the Emperor. There is a recurring theme of deputized power in the gospels. But as the story gets retold, Jesus becomes a bit less human and a bit more divine, every time. No doubt Mark’s Jesus is more divine than he was in the sources Mark used.
John is the only gospel where jesus makes a mistake so this must be the earliest gospel?
Matthew’s Jesus (ch 25) will sit on his glorious throne at the end of time and sort the sheep from the goats. The sheep will go to live in his kingdom and the goats will go to eternal fire. This is clearly god.
Luke tells us in ch1 that god is lord and saviour and in ch2 that the messiah is lord and saviour.
John tells us Jesus is lord and god.
Marks Jesus is “the Sovereign Lord come with power, and he rules with a mighty arm” of Isaiah 40.
Robert said
It’s really pretty obvious to most everyone who reads these two accounts that Matthew’s changes are secondary. Your arguments sound like special pleading to me. Not worth my time. Let me know if you ever find any leading critical scholars using these arguments of yours.
Ok
godspell said
John’s Jesus is an expression of God, in the same way the Holy Spirit is, but even John draws a distinction between Jesus and God. None of the gospel authors, or Paul, believed that. They did lay the groundwork for that belief, but you’re reading ahead, anticipating later Christian beliefs. It took time to get there.If Mark thinks a human being can’t get to heaven and be with God, then explain the story of the Transfiguration? Moses and Elijah were both taken up into heaven, and Jesus can do the same–that’s the point of the story. He’s not so much greater than they, as he is more significant, since he is (Mark believes) the final prophetic figure, as well as the Messiah–the end of the OT narrative.
Yes Paul and the 4 gospel writers all made a distinction between god and Jesus. But all 5 of them also referred to Jesus as Lord in precisely the sense of the OT – where the central theme throughout is that the Lord is God.
Paul, John and explicitly state that Jesus and god share the divine name, Matthew, Luke, and Mark implicitly say so.
The point of the story is that Jesus is there with moses and elijah (the law and prophets) and god says I love jesus and the other two disappear – ie only Jesus matters now.
Paul and John have the highest Christology–Paul’s Christology probably wasn’t widely accepted among Christians until well after his epistles were in general circulation (which would have taken some time), and there were differing currents of opinion even after that (still are). John may well have been influenced by Paul. The synoptic authors are from a different line of thought. Mark’s Christology is the lowest, Matthew and Luke are in-between (partly because they both read Mark).
As to ‘implicitly’, what that implies is you’re seeing what you want to see. You want Mark to come later, so you have to find some way to say he agrees with Matthew and Luke–even though you also insist he doesn’t agree with them, to explain the changes you say he made. Any changes he made were to sources we don’t have.
Obviously Moses and Elijah still matter, but this is the time for Jesus’ mission, not theirs. They are still in heaven, so that destroys your argument that a mortal man couldn’t ascend there. Truthfully, the only way Jesus is original is in ascending in his physical body after his death (one might argue it’s a greater feat to do so while still alive–the Hindus certainly thought so, going by the end of the Mahabarata).
We can agree that “Lord” doesn’t mean Jesus is God (you did just basically agree to that), and the rest we can agree to disagree about.
godspell said
Paul and John have the highest Christology–Paul’s Christology probably wasn’t widely accepted among Christians until well after his epistles were in general circulation (which would have taken some time), and there were differing currents of opinion even after that (still are). John may well have been influenced by Paul. The synoptic authors are from a different line of thought. Mark’s Christology is the lowest, Matthew and Luke are in-between (partly because they both read Mark).As to ‘implicitly’, what that implies is you’re seeing what you want to see. You want Mark to come later, so you have to find some way to say he agrees with Matthew and Luke–even though you also insist he doesn’t agree with them, to explain the changes you say he made. Any changes he made were to sources we don’t have.
The divine name yahweh is translated to ego eimi (I am) in greek.
In the OT the Lord God is variously described as Lord Yahweh or Yahweh God (adonai yhwh, yhwh elohim) and always in that order.
In the NT (every book) Jesus is Lord and the father is God. In Paul and John they are explicitly said to share the divine name. In Matthew, Luke and Mark it is implicit.
Mark 13:6 “many will come in my name, claiming ego eimi (I am)”
This is a more explicit and secondary version of Matthew’s “many will come in my name, claiming ego eimi (I am) the Messiah”
Mark uses “ego eimi” just 3 times (may or may be a coincidence) and all in a divine context; and can be seen protecting the use of it when editing Matthew.
When Matthew has the disciples deny being the traitor in 26:22 and Judas in 26:25 he inadvertently uses the divine name
“meti ego eimi” (surely I am not he?)
Mark, when editing Matthew, protects the use of the divine name and edits to 14:19 “meti ego” (surely not I).
Obviously Moses and Elijah still matter, but this is the time for Jesus’ mission, not theirs. They are still in heaven, so that destroys your argument that a mortal man couldn’t ascend there. Truthfully, the only way Jesus is original is in ascending in his physical body after his death (one might argue it’s a greater feat to do so while still alive–the Hindus certainly thought so, going by the end of the Mahabarata).
I never said a mortal man couldnt ascend to heaven, I said a mortal man couldnt be sent into the world to give his life as a ransom for many, and whos blood would be the blood of the covenant between man and god.
Its also not clear from Mark that Moses and Elijah are in heaven – the were prophets from the OT and in this story god says he loves Jesus and to listen to him, at which point the other two disappear. The symbolism should be quite obvious.
We can agree that “Lord” doesn’t mean Jesus is God (you did just basically agree to that), and the rest we can agree to disagree about.
I agreed that all the NT writers make a distinction between Jesus and god. But that doesnt mean for them Jesus is not god.
This is clear from John where a distinction between Jesus and god, and the claim that Jesus is god are placed right beside each other.
“in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.”
Using “lord” to describe someone doesnt mean you think they’re god, but using “lord” in the sense of the OT does mean you are calling them god.
Well, you can take it still further–Ireneaus, who was no hippie gnostic, and certainly had a higher Christology than Mark, said the point of Christians being Christians was to someday become gods themselves. Many church fathers–even Augustine–said something similar, sometimes phrasing it as ‘sons of God’. The goal of every Christian is to be equal to Jesus the Son.
What is meant by that? Hard to say, isn’t it? Maybe even if you could go back and ask, they’d have a hard time explaining it. But I think part of what is meant was that Jesus was saying that anybody with enough faith in the One True God (who has no equals) would be elevated to a divine level of being. Less than God the Father, but somehow united with Him.
When we’ve been there 10,000 years
Bright shining as the sun
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Then when we first begun!
The union with God makes you God–in a certain sense, but everyone would have a slightly different idea of what sense that was. Jesus had his own sense of it, which we can try to see in the gospels, but each gospel author obscures it somewhat with his own POV.
Point is, very few Christians believed Jesus was the only one who could claim union with God, because Jesus himself explicitly rejected that–that was the precise opposite of the point he was trying to make. But as the time passed, and the Kingdom didn’t come, and everybody went on being flawed and human (and miracles never seemed to happen when you were around to see them), it became easier to say there was something unique about Jesus, some special divine quality he had that mere humans did not. He became God in a different sense from what he (or Mark, Matthew, Luke, or even Paul and John) had meant. He became an object of worship–not a teacher. But a teacher is all he ever wished to be. You see that, don’t you?
Mark has not given up on seeing the Kingdom of God, as John seems to have done. His Christology is lower because he still believes people have the capacity to be what Jesus said they could be. Bright shining as the sun. Jesus called men and women his brothers and sisters–never his children. Younger siblings can grow up, become equal to the first-born.
It’s never completely died, you know. But it’s–inconvenient. “God, make me virtuous–but not yet!”
😉
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)