jakejones said
I think this will be my final post here, a person called brojangles explained it like this :
Ok, Mark 8:14 says, “they had brought no bread with them, neither did they have more than one loaf in the boat.” 8:16 says “It is because we have no loaves.” What’s in between these verses has significance: “And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod.” Removing the middle part removes the set up for the punchline of a joke. The disciples forgot to bring bread and they don’t have more than a loaf with them in the boat. As they are going across the lake, they are about to go into Pharisee country. Jesus tells them “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod.” Leaven was used as a metaphor for corruption and Jesus is talking philosphically but the disciples take it literally and ask “why did he say that?” “It’s because we have no bread.” They are taking it literally and thinking he’s really talking about bread. This is typical of how Mark always tries to portray the disciples as idiots to an unrealistic degree. Having them say to themselves “we have no bread” because they have “no more than one loaf” in the boat is simply how natural speech works when everybody already knows the relevant information. Are they supposed to say, “it’s because we have no more than one loaf?” Is there a substantive difference between, “no loaves” and “no more than one,” especially within the context of the joke? The reason you know there was maybe one loaf is that Mark already told you that. Mark says the women ran away from the tomb and “didn’t tell anybody because they were so afraid,” he doesn’t say “except for the disciples.” How would the reader be expected to know it if there was an exception? You know about the loaf because Mark told you. Can you give an example of Mark saying “none” but leaving something out without tell you? Why would he bother saying “And they said not one thing to anyone at all [kai oudeni ouden eipon “And not one thing and to not one man they spoke”]” and then leave out,”except for the people they ran right to and told?” If Mark had wanted to say the women ran away and didn’t tell anybody at all, how would he say that differently than Mark 16:8? What is the argument that the reader would have understood Mark to have been saying the women ran to the disciples if the reader had no prior knowledge of Jesus outside of Mark’s Gospel?
If Mark says in verse 14 “they only had one loaf in the boat with them” then the natural way to write verse 16 is “is it because we only have one loaf”.
If you say as Matthew does “they forgot to bring any bread” the natural way to write the next verse is “is it because we don’t have loaves/bread”
If Mark writes “the disciples forgot to bring bread except for one loaf they had in the boat with them” the natural expectation is that this one loaf should have some significance in his story. But it doesn’t.
The natural understanding should then be that Mark has pointlessly added “except for one loaf they had in the boat with them” to Matthew’s original account.
I have, for the most part, enjoyed reading this thread. It is very thought provoking to a non‑scholar. And it did provoke a thought:
As I understand it, Mark’s gospel is the story of the Son of God who no one understood. This Son of God appears and sets out on his mission. He teaches and perform miracles that clearly show his true nature, but the apostles don’t understand. Peter in particular does not understand. The final proof comes at the cross and resurrection. The disciples do not recognize that the prophesy is being fulfilled, but instead flee for their lives. The women come to Jesus’ tomb, but run away amazed and afraid. And there the story ends. The resurrection is not announced. The story absolutely ends, as if the Son of God came, performed his ministry, died on the cross, and was resurrected, all for nothing, because the people did not understand and succumbed to their fears.
Is this the story the author of Mark intended? Is the book more of a lament than a gospel? Or was it more of a wink and a nod, in the sense that we understand even though the people closest to Jesus during his lifetime did not. I have no idea, and no way of knowing. Nobody can put himself in Mark’s head. I do think, though, that the actual ending at 16:8 makes sense if the book is read in a way such as this.
Some will no doubt respond that Mark could not have written a story this way because the story did not end. Some 2,000 years later Christianity is the world’s largest religion. Mark, writing the first “gospel,” could not have known that would happen. Maybe the situation seemed bleak at the time he wrote. Nobody knows.
I’m not advocating this reading. I have no standing in the scholarly community to advocate for anything. It’s just an idea for consideration.
TTHorne56 said
I have, for the most part, enjoyed reading this thread. It is very thought provoking to a non‑scholar. And it did provoke a thought:As I understand it, Mark’s gospel is the story of the Son of God who no one understood. This Son of God appears and sets out on his mission. He teaches and perform miracles that clearly show his true nature, but the apostles don’t understand. Peter in particular does not understand. The final proof comes at the cross and resurrection. The disciples do not recognize that the prophesy is being fulfilled, but instead flee for their lives. The women come to Jesus’ tomb, but run away amazed and afraid. And there the story ends. The resurrection is not announced. The story absolutely ends, as if the Son of God came, performed his ministry, died on the cross, and was resurrected, all for nothing, because the people did not understand and succumbed to their fears.
Is this the story the author of Mark intended? Is the book more of a lament than a gospel? Or was it more of a wink and a nod, in the sense that we understand even though the people closest to Jesus during his lifetime did not. I have no idea, and no way of knowing. Nobody can put himself in Mark’s head. I do think, though, that the actual ending at 16:8 makes sense if the book is read in a way such as this.
Some will no doubt respond that Mark could not have written a story this way because the story did not end. Some 2,000 years later Christianity is the world’s largest religion. Mark, writing the first “gospel,” could not have known that would happen. Maybe the situation seemed bleak at the time he wrote. Nobody knows.
I’m not advocating this reading. I have no standing in the scholarly community to advocate for anything. It’s just an idea for consideration.
Good post.
TTHorne56 said
I have, for the most part, enjoyed reading this thread. It is very thought provoking to a non‑scholar. And it did provoke a thought:As I understand it, Mark’s gospel is the story of the Son of God who no one understood. This Son of God appears and sets out on his mission. He teaches and perform miracles that clearly show his true nature, but the apostles don’t understand. Peter in particular does not understand. The final proof comes at the cross and resurrection. The disciples do not recognize that the prophesy is being fulfilled, but instead flee for their lives. The women come to Jesus’ tomb, but run away amazed and afraid. And there the story ends. The resurrection is not announced. The story absolutely ends, as if the Son of God came, performed his ministry, died on the cross, and was resurrected, all for nothing, because the people did not understand and succumbed to their fears.
Is this the story the author of Mark intended? Is the book more of a lament than a gospel? Or was it more of a wink and a nod, in the sense that we understand even though the people closest to Jesus during his lifetime did not. I have no idea, and no way of knowing. Nobody can put himself in Mark’s head. I do think, though, that the actual ending at 16:8 makes sense if the book is read in a way such as this.
Some will no doubt respond that Mark could not have written a story this way because the story did not end. Some 2,000 years later Christianity is the world’s largest religion. Mark, writing the first “gospel,” could not have known that would happen. Maybe the situation seemed bleak at the time he wrote. Nobody knows.
I’m not advocating this reading. I have no standing in the scholarly community to advocate for anything. It’s just an idea for consideration.
Brilliant potential interpretation. Like a brutal almost complaint at the state of the world. God knows what was running through his head but I have a suspicion Mark may not have shared Paul’s christilogy. It is not completely impossible Mark is one of the first in the ebionite tradition-Jesus being a mortal son of God fits better with him just dying in a tragic way where people just don’t take the right lesson than Jesus being a true, adopted like we’re adopted, divined son of God.
Ofc I defer to ehrman but if the lament/tragedy interpretation is correct I feel it lends itself more to a low christology view.
Is this the story the author of Mark intended? Is the book more of a lament than a gospel?
I agree with Robert. There are clues in the gospel that make it sound like Mark’s community was still living with the after-effects of some earlier trauma. If Mark was composed in Rome as many scholars think, a likely candidate would be the Neronian persecution. It’s an interesting exercise to go through the book and note every instance that refers to fear or someone being afraid. You suddenly realize that fear is a major theme in the book.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)