gmatthews wrote:
I just finished watching your debate live. I was curious why you didn’t take exception to Dr. Bass’ certainty that Peter dictated Mark’s gospel to Mark. Was it because it was a topic of discussion that would have distracted from what was already being discussed?
gmatthews, in your opinion , do you think that mark was written to discredit disciples such as peter?
why would mark narrate that peter took a false oath when he denied jesus?
is there indication in mark that disciple testimony is not eye witness testimony?
I am far from a scholar (I’m just an engineer!) so I can’t give the answer an expert would. I can only claim to be a voracious reader. I think the consensus opinion regarding Mark though is that he doesn’t treat the disciples very kindly at all. In general he treats them as ignorant clods. See Mark 4:9-13. Right after he tells the disciples and the other members of his inner circle (I’d love to know who these others were, they’re mentioned several times) the parable of the sower he asks them if they understand. Jesus says that he will teach via parables and that only his inner circle (those he was addressing, the 12 plus the others) would get his secret teachings. Jesus asks do you understand this parable? If not, then how will you understand anything [you morons]!?!?! The “you morons” part is my addition. I add it so you can see the context in which Jesus incredulously asks them if they understand his teachings.
Also, at the end of chapter 4 is the famous pericope of Jesus calming the storm. In summary, there’s a big storm while Jesus and the disciples are on a boat on some unnamed body of water. Jesus falls asleep and a storm arises. The disciples are terrified and wake Jesus when they fear the boat will be sunk. Jesus rebukes them for being afraid and having no faith. When he calms the storm the disciples incredulously ask each other “who is this? Even the wind and waves obey him!”.
Mark doesn’t miss many opportunities to make the disciples appear to be ignorant dullards who have no idea who Jesus REALLY is. I believe Prof. Ehrman says that this is intentional.
I don’t know why Mark singles out Peter per your question. All I can say from my own observations is that Mark mentions specific disciples very, very few times and of those he does name Peter is obviously the most prominent. I’m totally guessing here, but maybe he does this because after the death of Jesus Peter was one one of the most well known disciples in the years afterwards. He was supposed to have gone on to found the church in Rome. I don’t think the author of Mark knew Peter and I can’t say he had any particular axe to grind with him. I think that author of Mark was living in Palestine and never met Peter or any of the other disciples. I think Peter was chosen as the focus of Mark simply because there were existing legends about Peter (that were possibly true, I have no idea) OR because Peter’s name was known well enough throughout the tiny population of Christians that he could be used as the focus of several incidents in his gospel.
To my knowledge there is no one, aside from evangelicals / fundamentalists, who would seriously claim that ANYTHING in the gospels can be reliably attested to eyewitness disciple testimony. I believe Prof. Ehrman’s new book mentions this so please check it out when it goes on sale.
On a final point keep in mind, and I paraphrase Geza Vermes here, the purpose of the Gospels in the form we have them today is didactic and not historical, which is to say they are intended to teach doctrine and not necessarily convey actual history.
Stephen said
I’ve heard speculation to the effect that Mark shows a Pauline influence and like Paul he is distancing his community from the Jerusalem church. Might be interesting to see what Prof Ehrman thinks of this.
I have the same suspicion. One of the main points Mark really wants to get across is that no one really knew who Jesus was. Especially not his family and disciples. I figure this must be because of the rift that happened between James and Paul. Mark makes sure to point out that Jesus’ family never knew who he really was in 3:31. The event as narrated has always struck me as being strange but when I put myself in Mark’s shoes it makes total sense. He was from a community highly influenced by Paul. Meanwhile there was a community out there that took James as the true successor to Jesus and probably maligned Paul. So, how better to discredit James than to show how he never realized who Jesus really was. In fact, no one who ever knew Jesus during his life (now a member of James’ group) really knew who Jesus was. Not James, not the disciples, not Mary, no one. Therefore, nothing of what they are now(in Mark’s time) saying matters. Instead, it is Paul’s view (and Mark’s view) of Christ that is correct because unlike all the others, they came to know the divine Christ in Jesus. That seems to be Mark’s underlying goal. In fact even at the end, no one ever found out who he really was because the women who saw him never went and told anyone what they saw, instead they just ran away scared!
Of course I’m not a scholar or anything, but that’s what I seem to take away from Mark.
RAhmed said
I figure this must be because of the rift that happened between James and Paul. Mark makes sure to point out that Jesus’ family never knew who he really was in 3:31. The event as narrated has always struck me as being strange but when I put myself in Mark’s shoes it makes total sense. He was from a community highly influenced by Paul. Meanwhile there was a community out there that took James as the true successor to Jesus and probably maligned Paul. So, how better to discredit James than to show how he never realized who Jesus really was. In fact, no one who ever knew Jesus during his life (now a member of James’ group) really knew who Jesus was. Not James, not the disciples, not Mary, no one. Therefore, nothing of what they are now(in Mark’s time) saying matters. Instead, it is Paul’s view (and Mark’s view) of Christ that is correct because unlike all the others, they came to know the divine Christ in Jesus. That seems to be Mark’s underlying goal. In fact even at the end, no one ever found out who he really was because the women who saw him never went and told anyone what they saw, instead they just ran away scared!
I’ve never considered that Mark might have been influenced by Paul, but I won’t belabor your opinion that perhaps he was. I would ask though if you don’t think it’s possible that perhaps Mark just had some anti-James sentiments in his Gospel without necessarily being pro-Paul? To be influenced by Paul I would have to say that Mark certainly seems to cherry pick his Pauline views, ie. there’s a lot of Paul that Mark never even touches on or at the very least seems quite lukewarm about. Paul emphasizes to his Gentile audience that one does not have to follow Mosaic Law in order to be a Christian. He doesn’t say you can’t be a Christian and still follow Mosaic Law obviously. Mark writes in such a way that he explains Jewish customs as if he’s writing for a Gentile audience who might not understand. Take for example the story of the Pharisees and scribes asking Jesus why he doesn’t make his disciples wash their hands before eating in Mark 7. This ritual was not traditional Judaism, but Mark still explains what was happening in his Gospel as if he wants a potential Gentile audience to understand. Why bother explaining if Mark was pro-Paul?
Also, a very important part of Paul’s message was the death and resurrection of Jesus bringing redemption. For Mark the resurrection was important, but if the ending of Mark as we have it today is in fact a later addition then Mark doesn’t even describe the resurrection in a way that I would think a pro-Paul writer would have.
I have no opinion either way on Pauline influence in Mark, but I think these two things that popped in my mind should be considered before jumping in with both feet.
Yes good points. That story of the washing of hands is actually a good example of why I think Mark is explicitly targeting James. For it’s Mark who uses this story to declare all foods clean. Matthew seems to have copied this same story from Mark but didn’t copy over the declaring all foods clean part. Same with Luke although he didn’t copy it as closely as Matthew did. Regardless, we know from Paul’s letters that dietary laws were one of the big disagreements that Paul had with James, Peter, and the Jerusalem community.
Now imagine you are a a gentile Christian who is not familiar with Jewish laws or customs. You have heard of the debate of whether or not all foods can be eaten. One side is the one your community takes and the other is taken by the folks in Jerusalem who are still teaching the Jewish law. Now here’s a gospel that explains clearly that all foods are in fact clean. In fact Jesus himself declared them so, not just Paul. Also, James wasn’t a believer and Jesus’ disciples were all really dense so they’re obviously still confused on the matter.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but look at how Mark’s account begins, “the Pharisees and some teachers of the law from Jerusalem came“. To me this echoes the words of Paul in Galatians when “certain men of James” came and turned Peter against Paul in regards to dietary laws. In fact the only other time Mark mentions “teachers of the law from Jerusalem”, he immediatly followed it by connecting it to Jesus’ brothers (3:22-31).
The target audience for Mark are exactly the people you’d expect to find in Paul’s churches. Gentile converts who lack background in Jewish customs. This story explains why the Jewish Christian view of the debate is wrong and the gospel continuously drives home the point that everyone who knew Jesus was a disbeliever, really dense, or just didn’t know who he really was.
Of course by the time Mark was writing his gospel decades had gone by. So it’s not surprising to find views different from Paul’s. However, since the audience is clearly meant to be gentile, I can only imagine Mark was writing for gentile Christians ie Paul’s communities and their offshoots.
RAhmed said
The target audience for Mark are exactly the people you’d expect to find in Paul’s churches. Gentile converts who lack background in Jewish customs. This story explains why the Jewish Christian view of the debate is wrong and the gospel continuously drives home the point that everyone who knew Jesus was a disbeliever, really dense, or just didn’t know who he really was.
Of course by the time Mark was writing his gospel decades had gone by. So it’s not surprising to find views different from Paul’s. However, since the audience is clearly meant to be gentile, I can only imagine Mark was writing for gentile Christians ie Paul’s communities and their offshoots.
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. You aren’t considering that the audience was Hellenistic Jews. A number of scholars over the years (I most recently read Martin Hengel discuss this) have shown that Hellenistic Jews moving back to Jerusalem were completely ignorant of a lot of Jewish customs and for certain would have needed the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees explained to them (Hellenistic Jews even had their own Temple apart from other Jews!). If Mark was writing to these Jews instead of Gentiles then that takes away a lot of the pro-Paul view and sets things more in line with what I described as anti-James rather than pro-Paul. Personally I think the community Mark was writing for was living in the hills north of Israel (perhaps just over the border) during the Jewish war. This community would have been near Galilee, possibly near Sepphoris, and also relatively near Damascus. Both of those areas had a lot of Hellenistic Jews (and Gentiles).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)