I found out today Bart’s upcoming talk will be called: “When God Ridiculed Jesus: The Original Text of Mark 15:34” What do others think the talk will be about? Here is my guess:
So, Mark is going to have Jesus predict his death and resurrection 4 times, though no one will understand, as though its impossible to understand “I’ll be dead, then I won’t.” This absurdity culminates with Jesus in Gethsemane begging to be released from the contract, and so basically saying he can’t suffer for a few hours as any soldier might under interrogation to then be gloriously resurrected and placed at the right hand of God. Mark saturates his gospel with such satire, such as exaggerating the ridiculous illegality of the trial on multiple points to un-cover the hidden depravity of the world. In the end, God tells a noble lie (compare God in 1 Kings 22:21-22) to Jesus that Elijah will come rescue him (Elijah is prophesied to return and set things right at the end of days), to ease Jesus’ burden. Compare: Introducing the lie theme, Jesus ironically warns “Take care that no one deceives you. Many will come using my name and saying, “I am he” and they will deceive many (Mark 13:5-7)” when in fact Jesus will be deceived. In Gethsemane, Jesus says he will do God’s will regardless, but obviously prefers not to die. Jesus was wrong about the apocalypse, so Elijah doesn’t come, and so he screams out to God for mocking him with the lie (as the world mocked him) and abandoning him, but still proclaims underneath all that he trusts God. This proclamation is what converts the centurion at the cross. The crowd in Mark think Jesus is calling out to Elijah to rescue him from the cross, so maybe Jesus thought the Gethsemane prayer was answered, as it seems to be in Hebrews 5:7. Then, when Jesus realizes Elijah isn’t coming, he thinks God mocked him by lying to him, whereas God as comforter was just trying to make Jesus’s burden easier by having Jesus thinking he wasn’t going to die. I blog about this here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
To professor Dr. Ehrman. Are the genealogies of Matthew and Luke throught the male lineages and isn’t it written in Numbers that genealogies are always from the male lineage? Please provide the scriptural reference in Numbers, if in fact that is where it is stated. Thanks in advance.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense.
Arguing that that extremely poignant invocation of Ps 22, which aligns so well with Mark’s depiction of the passion that one can’t but suspect the Mark’s narrative was formed around it, and to do so purely on the basis of one Greek manuscript and a handful of Latin translations, would be a lot for me to swallow.
The idea of God mocking Jesus on the cross sounds a lot like later Docetist Christological views where only spiritual rubes believe the fleshly Jesus is equivalent to the spiritual Christ.
Arguing that that extremely poignant invocation of Ps 22, which aligns so well with Mark’s depiction of the passion that one can’t but suspect the Mark’s narrative was formed around it, and to do so purely on the basis of one Greek manuscript and a handful of Latin translations, would be a lot for me to swallow.
However, interestingly enough, Prof Ehrman is very critical of the view that Mark is using Psalm 22 as his template for the crucifixion scene. Ehrman is compelled by the image of the existential despairing silent (even confused) Jesus, abandoned by all, even God. I get that and don’t entirely disagree but I think it is not consistent with Mark’s overall view. The cry is one of despair as it is in Psalm 22. But it doesn’t end there, how could it? Look at the Psalm. What is it about? The transformation from despair to hope. Ehrman is quite right to disparage those interpreters who want to minimize the despair to get to the hope. That does lead to a facile reading. But the existential despairing silent confused Jesus speaks powerfully to we moderns but it is just as anachronistic as the “wisdom sage” or the Marxist or Feminist Jesus.
I think we’ve hit on this before, but I too think BDE goes to far in interpreting Mark’s Jesus’ silence as confusion and shock. Mark’s Jesus knew what was coming. How many times did he predict it? Taking it as some sort of surprised confusion just doesn’t make much narrative sense. Like you say, despair is one thing, confusion is another.
Your observation, about God ridiculing the dying Jesus, plays well with the contention that Bezae represents a more Docetist-friendly NT than the Eastern textual tradition. I wonder if that is the tack he will take.
Well I’ve pretty much reached the conclusion that Mark is doing literature and theology not history. Mark is interpreting the crucifixion rather than describing what he thought actually happened. I think in modern terms his quotation of Psalm 22 is intended as a first century version of a hyperlink. Psalm 22 hovers behind Mark’s account of the crucifixion. My thought is that the audience was intended to work their way from the despair of Jesus to the hope that his death brings. Mark is a sophisticated thinker.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)