I remember a sprightly octogenarian years ago lecturing on the psychology of management. He asked us suddenly in what seemed like lunging off topic: “can anyone tell me the difference between managing and obssessing ?”. After five seconds of stoned silence and puzzled looks he offered: “It’s actually quite simple: if you are managing, you consider options”.
When it comes to deciding about Jesus’ existence, very few people seem to be managing historical information. The opinions seem to more about role-playing and peer expectations, personal commitment and calculations of effect, rhetorical thumps, marketing strategies, juvenile struggles with authority, mistaking authority for argument, and plain old-fashioned talking through the hat. It is interesting to observe that it is not only the two opposing certitudes that are at loggerheads with the hazy factuality around Jesus of Nazareth but even some among the agnostics. It has become sort of a sport in some quarters to claim that nothing can be said about anything in the NT texts that even indirectly relates to questions of Jesus’ historicity. I had one gentleman learned in the languages of antiquity disputing that one may fairly infer from 2 Corinthians 5:16 that Paul knew about Jesus (in whatever form) through humans prior to his belief he received revelation from God about the purpose of his career and death. This sort of deconstructionist tactic was well handled by G. A. Wells. He was challenged by an interviewer who offered gratuitously that on what we know, “whether Jesus existed is a trivial matter, not worth writing about”. The most eloquent proponent of the non-existence theory to-date retorted: “ the manner and origin of one of the world’s largest religions is no triviality” (“Did Jesus Exist ?” 1986, p 216).
So it would appear that in the query whether Jesus had an earthly career, the need to proffer assurances by and large displaces disinterested observation. Jesus, it appears, either must have existed, or could not have existed, or it is ridiculous to hold any beliefs either way. One cannot, by the looks of it, have a reserved opinion based on an independent assessment of the texts vis-a-vis external historical data surrounding them. To extract and manage information by schemas other than the ones approved of by one of the established schools of Jesus group-think, one is immediately scorned and dismissed. Indeed, I have been accused of eisegesis by all three.
Where Jesus as myth was the received wisdom
The earliest of my troubles is worth while recounting: I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia where Jesus was Myth and that was the state-enforced wisdom. As a student at the Economic Institute, I tried to probe the Communist Party dogma in a philosophy seminar, not because I was religious, but because I was curious. Mind you, I was not curious but not yet to the point of reading the Bible. As a matter of fact, I was as good a commie atheist student as a senior in a Jesuit college would be a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic. My mom was a Catholic herself but she gave up on proselytizing me. My father and I hated it when she became devotional, because it was a sure-as-hell sign that she wanted to be sick and suffering; a martyr to an obscure cause. For my dad that meant no sex, for me no TLC. So, if I had believed in God and Freud, my Oedipus would have been partly to the father in heaven and his outlaw son to whom my mom clinged when she had the blues.
But as I said, I became curious. What ignited my curiosity was a remarkable film by an Italian communist by the name of Pier Paolo Pasolini. When I saw his Il vangelo secondo Matteo (Gospel according to Matthew) I was instantly converted - not to Christianity, mind you, but to Pasolini's ethos of seeing Christianity not as an ideological rival but a part of what our civilization is made of. When I say Christianity I mean the religion stripped off of the psychobabble and intimidation. Pasolini showed it could be done. It was a remarkable vision transcending silly cliches and worn out dogmas - the Church's and the Party's.
So, when a while later I was spoon fed the final word on JC by dialectical materialism in my philosophy class, I had a dissenting point of view essentially arguing it was quite possible that Jesus in fact did exist and the religious humbug was hung on him later. This of course was contrary to the teachings of Bruno Bauer and Frederick Engels, who my skripta said proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a literary invention. My argument, which was somewhat naively spun around the miraculous powers of the Slovak highlander hero Juro Janosik, who was a historical figure and whose trial and execution in 1713 was properly documented, was dismissed as uninformed. Further, my obstinacy earned me a pohovor (an interview) in the dean’s office - essentially an attempt to bring back a stray bolshevik sheep by barking at it. Luckily for me, the assigned sheep dog was himself inclined to communist reformism (this was 1967, the year that brought in Dubcek as a party leader and Zdenek Mlynar as his chief ideologue, the latter a roommate at the Moscow Party Cadres School to a Stavropol party boss by the name of Mikhail Gorbachev). As an added stroke of luck, he ran out of cigarettes, and was in debt as he smoked mine. The interview went well. As I freely admitted I had no research interest in the matter, and read no Greek, my deviationism was classed as harmless: I never saw his report, but I imagine it said something to the effect that comrade S. would not be fooled by superstitious nonsense; he simply keeps his mind open as every smart svazák (young communist) should.
What the NT academics believe
In a 1985 paper presented at Ann Arbor Michigan gathering , G.A. Wells, shrugged that his theory had been the object of 'amused contempt' by the NT academics. At the conference itself – a gathering of biblical iconoclasts - Wells was attacked by Morton Smith, as an 'extreme Bultmaniac'. (Bultmann himself, however, described the view that Jesus did not exist as silly). But most of the time he was simply ignored by NT scholars, or dismissed as a non-specialist in the field (He is a professor of German). Those who read his thesis claiming that most of the epistles and Paul especially knew nothing of the gospel Jesus, and the latter failed to attribute his own teachings to him, did not have much of a response. What they offered was a standard cliché that Paul did not have to acknowledge Jesus’ doings and teachings because the church was familiar with them. Whether or not Paul’s silence on the earthly Jesus, is a proof of him never existing, Paul’s refusal to know Christ according to flesh, and a desire to entertain nothing about him except his crucifixion, are surely huge issues in no way sustained by the traditional church doctrines and their academic offshoots.
So what evidence does academia believe warrants Jesus’ existence ? I would venture that most of the external ‘evidence’ for Jesus has been largely discounted. Exhibits of such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, simply come too late and testify not to Jesus himself but to communal beliefs about him. Most academics would concede that. Only the incessant debates about Testimonium Flavianum seem to go on, one hundred years after Schweitzer made the final point on the Josephus ‘witness’ by condemning as useless and unseemly speculations on evidence that everyone knows was tampered with.
But if the majority of scholars today do not advertise much the independent witness (-this has now become the hobby of the evangelicals, mostly) they do seem near unanimous that the internal evidence supports beyond shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth walked on the planet. They may have the widest disagreements among themselves as to what is and what is not historical and factual in the gospels, but on the lecterns and on the podcasts they sound very much alike in their affected shock and disdain of people who don’t think it is as clear-cut as that.
The “assurance” factor in Jesus’ historical reality sometimes takes on bizarre shapes. David Boulton in his fine summary of the newest Jesus questing (Who On Earth Was Jesus ?, 2008) , takes to task E.P. Sanders, one of the leading mainstream N.T. scholars of the day, for his successive but conflicting certitudes as to what in the gospels he considers “almost indisputable facts”. In Jesus and Judaism (1985) he presented the following set:
· Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
· Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve
· Jesus confined his activity to Israel
· Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed
· Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple
· After his death Jesus’ followers continued as an identifiable community
· At least some Jews persecuted at least part of the new movement
By 1991, (The Historical Figure of Jesus) Sanders revised his stance, generously adding to the list and modifying the things of which he was certain everyone could be certain.
· Jesus was born c. 4 BC, near the time of the death of Herod the Great
· He spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village
· Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
· He called disciples (omitting “and spoke of there being twelve”)
· He taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee
· He preached “the kingdom of God” [but “healed” is omitted]
· He created disturbance in the temple area
· He had a final meal with his disciples
· He was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest
· He was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate
· His disciples at first fled
· They saw him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death
· As a consequence, they believed they believed he would return to found the kingdom
· After his death, his believers formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah
· [The statement that parts of the new movement were persecuted by at least soe Jews is omitted].
I observe, and observe somewhat cynically, that since there were no earth-shattering discoveries in the years that intervened between the two lists, and given professor Sanders’ erudition, the revision was simply in posturing. The second list extends the “assurance” to items which are not even disguised articles of faith. A sober reader of the texts would observe, e.g. the uncanny textual agreements between Paul’s 1 Cr 11:23-25 and Lk 22:19-20, and then the quaint entree of the Last Supper motif in 1 Cr 10:16 (The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?) and would have to ponder how quickly in Paul’s writing the Eucharist was prov'd from what was only imagined in a mere chapter before.
Similarly, we have no reliable evidence for the assertion that Jesus believers 'formed a community to await his return'. The Acts have been notoriously unreliable as chronicles of historical events. Gospel of Thomas portrays James the Righteous (why would Jesus use a surname to describe his brother ?) as someone who would shelter Jesus followers after he is gone ! The foundational event at Pentecost was so embarrassing to the later church intellectuals that it was expunged from Eusebius’ History. Matthew’s derivation of Jesus epithet of ‘Nazoraios’ from ‘Nazareth’ (2:23) has no way to account for the fact that John the Baptist, was a ‘Nazoraios’ too. ( A Mandanean sect in Iraq-al-Arabi calls itself ‘Nasoraij d’Yahya’ to this day.). It is more than probable then that the Nazorean house catered to both Jesus’ and John’s following, something forced Luke to deal with by making Elizabeth and Mary relatives. And what about Hebrews 6:20 calling Jesus a 'forerunner' and a high priest (in heaven) after the order of Melchizedek 'for ever' ? Isn’t the idea that Jesus entered the Holy Place, once and for all (Heb 9:12), to act as an intercessor and mediator for a new covenant somewhat at odds with the thesis that all believers thought of him as Messiah and awaited his return ? These are just some issues which professor Sanders was either unaware of or hastily discounted when arriving at historical certitudes.
Why I am not a Jesus Myther
First off, let me tell you that I do not consider the theory that Jesus never existed inherently implausible. As a matter of fact I believe it is a close call. I can imagine a scenario in which Jesus was originally a ‘code name’ for the oracular properties of the spirit visiting on Jamesian ecstatics, telling the wiser ones (the Thomasians) how to manage the spiritual fevers and others (the Petrines) that the psychoses were previews of the world to come (in the euphoric phase) and the end of the existing world (in the annihilation mess that followed) . I can imagine Paul encountering the crazed preachers and seers of the latter group, and militating against them until he himself became one, in acquiring the experience of the intoxication by the Spirit. It is certainly not beyond pale that he developed the mantra of the cross from some as yet unknown mystical source, or distilled it from vague Platonic ideas penetrating into his social setting.
(Glaucon in Plato’s Republic, Book II, 361e5: ‘The just man…will be scourged, racked, chained, have his eyes burned out; at last after every kind of misery he will be impaled’ (tr. by W.H.D. Rouse – some translators prefer ‘crucified’)). It is worth noting in this regard that in 1 Thessalonians, the earliest Paul’s letter by the reckoning of most, the cross did not yet figure as instrument of salvation.
I imagine also better Jesus Myth theories can be built, if their authors are a little bit more circumspect. G.A. Wells has my respect and admiration for steering the debate from vague, generalized, and often misleading assertions of mythical imports and ripoffs which were alleged to account wholly for the appearance of the Christ figure. He has constructed a fine model extracting plausible conclusions from the early Christian texts themselves read in their historical context. He has carried himself with remarkable poise and dignity. However, in attempting to stay within the existing scholarly paradigm of NT studies, he in my reckoning, misjudged the import of some of its analytical tools, most importantly the assumptions around the putative Q document. Q is a purely theoretical construct which at the break of the 20th century replaced a futile search for the Matthean oracles of the Lord. Over the decades, Q has become something of an industry, the document taking on refined stratification, with dozens of new titles and scholarly articles appearing annually further elaborating it. It may seem unbelievable, but it is true, that the massive, sustained, world-wide effort that goes into the science of Q has no other utility than to justify the opinion that Luke did not know Matthew.
To my mind, it makes no sense for a mythicist to participate in the Q propagation as the activity has only one real goal: to connect the gospels – which arrived late and show a great deal of creative literary composition – to some authoritative source from which they are copied, a document (text – not oral traditions) that would lead right to the deepest stratum of Q, the hallowed Urquelle called der golden Mund Jesu. Wells was finally persuaded that he could not hold onto the reality of the Q thesis and maintain at the same time the assumed textual sources – reverently transferred – did not ultimately lead to Jesus as the origin of at least some of the sayings.
Earl Doherty, who attached a bold new theory of sublunar career of Paul’s Christ to Wells’es earlier arguments, has likewise defended Q’s necessity to the detriment of his cause. Unlike Wells, however, Doherty seems oblivious to the paradox in his stance even though it has been harped on by more than one conservative website. Why would anyone who wishes to dispute the historical existence of Jesus want to rely on an imaginary document that was not known to anyone in the ancient world: not the orthodox church, not the heretics, not to the pagan critics ? Isn’t the shoe on the other foot ? Should not Q be the prime example of vested interest in illusory objects adorning the ivory tower of contemporary NT studies ?
The other thing I have noticed about both, Wells and Doherty, is their reluctance to set aside NT passages which are very dubious to the point of being silly and can painlessly be demonstrated to contradict what the source says elsewhere. E.g. if Paul presents consistently the image of himself as one divinely appointed to testify of God's Son, then a passage in which he assigns to himself the role of reprieved scumbag on criteria otherwise unknown in the corpus, needs to be set aside - even in the absence of a textual variant. One has to have that level of confidence, if one wants a new theory !
For myself, I feel reasonably comfortable there was a historical person of Jesus. On balance it still makes more sense then to read the epistles and gospels with a single historical referent pointing to an obscure and thwarted prophetic figure who became posthumously revered in a Jerusalem messianic assembly as a martyr and intercessor for a coming rule of God in Israel. It strikes me as better to explain Paul’s ‘silence’ on Jesus deeds and words as his rejection of Jesus’ messianic teachings assumed to have been propagated by his followers out of Jerusalem after his death (likely in several flavours). Paul created the Jesus Christ heavenly persona for a theology that rejected parochial Jewish expectations for God’s kingdom on earth. He and the Jesus missionaries out of Jerusalem were proselytic rivals. Paul’s attempts to find acceptance for his ideas in James’ inner circle appear to have been unsuccessful.
What specifically do I consider in Paul historical reference to Jesus ? Those of you who have read my preceding essays know by now that I do not credit as genuine certain passages in Paul which are usually cited by the traditional theologians as proof of Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as an earthly dominus. Rom 1:3, 1 Cr 11:23-26, 1 Cr 15:3-11, Gal 1:19, Gal 4:4, all appear to be later insertions into Paul’s letters to harmonize his views either the emerging orthodox doctrines or make them more explicit in support of the same. I take seriously Paul's proscriptions on discussing Jesus in flesh, (1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 5:16).
There are however several genuine Pauline passages regarding the crucifixion and temporal placement of Paul’s Jesus which will be hard to crack for any mythical theory.
Gal 3:1 - O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? It is difficult to imagine that the aggressive tone Paul takes could reference a mythical scenario. Only if the execution was real and historical, can the appeal to Paul’s previous teachings sustain the insult (!) he lobs at the defecting acolytes.
Gal 6:12 - It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Again, if there was no historical “cross of Christ” Paul’s impeachment of the judaizers would not make sense. If Jesus was a myth everyone would have known he was a myth, and whether there was a cross in the myth would have made no difference to anyone capable of rational thought. That the judaizers would be trying to avoid persecution for an event which did not take place on earth or within living memory, just does not play out, at least not in any way that I can see. On the other hand, if Jesus was executed for breaking the law (implied by Rom 8:4, Gal 3:13), then idolizing him publicly carried risks with it – and Paul’s pointing to the hypocrisy of his proselytic rivals with respect to the law which killed their idol – and which they don’t keep anyway - could be counted on to make an impact.
1 Cr 15:20 - But now (νυνί) Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. It is possible, as G.A. Wells believes that Paul thought Jesus lived a long time ago, left no trace, and it was only in Paul’s lifetime that he had risen. It is just not very convincing that (at least) two opposing sects during one generation suddenly invoked his name and began to vie for converts.
1 Cr 2:2 I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. The qualifier καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον, implies that Paul did not want to hear anything about Jesus before his crucifixion when coming to preach to Corinth. Again, if “Jesus said this and Jesus did that before he was killed” was a myth and Paul knew it then I am at a loss to grasp what difference it would have made to Paul’s pitiful condition to let people talk about the hero’s mythical exploits and mythical causes of his mythical downfall leading to his mythical death. But, if the obverse is true – if Paul in the throes of a persecutory stage of mania (See Origin of My Own Interest in Early Christian Psychology in the 2010 blog) suggests that the phantom visitor of the Corinthian mystics can be placated by acknowledging him as an ordinary recently living human empowered by God post-mortem, then it is reasonable to assume Paul found relief in the schema himself, that his Jesus Christ mantras actually had a way of reducing his own agitated psychosis. And it is equally probable that Paul’s fame as a ancient precursor of logotherapy* was established because his technique seems to have worked and with some people similarly afflicted as Paul. It worked as it provided (at least some) relief to what seemed to them as a meaningless, bottomless cycle of suffering. For the therapeutic hypno-suggestion to have worked, Jesus had to have proximity to the sufferers – similar to that of Paul – proximity in their social status, education, reputation in the community at large (1 Cr 1:18-31). It is my view – and I do not hold this to be more than an opinion of one person - that Jesus’ proximity would have been temporal as well, given the underlying belief that the end was near.
/* - Logotherapy was a psychotherpeutic technique pioneered by Victor Frankl. He used paradoxical formulas and self-hypnosis – evidenced in Paul and Mark - as a way to relieve suffering in his patients. Dr Frankl developed his ideas and methods while a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp, as a way of coping personally with his predicament. Frankl wrote (in Man's Search for Meaning) that he was enriched by his Nazi death camp experience because it taught him things about himself and other people that he would have had no way of knowing had he not been subjected to the protracted struggle for the bare object of his existence.
Frankl's approach, I believe, has tantalizing relevance for Early Christian psychology. It provides a vital key to the effects of paradoxical structures of cognition present in Paul's theology and Mark's narrative - the importance of finding the 'euangelion' (glad tidings) in the suffering and humiliation they received at the hands of fate and other people.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
How many were the Twelve ?
Paul left us an enormously interesting account of himself, his struggle with mental illness, and his uncanny ability to engage it creatively and communally. Some people may want to challenge this perception of Paul but since Paul himself makes no bones about it and in fact proudly declares it as sign of his election (1 Cor 1:27), their argument largely rests on their poor understanding of what this illness was. As I have already pointed out Paul had recurrent episodes hypermanic highs through which he was apparently incapacitated. He recalls – with certain fondness one such period in the Galatians :
Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh (δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς) I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus. Gal 4:13-14
This is the KJV rendering of the verses which captures the ambivalence of the original thought. Paul preached in Galatia first through infirmity of the flesh, and the temptation which was in (..) flesh, i.e. Paul being out of control (!) was not despised (as we may safely assume was the case elsewhere) but accepted as sign of his apostolic election. The infirm flesh here should not be read as physical illness but Paul's agitated confusion, an illness of the soul, as witnessed by others. IMHO, it has nothing to do with bodily ailment, as some translators intimate.
Paul also tells us elsewhere that when he is out of his mind (or insane, ἐξέστημεν), it is for God and when he is compos mentis it for his flock (2 Cr 5:13). It is in his return to senses to testify of his prophetic transports, his visions of the Lord and the Lord’s instructions for the coming universal mayhem, that Paul asserts his apostolic authority.
The point to take home here is that Paul knew he was out of control at times – he also knew that other than those who were genuinely ‘undone’ by the metamorphoses of Paul’s appearance and behaviour he had little chance with his gospel. He speaks of this in the second chapter of 1 Corinthians, again recalling the initial contact with his charges there:
When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1Cr 2:1-8
The fear and trembling in the passage alludes to the dysphoric agitation of the manic episode (usually the latter stages), and the inability to speak coherently, to pressure of speech (and likely to glossolalia). Again, the important thing to note here is the select audience (the mature - hoi teleioi) that receives Paul, as this clashes with the rather indiscriminate proselytizing by Paul proclaimed in the Acts, or for that matter, some of the more fantastic tales told later by those who thought they were Paul, like the author of Phl 1:12-13).
Who Were the Apostles in Paul’s time ?
Despite interpolations which often obscure the matter (1 Cr 15:3-11, 2 Cr 12:12) , there are a few sure indications of what the historical Paul thought of the title and its use. For his time , he places the apostles of a church as the highest authority, ahead of prophets, teachers, workers of miracles, healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in tongue. The nomenclatura of spiritual gifts in 1 Cr 12:28 is interesting as it reserves the three highest functions for guardians of intellectual and moral values. The genuine Pauline scripts are consistent in this weighing which makes poorly thought-out impersonations of Paul easy to spot. In the two examples above, the would-be Paul of 1 Cr 15:3-11 accepts a different hierarchy based on formulaic assignments of this title. And 2 Cr 12:12 seems to suggest, clumsily breaking the text’s flow, that the apostolic mettle is earned by producing miracles and mighty wonders, exactly the kinds of beliefs that Paul would discount and consider childish. Outside of these crude attempts to reconcile Paul to the later church, there is little doubt that Paul was working with a very different set of criteria for the apostolic honours. Whether one was or was not an apostle, i.e. one sent from God (as Jesus himself was according to Heb 3:1 !) was open to discussion in Paul’s time, not settled by scriptural authority.
Nor is Paul particularly persuasive that the apostolic figures and saints were Christian believers in the sense that became common later. Paul’s terminus technicus for the election of an apostle – i.e. one who truly receives the grace of God in losing one’s ordinary sense of self, is being in Christ. Adronicus and Junia, in Rom 16:7 are said to be in Christ before Paul, and apostles in their own right, independently of any doctrine that Paul may have been teaching. They too would have experienced the risen Christ in their bodies, and received from God wisdom of knowing what to do with it.
Paul’s sense of Christ comes then naturally, through the gift of spirit. For this reason it cannot be taught; it is partaken and shared as a mystical body. That Paul, in interpreting his mysterious illness as ‘the knowledge of the Son’, considered this knowledge as an objective, irreducible reality cannot be doubted. But Paul did not believe in the ‘reality’ of miracles the same way as his opponents. Miracles, gifts of healing, speaking in tongues were manifestations of the Spirit which needed to be subordinated to the proper understanding of the underlying faculty. That this faculty could be, and was, abused, was a given to Paul. Famously he says, referring to the photic phenomena occurring in the ecstatics during the peaks of excitement (the ‘body full of light’ that the Matthean Jesus promises on the Mount), that even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cr 11:14). The allusion is likely to Isaiah 14:13-14, in which Lucifer (the ‘shining one’) promises to ascend to heaven and become like the most High. In the ‘real’ Paul’s nomenclatura, the apostolic title was a badge of highest moral authority in the churches, not an exclusive club that was decreed by Jesus for the inner circle of his retinue. So, even if there was such a body Paul would have not credited it.
However, my point is that there was no such gathering, and that the Twelve were not originally conceived as apostles but an allegorical cipher – a corporate spiritual witness to Christ, of which only Judas was fleshed out and assigned a role in the fugue-and-passion mystery of Mark.
Did Paul consider Peter an apostle ?
The textual evidence from Paul is two to one against such a notion. In the only indisputably Pauline verse of the three, 1 Cr 9:5, Paul places Peter (Cephas) outside of the apostolic circle. ‘Do we not have the right, Paul asks mischieviously, to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas ?’ The two other verses in the corpus that have a bearing on the question are Gal 1:19 and 1 Cr 15:5, both of which I consider extremely problematic as genuine Pauline script. 1 Cr 15:5 belongs to the passage which Robert M.Price analyzed under the heading of Apocryphal Apparitions. The verse asserts the primacy of Cephas (Jesus first appeared to him) but places him outside the circle of the Twelve. It may seem very strange to the traditionalist that the first apostle should be standing alone – and indeed some have argued that Paul must have meant ‘the rest of the Twelve’ in the context. Unfortunately, if one wants to be orthodox in one’s reading one would have to account for not one but two extra disciples to whom Jesus appears in Galilee compared to Matthew 28:16-17. Paul might have not written the passage of 1 Cr 15:3-11, nonetheless this would be an early interpolation which evidently predates Matthew gospel (or its gaining wide currency), and may become a very interesting exhibit in reading the evolution of the gospel narratives. It may indeed be the first scriptural riposte to Mark’s express denying access to Jesus in his resurrected state to his earthly disciples. (Incidentally, that denial was not in that the women running from the tomb tell ‘nothing to noone’, but in the failure of the disciples to grasp the ‘Christ’ nature of Jesus on the stormy lake and on the mountain where he transfigures before the three senior members of his entourage).
So there are the genuine Paul and an early interpolator in 1 Corinthians arguing against the notion that Peter (Cephas) was a duly authorized apostle in Paul’s time, something that is much strengthened by Paul’s condemnation of him in the Galatians. There does not appear a common super-structure supporting Paul and Peter working toward a common purpose, as they did so vehemently in mythic retrospect.
Gal 1:19 names Cephas, ‘an apostle’ by implication, in Paul saying after naming him that ‘of the other apostles’ he saw none save James. I have already expressed grave doubts about the genuineness of the passage describing Paul’s first visit in Jerusalem (see Through the Galatians Darkly). It seems indeed incredible to me that Paul would go to Jerusalem the second time without ‘remembering’ who the top leaders were (ie. having to assign them a vague new descriptor) given that he was received by them in the past.
On the whole then, I would say the support of some authoritative apostolic office going back to Jesus looks doubtful on Paul’s witness. Indeed, if Paul had to contend with leaders who had been established by dominical authority, he does not show it. At Corinth, some people supported Cephas, some Apollos, some Paul (I read his ‘Christ party’ as a rhetorical confirmation of his own ministry as the true one). In Galatians, he condemns to hell people who do not conform to his version of the gospel, in which he would not have counsel of any other Jesus than the risen one.
Mark’s Twelve were not Jesus’ disciples
So firmly planted is the notion of the twelve apostles as an integral part of the synoptic narrative that ideas such as mine no doubt instantly stir a whiff of incredulity. ‘How can you deny that in Mark, the twelve were his earthly disciples ?’, I am being asked, ‘they are there, named and all !’.
To my mind, however, there are many problems with the notion that the list of names in 3:17-19 is genuine Mark, and that it fits his authorial intent. Mark narrates a mystery of the spirit’s incarnation in which the reader of the gospel was expected to participate (as per the central koan of 4:10-12). The authority that Jesus gives to the twelve would clash with the empowerment by the spirit if it was restricted to twelve ‘individuals’ around Jesus. That is why I do not believe this was Mark’s purpose. The ordination was then not of specific individuals but of a mystical body called ‘twelve’ who themselves experience his incarnation and therefore receive Jesus’ ‘authority’. That this authority was never given to Peter and the Zebedees (whom if you read the essays of the blog, I consider to be the later ‘so-called pillars’ in Jerusalem) should give pause to a diligent student of Mark. The three are frightened by the spiritual transfigurations of Jesus, implicitly (on the stormy lake), and explicitly (on the mountain) linked to resurrection. Their incomprehension of Jesus simply does not make sense on Mark’s terms if he intended them on the inside of his mystery. Indeed, to Mark, they were unspiritual idolaters of Jesus.
One interesting aspect of the Twelve, which I believe bolsters my thesis, is that the named disciples (who were later imported into Mark’s gospel after the fashion of Matthew) do not – with the exception of Judas Iscariot – initiate any action or interact with Jesus in events which would describe them individually. For this reason I prefer to look at them, collectively, as witness of Christ in Israel and through the pre-ordained ‘deliverance’ by Judas, the apocalyptic judgment over the land. Further, Mark's narrative focus on the inner circle of three (or four) disciples, looks highly suspect if the inner core numbered twelve. This is particularly not credible for the Transfiguration, an explicit manifest of the risen Christ in the original Mark (who knows no post-mortem appearance of Jesus in flesh) in the company of the two prophets who had visions of God on the holy Mount. If only three of the Twelve received the vision what about the rest ? It is difficult to argue 'omission' by Mark here, since the Twelve were sent to testify about Jesus in chapter 6, and their empowerment by Jesus assumes of necessity the mystical knowledge of him such as is demonstrated by the Transfiguration. When (or how) did the other nine receive the vision ?
Another incident of apparent splitting of the Twelve involves the Zebedees craving ‘perks’ in the messianic kingdom. The remaining disciples are scandalized. Mark 10:41 says ‘the ten began to be indignant with John and James’. The verse would of course be much more understandable if it said ‘the twelve’ which is what I believe it said in the original. Unfortunately, we do not have a textual variant which would confirm my suspicion, only a strange coincidence in Jesus repeating before the ten in 10:44 what he told the twelve in 9:35, “the first among you must be the servant of all”. Why would Jesus not include the Zebedees to remind them of their lapse in the Pauline maxim (1 Cr 9:19) he gave them ? What does ‘among you’ mean in 10:43, if the audience is only ‘ten’ ? House divided ?
There are other indications that the Twelve were not meant simply as fleshy bodies, that Jesus selects to be with him and sends out on missions. Peter and the Zebedees had been abducted by Jesus in the first chapter and Jesus is said to have had disciples prior to the ordination. In 2:15, “many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples”. They are addressed by the Pharisees in the next verse: we need to note therefore that in the construction of the Markan narrative the disciples are selected by, and accompany Jesus before the Twelve are launched.
Another interesting aspect is the renaming of Peter in Mk 3:16. The gospels do not agree on when this happened. Matthew seems to follow Mark, in that it happened around the time of the ordination although Matthew does not specifically point to an act of naming. Neither does Luke. Luke 5:8 records ‘Simon Peter’ pleading with Jesus in the boat during the big haul, before revealing that ‘Simon’ was named ‘Peter’ by Jesus in 6:14 as he selects the apostles. Matthew, similarly first reveals that Simon was called Peter first by the boats. Whether they were jumping ahead of the story is debatable since John also has Simon receiving his moniker as part of getting acquainted (Jn 1:42). That the re-naming happened at Simon’s and Andrew’s home address seems to have a strong tradition in the early church would be supported by Tatian’s Diatessaron which follows John. I believe that Mark had other purpose for renaming Peter which relates to the latter's failure to respond to Jesus' crisis of faith and his abandoning Jesus in the hour of his trial. Jesus addresses sleeping Peter 'Simon' in the Gethsemane, the only direct address of Peter in the whole gospel. This 'mystery' in my understanding relates to the mysterious doubling of Simon (Simon Peter vs Simon of Cyrene) as the bearer of Christ's cross. 3:16 likely had nothing to do with him being named, or renamed, as the first of the Twelve. The text in 3:14-3:17 shows some interesting variants, which appear to have been attempts to settle the issue of the Twelve that the original script created.
Mk 3:14-17 (NRSV) “and he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. So, he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is Sons of Thunder).
Mk 3:14-17 (KJV) “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder….”
As you can see, the King’s James bible omits two textual variants (bolded in the NRSV text) which appear to bridge a later understanding of what the gospel says. In the first instance, it asserts that the twelve were ‘named apostles’; in the second it repeats in verse 16 the appointment of the twelve made just two verses earlier. Why would such inserts be necessary ? What is unclear about the twelve being ‘named apostles’ ? Obviously, to most of us, who know the four canonical gospels and operate with a sort of harmonized version of them this is not an issue. To a second-century reader, who had no such luxury, the texts needed to be explained and clarified, especially in places where disagreements existed over them. I showed you on the examples from Paul’s letters above that they did not support overwhelmingly that Peter (Cephas) was thought of as an apostle. Now, behold, a Greek reader in Second century Alexandria sees mark having jesus calling whoever he will appointing the twelve and renaming Simon to Peter. There is no clue in the text that these two activities are related. Koine Greek has no punctuation. How would the reader know that Mark intended to connect the ordination and Peter ? Especially, (and note this well !) if the construct in 3:16 makes it grammatically impossible … and to Simon he gave the name Peter. Simon here is dative. So what happened ? At the risk of being accused of recklessness: I think someone had the bright idea to connect Peter to the Twelve by other means, by explicitly linking the appointment and the renaming. Later, someone had even a better idea – to make Mark more synoptic with Matthew and create a Mark’s own version of the apostolic inventory, alas forgetting the problematic grammar, which would relate the accusative case of the eleven apostolic names back to verse 14 – except of course,… Peter’s !
So the question that arises here is, did the 'named apostles' in 3:14 of the Alexandrian text represent a 'timid license' for actually creating the later inventory in 3:17-19 ?
Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh (δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς) I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus. Gal 4:13-14
This is the KJV rendering of the verses which captures the ambivalence of the original thought. Paul preached in Galatia first through infirmity of the flesh, and the temptation which was in (..) flesh, i.e. Paul being out of control (!) was not despised (as we may safely assume was the case elsewhere) but accepted as sign of his apostolic election. The infirm flesh here should not be read as physical illness but Paul's agitated confusion, an illness of the soul, as witnessed by others. IMHO, it has nothing to do with bodily ailment, as some translators intimate.
Paul also tells us elsewhere that when he is out of his mind (or insane, ἐξέστημεν), it is for God and when he is compos mentis it for his flock (2 Cr 5:13). It is in his return to senses to testify of his prophetic transports, his visions of the Lord and the Lord’s instructions for the coming universal mayhem, that Paul asserts his apostolic authority.
The point to take home here is that Paul knew he was out of control at times – he also knew that other than those who were genuinely ‘undone’ by the metamorphoses of Paul’s appearance and behaviour he had little chance with his gospel. He speaks of this in the second chapter of 1 Corinthians, again recalling the initial contact with his charges there:
When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1Cr 2:1-8
The fear and trembling in the passage alludes to the dysphoric agitation of the manic episode (usually the latter stages), and the inability to speak coherently, to pressure of speech (and likely to glossolalia). Again, the important thing to note here is the select audience (the mature - hoi teleioi) that receives Paul, as this clashes with the rather indiscriminate proselytizing by Paul proclaimed in the Acts, or for that matter, some of the more fantastic tales told later by those who thought they were Paul, like the author of Phl 1:12-13).
Who Were the Apostles in Paul’s time ?
Despite interpolations which often obscure the matter (1 Cr 15:3-11, 2 Cr 12:12) , there are a few sure indications of what the historical Paul thought of the title and its use. For his time , he places the apostles of a church as the highest authority, ahead of prophets, teachers, workers of miracles, healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in tongue. The nomenclatura of spiritual gifts in 1 Cr 12:28 is interesting as it reserves the three highest functions for guardians of intellectual and moral values. The genuine Pauline scripts are consistent in this weighing which makes poorly thought-out impersonations of Paul easy to spot. In the two examples above, the would-be Paul of 1 Cr 15:3-11 accepts a different hierarchy based on formulaic assignments of this title. And 2 Cr 12:12 seems to suggest, clumsily breaking the text’s flow, that the apostolic mettle is earned by producing miracles and mighty wonders, exactly the kinds of beliefs that Paul would discount and consider childish. Outside of these crude attempts to reconcile Paul to the later church, there is little doubt that Paul was working with a very different set of criteria for the apostolic honours. Whether one was or was not an apostle, i.e. one sent from God (as Jesus himself was according to Heb 3:1 !) was open to discussion in Paul’s time, not settled by scriptural authority.
Nor is Paul particularly persuasive that the apostolic figures and saints were Christian believers in the sense that became common later. Paul’s terminus technicus for the election of an apostle – i.e. one who truly receives the grace of God in losing one’s ordinary sense of self, is being in Christ. Adronicus and Junia, in Rom 16:7 are said to be in Christ before Paul, and apostles in their own right, independently of any doctrine that Paul may have been teaching. They too would have experienced the risen Christ in their bodies, and received from God wisdom of knowing what to do with it.
Paul’s sense of Christ comes then naturally, through the gift of spirit. For this reason it cannot be taught; it is partaken and shared as a mystical body. That Paul, in interpreting his mysterious illness as ‘the knowledge of the Son’, considered this knowledge as an objective, irreducible reality cannot be doubted. But Paul did not believe in the ‘reality’ of miracles the same way as his opponents. Miracles, gifts of healing, speaking in tongues were manifestations of the Spirit which needed to be subordinated to the proper understanding of the underlying faculty. That this faculty could be, and was, abused, was a given to Paul. Famously he says, referring to the photic phenomena occurring in the ecstatics during the peaks of excitement (the ‘body full of light’ that the Matthean Jesus promises on the Mount), that even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cr 11:14). The allusion is likely to Isaiah 14:13-14, in which Lucifer (the ‘shining one’) promises to ascend to heaven and become like the most High. In the ‘real’ Paul’s nomenclatura, the apostolic title was a badge of highest moral authority in the churches, not an exclusive club that was decreed by Jesus for the inner circle of his retinue. So, even if there was such a body Paul would have not credited it.
However, my point is that there was no such gathering, and that the Twelve were not originally conceived as apostles but an allegorical cipher – a corporate spiritual witness to Christ, of which only Judas was fleshed out and assigned a role in the fugue-and-passion mystery of Mark.
Did Paul consider Peter an apostle ?
The textual evidence from Paul is two to one against such a notion. In the only indisputably Pauline verse of the three, 1 Cr 9:5, Paul places Peter (Cephas) outside of the apostolic circle. ‘Do we not have the right, Paul asks mischieviously, to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas ?’ The two other verses in the corpus that have a bearing on the question are Gal 1:19 and 1 Cr 15:5, both of which I consider extremely problematic as genuine Pauline script. 1 Cr 15:5 belongs to the passage which Robert M.Price analyzed under the heading of Apocryphal Apparitions. The verse asserts the primacy of Cephas (Jesus first appeared to him) but places him outside the circle of the Twelve. It may seem very strange to the traditionalist that the first apostle should be standing alone – and indeed some have argued that Paul must have meant ‘the rest of the Twelve’ in the context. Unfortunately, if one wants to be orthodox in one’s reading one would have to account for not one but two extra disciples to whom Jesus appears in Galilee compared to Matthew 28:16-17. Paul might have not written the passage of 1 Cr 15:3-11, nonetheless this would be an early interpolation which evidently predates Matthew gospel (or its gaining wide currency), and may become a very interesting exhibit in reading the evolution of the gospel narratives. It may indeed be the first scriptural riposte to Mark’s express denying access to Jesus in his resurrected state to his earthly disciples. (Incidentally, that denial was not in that the women running from the tomb tell ‘nothing to noone’, but in the failure of the disciples to grasp the ‘Christ’ nature of Jesus on the stormy lake and on the mountain where he transfigures before the three senior members of his entourage).
So there are the genuine Paul and an early interpolator in 1 Corinthians arguing against the notion that Peter (Cephas) was a duly authorized apostle in Paul’s time, something that is much strengthened by Paul’s condemnation of him in the Galatians. There does not appear a common super-structure supporting Paul and Peter working toward a common purpose, as they did so vehemently in mythic retrospect.
Gal 1:19 names Cephas, ‘an apostle’ by implication, in Paul saying after naming him that ‘of the other apostles’ he saw none save James. I have already expressed grave doubts about the genuineness of the passage describing Paul’s first visit in Jerusalem (see Through the Galatians Darkly). It seems indeed incredible to me that Paul would go to Jerusalem the second time without ‘remembering’ who the top leaders were (ie. having to assign them a vague new descriptor) given that he was received by them in the past.
On the whole then, I would say the support of some authoritative apostolic office going back to Jesus looks doubtful on Paul’s witness. Indeed, if Paul had to contend with leaders who had been established by dominical authority, he does not show it. At Corinth, some people supported Cephas, some Apollos, some Paul (I read his ‘Christ party’ as a rhetorical confirmation of his own ministry as the true one). In Galatians, he condemns to hell people who do not conform to his version of the gospel, in which he would not have counsel of any other Jesus than the risen one.
Mark’s Twelve were not Jesus’ disciples
So firmly planted is the notion of the twelve apostles as an integral part of the synoptic narrative that ideas such as mine no doubt instantly stir a whiff of incredulity. ‘How can you deny that in Mark, the twelve were his earthly disciples ?’, I am being asked, ‘they are there, named and all !’.
To my mind, however, there are many problems with the notion that the list of names in 3:17-19 is genuine Mark, and that it fits his authorial intent. Mark narrates a mystery of the spirit’s incarnation in which the reader of the gospel was expected to participate (as per the central koan of 4:10-12). The authority that Jesus gives to the twelve would clash with the empowerment by the spirit if it was restricted to twelve ‘individuals’ around Jesus. That is why I do not believe this was Mark’s purpose. The ordination was then not of specific individuals but of a mystical body called ‘twelve’ who themselves experience his incarnation and therefore receive Jesus’ ‘authority’. That this authority was never given to Peter and the Zebedees (whom if you read the essays of the blog, I consider to be the later ‘so-called pillars’ in Jerusalem) should give pause to a diligent student of Mark. The three are frightened by the spiritual transfigurations of Jesus, implicitly (on the stormy lake), and explicitly (on the mountain) linked to resurrection. Their incomprehension of Jesus simply does not make sense on Mark’s terms if he intended them on the inside of his mystery. Indeed, to Mark, they were unspiritual idolaters of Jesus.
One interesting aspect of the Twelve, which I believe bolsters my thesis, is that the named disciples (who were later imported into Mark’s gospel after the fashion of Matthew) do not – with the exception of Judas Iscariot – initiate any action or interact with Jesus in events which would describe them individually. For this reason I prefer to look at them, collectively, as witness of Christ in Israel and through the pre-ordained ‘deliverance’ by Judas, the apocalyptic judgment over the land. Further, Mark's narrative focus on the inner circle of three (or four) disciples, looks highly suspect if the inner core numbered twelve. This is particularly not credible for the Transfiguration, an explicit manifest of the risen Christ in the original Mark (who knows no post-mortem appearance of Jesus in flesh) in the company of the two prophets who had visions of God on the holy Mount. If only three of the Twelve received the vision what about the rest ? It is difficult to argue 'omission' by Mark here, since the Twelve were sent to testify about Jesus in chapter 6, and their empowerment by Jesus assumes of necessity the mystical knowledge of him such as is demonstrated by the Transfiguration. When (or how) did the other nine receive the vision ?
Another incident of apparent splitting of the Twelve involves the Zebedees craving ‘perks’ in the messianic kingdom. The remaining disciples are scandalized. Mark 10:41 says ‘the ten began to be indignant with John and James’. The verse would of course be much more understandable if it said ‘the twelve’ which is what I believe it said in the original. Unfortunately, we do not have a textual variant which would confirm my suspicion, only a strange coincidence in Jesus repeating before the ten in 10:44 what he told the twelve in 9:35, “the first among you must be the servant of all”. Why would Jesus not include the Zebedees to remind them of their lapse in the Pauline maxim (1 Cr 9:19) he gave them ? What does ‘among you’ mean in 10:43, if the audience is only ‘ten’ ? House divided ?
There are other indications that the Twelve were not meant simply as fleshy bodies, that Jesus selects to be with him and sends out on missions. Peter and the Zebedees had been abducted by Jesus in the first chapter and Jesus is said to have had disciples prior to the ordination. In 2:15, “many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples”. They are addressed by the Pharisees in the next verse: we need to note therefore that in the construction of the Markan narrative the disciples are selected by, and accompany Jesus before the Twelve are launched.
Another interesting aspect is the renaming of Peter in Mk 3:16. The gospels do not agree on when this happened. Matthew seems to follow Mark, in that it happened around the time of the ordination although Matthew does not specifically point to an act of naming. Neither does Luke. Luke 5:8 records ‘Simon Peter’ pleading with Jesus in the boat during the big haul, before revealing that ‘Simon’ was named ‘Peter’ by Jesus in 6:14 as he selects the apostles. Matthew, similarly first reveals that Simon was called Peter first by the boats. Whether they were jumping ahead of the story is debatable since John also has Simon receiving his moniker as part of getting acquainted (Jn 1:42). That the re-naming happened at Simon’s and Andrew’s home address seems to have a strong tradition in the early church would be supported by Tatian’s Diatessaron which follows John. I believe that Mark had other purpose for renaming Peter which relates to the latter's failure to respond to Jesus' crisis of faith and his abandoning Jesus in the hour of his trial. Jesus addresses sleeping Peter 'Simon' in the Gethsemane, the only direct address of Peter in the whole gospel. This 'mystery' in my understanding relates to the mysterious doubling of Simon (Simon Peter vs Simon of Cyrene) as the bearer of Christ's cross. 3:16 likely had nothing to do with him being named, or renamed, as the first of the Twelve. The text in 3:14-3:17 shows some interesting variants, which appear to have been attempts to settle the issue of the Twelve that the original script created.
Mk 3:14-17 (NRSV) “and he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. So, he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is Sons of Thunder).
Mk 3:14-17 (KJV) “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder….”
As you can see, the King’s James bible omits two textual variants (bolded in the NRSV text) which appear to bridge a later understanding of what the gospel says. In the first instance, it asserts that the twelve were ‘named apostles’; in the second it repeats in verse 16 the appointment of the twelve made just two verses earlier. Why would such inserts be necessary ? What is unclear about the twelve being ‘named apostles’ ? Obviously, to most of us, who know the four canonical gospels and operate with a sort of harmonized version of them this is not an issue. To a second-century reader, who had no such luxury, the texts needed to be explained and clarified, especially in places where disagreements existed over them. I showed you on the examples from Paul’s letters above that they did not support overwhelmingly that Peter (Cephas) was thought of as an apostle. Now, behold, a Greek reader in Second century Alexandria sees mark having jesus calling whoever he will appointing the twelve and renaming Simon to Peter. There is no clue in the text that these two activities are related. Koine Greek has no punctuation. How would the reader know that Mark intended to connect the ordination and Peter ? Especially, (and note this well !) if the construct in 3:16 makes it grammatically impossible … and to Simon he gave the name Peter. Simon here is dative. So what happened ? At the risk of being accused of recklessness: I think someone had the bright idea to connect Peter to the Twelve by other means, by explicitly linking the appointment and the renaming. Later, someone had even a better idea – to make Mark more synoptic with Matthew and create a Mark’s own version of the apostolic inventory, alas forgetting the problematic grammar, which would relate the accusative case of the eleven apostolic names back to verse 14 – except of course,… Peter’s !
So the question that arises here is, did the 'named apostles' in 3:14 of the Alexandrian text represent a 'timid license' for actually creating the later inventory in 3:17-19 ?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Paulinisms in Mark
|
|
Mark
|
Paul
|
|
1.
|
1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου…
|
Phl 4:15 εν αρχη του ευαγγελιου…
|
|
The reference to the prophet
Isaiah in Mk 1:2 is commonly taken to mean Isaiah 40:3 in the verse following: it is
misleading; the invocation of Isaiah relates to αρχη, the builder of the community, and the skilful τεκτον in Isa 44:13 which recalls Paul’s 1 Cor 3:10 : ‘According
to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master
builder (αρχιτεκτων) I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it’.
|
||
|
2.
|
1:10-12 And when he came up out of the water,
immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him (εις αυτον) like a
dove; and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee
I am well pleased." The Spirit immediately drove him out into the
wilderness.
|
Gal 1:15-16 But when he who had set me apart before I
was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son
to me (εν εμοι), in order that I might
preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood.
|
|
Note the invasive
nature of the annunciation in both cases.
|
||
|
3.
|
1:22 And they were astonished at his teaching,
for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.
|
1 Cr 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?
Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the
world?
|
|
This verse in relation
to Paul seems the most natural ‘explanation’ for the barbaric Greek, gaffes
in reading the tanakh and
the ‘primitive’ narrative style Mark adopted.
|
||
|
4.
|
2:17 Those who are well
have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the
righteous but sinners.
|
Rom 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while
we were yet sinners (οτι ετι αμαρτωλων οντων ημων)
Christ died for us.
|
|
5.
|
2:19 And Jesus said to them, "Can the
wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have
the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.”
|
2 Cr 11:2 … for I betrothed you
to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.
|
|
Note: the ‘eating and drinking’ was done by the
‘guests’ at the wedding not the ‘pure’ (i.e. ascetic) ‘bride’ to Christ.
Allusion is to the “marriage” of God and Israel in Joel, the Song of Solomon,
etc, an old motif but one for
which Paul created new reference.
|
||
|
6.
|
2:21-22 No one sews a
piece of unshrunk cloth on an old
garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the
old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the
skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh
skins."
|
2 Cr
5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ,
he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new
has come.
Possibly
also same tradition as Heb 6.4 For it is impossible to restore
again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the
heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit
|
|
7.
|
3:21-22 And when his family heard it, they went out
to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself (ἐξέστη)."
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by
Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."
|
1 Cr 1:27-28 but God chose what is foolish in the world
to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to
bring to nothing things that are
2 Cr 5:12 For if we are
beside ourselves (ἐξέστημεν) , it is for
God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.
|
|
8.
|
3:28-29 "Truly, I say
to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies
they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has
forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
|
1 Cr 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no
one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and
no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.
|
|
Note: this appears a bit of an inverted extension
of the original Paul’s maxim by Mark’s
community. Paul does
not say that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are to be cursed, but
in the refractory logic
that Mark uses the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and therefore those who blaspheme against the
manifestation of God in humans (despise them and molest them) are God’s enemies and will not be
forgiven.
|
||
|
9.
|
4:3-20 "Listen!
A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and
the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it had
not much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil;
and when the sun rose it was scorched, and since it had no root it withered
away. Other seed fell among thorns and the thorns grew up and choked it, and
it yielded no grain. And other seeds fell into good soil and brought forth
grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a
hundredfold."
And he said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." ……… And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown upon the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold." |
Rom
10:15 But they have not all obeyed the
gospel; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from
us?" (birds ate the seed...)
Gal
1:6-7 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who
called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not
that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to
pervert the gospel of Christ. (rocky ground....)
Gal
5:17 For the desires of the flesh are
against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for
these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
(thorns...)
2 Cr 9:10 He who supplies
seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources
and increase the harvest of your righteousness. (the promise of good soil…)
|
|
10.
|
4:10-11 And when
he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning
the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of
the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;
|
1 Cr 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the
gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to
understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
|
|
11.
|
4:12 so that they may
indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest
they should turn again, and be forgiven.
|
Rom 11:8 as
it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not
see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day."
|
|
12.
|
4:14 The sower sows the word
|
1 Cr 3:6 I planted….
|
|
13.
|
4:22 For there is nothing
hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to
light.
|
1 Cr 4:5 Therefore judge
nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the
hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
|
|
14.
|
6:3 Is not this the carpenter (τεκτων), the son of Mary and brother of James and
Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And
they took offense at him.
|
1 Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a
skilled master builder (αρχιτεκτων) I
laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. (see note to parallel 1)
|
|
15.
|
6:52 for they did not
understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (αλλ’ ην αυτων η καρδια
πεπωρωμενη).
8:17-18 And being aware of
it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no
bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not
remember?
|
2 Cr
3:13-14 not
like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see
the end of the fading splendor. But their minds were hardened (επωρωθη τα
νοηματα αυτων); for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same
veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
1 Cr 10:17 For we [being]
many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one
bread.
|
|
|
Note: the two verses lock with
Paul and provide additional clue to Jesus’ rule of 4:12; the incomprehension
of the outsiders (and the disciples were not the ones who addressed Jesus in
4:10) is partly due to their clinging to the law.
|
|
|
16.
|
7:6-7 And he said to them,
"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This
people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do
they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
|
Eph 4:13-14 …until we all
attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to
mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so
that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in
deceitful wiles.
|
|
17.
|
7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your
mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
|
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent,
haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient
to parents,
|
|
18.
|
7:18-19 “Do you not see that whatever goes into a
man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his
stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
|
1 Cr 10:27-29 Whatsoever is
sold in the shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For
the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that
believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set
before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
Rom 14:14 I know and am
persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is
unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.
|
|
19.
|
7:21-22 For from within, out of the heart of
man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting,
wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
|
Gal 5:19-21 Now the works
of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry,
sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party
spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned
you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God.
|
|
20.
|
7:36 And he charged them to
tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed
it.
|
Phl 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
|
|
Note:
Humorous take on the phenom of pressured speech and glossolalia,
which appears in highly excited
pneumatics (motif repeated from Mk 1:45) .
|
||
|
21.
|
8:2-4 "I have
compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and
have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will
faint on the way; and some of them have come a long way." And his
disciples answered him, "How can one feed these men with bread here in
the desert?"
10:38-39 Are you able to
drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I
am baptized?" And they said to him, "We are able." And Jesus
said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism
with which I am baptized, you will be baptized”;
|
1 Cr 10:3-5 And all were
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same supernatural food and
all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural
Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of
them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
|
|
22.
|
8:12 …."Why does this generation seek a
sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
|
1 Cr 1:22 For Jews demand
signs…
|
|
23.
|
8:14-16 Now they had
forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf (ενα αρτον) with them in the boat. And he
cautioned them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. (της ζυμης των Φαρισαιων καὶ της ζυμης Ἡρωδου)"
And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread."
|
1 Cr 5:8 Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven,
the leaven of malice and evil (ζυμῃ κακιας και
πονηριας), but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Cr 10:16-17… The bread
which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because
there is one bread (οτι εις αρτος), we
who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
|
|
Note: in this clever spiritual pun Mark
literalizes Jesus as ‘one loaf’ creating a confusion among the idolaters in the
boat. The ’leaven of the Pharisees and
the leaven of Herod’ seems to be a Markan paraphrase of Paul’s
‘leaven of malice and evil’.
|
||
|
24.
|
8:33 he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get
behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men."
|
Gal 1:7 But even if we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to
you, let him be accursed.
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I
opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
|
|
25.
|
8:34 “If any man would come after me, let him
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.…..”
|
1 Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
|
|
26.
|
8:38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man
also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels.
|
Rom 1:16 For I am not
ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who
has faith…
1 Cr 2:1
When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the
testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom…. I was with you in weakness and in
much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible
words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.
|
|
27.
|
9:2 Jesus took with him Peter and James and
John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was
transfigured (μετεμορφώθη)
before them.
|
2 Cr 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding
the glory of the Lord, are being changed (μεταμορφούμεθα) into his likeness from one degree of glory to
another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
|
|
28.
|
9:35 If any one would be first, he must be last
of all and servant of all
|
1 Cor 9:19
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of
them.
|
|
29.
|
9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire,
|
1 Cr 3:13 Every man's work
shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
|
|
30.
|
9:50 … be at peace with one another (εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις).
|
1 Th 5:13 ….be at peace among yourselves (εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς).
|
|
31.
|
10:11-12 And he said to
them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery
against her; and
if she divorces
her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
|
1 Cr 7:10:11 To the
married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let
her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband
should not divorce his wife.
1 Cr 7:39 A wife is bound
to her husband as long as he lives.
|
|
32.
|
10:19 You know the
commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear
false witness, Do not defraud (μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς),
Honor your father and mother.
|
1 Cr 7:5 Do not defraud, (μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε),.....
i.e. refuse each other sexually…
|
|
Note: : Mark incredibly replaces the 10th
commandment of Moses “thou shalt not covet…”
(ουκ ἐπιθυμησεις..) by Paul’s maxim to thwart the temptation to
covet by not denying spousal privileges !
|
||
|
33.
|
10:22 You lack one thing; go, sell what you have,
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven
|
1 Cr 13:3 And if I give all my possessions to feed
[the poor]….
|
|
34.
|
10:39 … The cup that I drink
you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be
baptized;
|
1 Cr 12:13 For by one
Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or
free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
|
|
35.
|
10:44 and whoever would be first among you must
be slave of all.
|
1 Cor 9:19
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of
them.
|
|
|
Note: This verse seems to assert Paul’s primacy
over all other apostolic authorities
|
|
|
36.
|
10.45 For the Son of man also came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
|
Gal 3:13 - Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is
written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"--
|
|
37.
|
11:15-17 … he overturned the
tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; …..And
he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be
called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of
robbers."
|
1 Cr 6:19 Do you not know
that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from
God? You are not your own.
|
|
38.
|
11:16 and he would not allow any one to carry
anything through the temple.
|
2 Cr 4:7 we have this treasure in earthen
vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.
|
|
Note: The Passion play plot is built around Paul’s
idea of one’s body as temple of God (this is
actually confirmed by
John 2:2). So the supposed malentendu of
Jesus ‘destroying and rebuilding the temple’ in three days is a Markan ploy
in asserting the resurrection.
|
||
|
39.
|
11:23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to
this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his
heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for
him.
|
1 Cr 13:2 …and if I have
all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
|
|
40.
|
12:17 Jesus said to them,
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things
that are God's." And they were amazed at him.
|
Rom 13:7 Pay all of them
their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due,
respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.
|
|
41.
|
12:31
The second is this, 'You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than
these."
|
Rom 13:9 The commandments,
"You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal,
You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this
sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
|
|
Mark
12:31 repeats Paul’ selection of Lev 19:18, as having overriding importance
among the Commandments
|
||
|
42.
|
13:21-22 And then if any one says to you, 'Look,
here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. False Christs
and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if
possible, the elect.
|
2 Cor 11:12-13 And what I
do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would
like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we
do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves
as apostles of Christ.
|
|
43.
|
13:37 And what I say to you I say to all: ‘Watch !’ (γρηγορεῖτε)
14:34 And he said to them, "My soul is very
sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch." (γρηγορεῖτε)
14:38 Watch (γρηγορεῖτε) and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the
spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
|
1 Th 5:6 Therefore
let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch
(γρηγορῶμεν) and be sober
|
|
‘Watch! ’
relates back to 1 Th 5:2 For
you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like
a thief in the night, ie unexpectedly.
|
||
|
44.
|
14:12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed
the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go
and prepare for you to eat the passover?"
|
1 Cor 5:7 Cleanse out the
old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For
Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
|
|
45.
|
14:21 For the Son of man goes as it is
written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed (παραδίδοται) !
|
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up (παρεδόθη) for our trespasses
and raised for our justification.
|
|
46.
|
14:22-24 And as they were
eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and
said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had
given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to
them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
|
1 Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is
it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is
it not a participation in the body of Christ?
|
|
1 Cr 11:23-25 is not
from Paul’s hand. Mark was likely the originator of the Last Supper symbolism, inspired by Paul’s 1 Cr 10:16. Matthew and Luke adapted
it from Mark. The improbability of 1 Cr 11:23-25 being genuine
Paul is that it effectuates the 1 Cr 10:16 questions, and thus becomes its own fulfilled prophecy,
and that the verses mimic too closely Luke 22:19-20.
|
||
|
47.
|
14:29-30 Peter (ο δε Πετρος) said to
him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not." And Jesus said
to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows
twice, you will deny me three times."
|
Rom 9:33 as it is written, "Behold, I am
laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them
fall (πετρα σκανδαλου);
and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."
|
|
Note: It appears that it was Mark who hellenized Cephas as Petros in order to create this allegorical pun on his name.
|
||
|
48.
|
14:36 And he said, "Abba, Father,….”
|
Rom 8:15 …you have received
the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Gal 4:6 …God has sent the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
|
|
Paul invokes ‘Abba’ in witness of the Spirit of
God’s Son, i.e. spiritual witness rather than historical
as in 1 Cr
11:23-25 in a note to 45 above.
|
||
|
49.
|
14:48 And Jesus said to
them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to
capture me?
|
1 Th 5:2 For you yourselves know well that the day
of the Lord will come like a thief in the night
|
|
Mark’s
scene is an ironic reversal of the saying. Ληστης replaces κλεπτης
to make a point about
the two men crucified with Jesus. Jesus will be counted among the ‘lawless’ (ανομοι,
Isa 53:12).
|
||
|
50.
|
14:58 "We heard him
say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands(χειροποιητον), and in three days I will
build another, not made with hands(αχειροποιητον).'"
|
1 Cr 6:9 Do you not know
that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within
you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
2 Cr 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed,
we have a building from God, a house not made with hands(αχειροποιητον),
eternal in the heavens.
|
|
51.
|
14:63-64 And the high priest tore his garments,
and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy.
What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.
15:14-15 And Pilate said to them, "Why, what
evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify
him." So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them
Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
|
1 Cr 1:23 …we preach Christ
crucified,
an offence to the Jews,
and folly to the Gentiles
|
|
52.
|
14:72 And immediately the
cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before
the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down
and wept.
|
Gal 6:12 It is those who
want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be
circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross
of Christ.
|
|
53.
|
15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a
loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being
interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
|
2 Cor 13:4 For he was
crucified in weakness but he lives by the power of God.
|
|
54.
|
16:1-2,8 And when the sabbath was past, Mary
Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that
they might go and anoint him….And they went out and fled from the tomb; for
trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any
one, for they were afraid.
|
Rom 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been
baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism
into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the
Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
|
|
55.
|
16:6-7 And he said to them, "Do not be
amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is
not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and
Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he
told you."
|
1 Cr 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ
and individually members of it.
|
|
Note: The two verses recall the hidden Malachi 3:1
reference from Mk 1:2. ‘You seek
Jesus the Nazarene’ evidently
paraphrases ‘the Lord whom you seek’ (ὁ κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε) in the
Malachi verse and extends the
wordplay on the temple as the invisible body of Christ.
|
||
|
56.
|
16:8 And they went out and fled from the tomb;
for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to
any one, for they were afraid.
|
Rom 8:15 For
you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear (παλιν εις φοβον), but you have received the spirit of sonship.
…
|
|
In the circular design
of Mark the ‘fear’ caused the women to say nothing, and the gospel falls
back to 1:1 apparently
without resolution. However, it is the
text of Mark pointing to itself as “the beginning of the gospel”
which does the proclaiming of Jesus rising from the dead , not the discipled who do not understand Paul’s doctrine of the
resurrected Messiah (8:32, 9:10, 9:32,
10:37, 14:29) that Jesus tries unsuccessfully to teach
them.
|
||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)