The Gospel According to Mark

[Kerstin]

Lets open the discussion to include the remaining chapters of Mark, 9-16, and the Gospel as a whole.

[Manny]

Irene wrote: "Many of them are Catholic scholars who are very faithfilled, even priests and bishops. Let's not denigrate these modern scholars by calling their faith into question. WE need to keep this conversat..."

I'm not against anyone, believer or not, putting their opinions into the mix. But it can make a substantial difference in the way they read the texts. It comes down to the assumptions. A believer comes with different assumptions to the Gospels that a non-believer does.

Here's an example that happened to me while I was discussing that Canaanite Woman scene with some one who's forum nickname (this was not on Goodreads) is Manichean. I don't know if he's a believer or not, but the Manicheans were heretics, so we know his sympathies are not traditional. His claim was that Christ after calling the woman a dog and seeing her faith learned not to be prejudiced. Let me repeat that: Christ learned not to be a racist.

If you do not assume that Christ is God and all knowing and sinless, then Manichean's reading is perfectly logical. Manichean's assumption is that Jesus is an ordinary man. But because we know that Christ knows how the woman will react and knows her heart and that Christ a priori cannot sin, then his reading is actually ludicrous.

Now if you believe that Matthew took from the Mark initial Gospel writing, then how did he rewrite the stories with additional information? He either had different information or he lied. Can a Gospel writer lie? A non believer would say that is open to that assumption, and therefore he might see Mark as the first Gospel. A believer would say that for Matthew to lie is impossible because he is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

My point is assumptions are different for a believer and non-believer and they can radically shape the reading.

By the way, I still maintain that none of the synoptic Gospel writers were aware of each other's texts and that overlapping scenes are from scraps of texts that floated around from which they happen come across if they had the story and didn't if they didn't come across. Now I'm no scholar and I've never heard anyone put out this theory, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Manny]

Susan wrote: "Irene wrote: "Many of them are Catholic scholars who are very faithfilled, even priests and bishops. Let's not denigrate these modern scholars by calling their faith into question. WE need to keep ..."

Saying that some scholars are non believers is not disrespectful. Look up Bart Erhman, a relatively famous Biblical scholar who has published lots of books, and he is a open atheist. When I looked up the person who wrote the introduction to my St. Augustine Confessions, Robin Lane Fox, I was surprised to find he was openly an atheist. You may not have come across them, but they are out there Irene. I went to a secular college - not for theology - but the campuses are filled with atheists, even in the theology departments.

[Manny]

Joseph wrote: "I'm just going to jump in that this is hotly debated among professional scripture scholars. There are representatives of both schools at the seminary where I study and we won't know for sure which ..."

Ha! We will never know because all the theories have holes in them.

[Susan]

Irene wrote: "The statement was not that "some" are secular scholars, but that "most" are secular scholars which is not true. The large majority of Catholic biblical scholars hold that Mark is the first Gospel t..."

Well that may be a valid point, but I do not know that clarifying the number equates with Manny being disrespectful and denigrating anyone or questioning the faith of the faith-filled scholars. I personally admit that I do not know the actual number of secular vs Christian biblical scholars, just for the record.

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "By the way, I still maintain that none of the synoptic Gospel writers were aware of each other's texts and that overlapping scenes are from scraps of texts that floated around from which they happen come across."

Possible.
My thinking goes more into the direction of the oral tradition. Do you really have to rely on the hypothesis of (lost) written accounts at all? After Jesus's death and resurrection the apostles and first Christians shared the major stories of Christ. The apostles, charged with the great commission, took care that the stories were told accurately. Did one apostle emphasize a detail another didn't? I would expect it.
When it became apparent that Christ would not return in their life-times, they started to write things down. Whether we have Mark having heard the stories from Peter or Matthew joining the first Christians doesn't really matter. They each knew the basic stories, so did Luke.

[Irene]

Naming an atheist as an atheist is not disrespectful. And recognizing that a person of faith may approach a text differently than one outside the tradition was not what I was reacting to. What I was reacting to was the claim that most who believe that Mark is the first Gospel to be written were secular scholars, those outside the faith. In actuality, the majority of those who hold the primacy of Mark are in fact inside the faith. The only way that such a claim could be made would be to call into question the validity of the faith of the many biblical scholars who argue for Mark as the oldest Gospel. Every major publisher of Catholic religious ed and school text books state that Mark is the oldest and they all have the approval of the U.S. Bishops. Donald Senior, Raymond Brown, Mary Ann Getty, John Meyer, Joseph Fitzmeyer and numerous highly respected Catholic Biblical scholars as well as theology departments at leading Catholic Universities from Catholic Univ through Notre Dame and back again all argue for Mark as the oldest. It is simply untrue and unfair to say that the majority of the argument is coming from secular scholars.

If I were to say that the majority of scholars who argue for the primacy of Matthew's Gospel also believe that the earth is flat, I would be correct. All the Patristics that have been cited also thought the earth was flat. But that would be unfair to the argument. It would unfairly call into question the intelligence of its supporters if I did not also acknowledge that they lived when that was the prevailing assumption.

[Frances]

Does any of this help?

On page 34 of his book titled Catholicism, Robert Barron writes this:
"On the slopes of the Capitoline Hill in Rome, in the second half of the first century, a Christian named Mark had a residence. Mark had been a secretary, translator, and companion to St. Peter, and around the year 70 Mark composed the first of what came to be called the "Gospels." Here is the opening line of the text" "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

One of the priests in our parish is a student of the Gospels, and last year he wrote this:
"Like most ancient authors of his day, the writer of Matthew did not identify himself . . . However, it is safe to say that the author was not Matthew the apostle. . . Matthew was believed to have been a tax collector, and people in this profession lived on the fringe of Jewish religious life. The author of this gospel had an extensive knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament; unlikely for a tax collector. It is widely held today that the author was a Jewish Christian . . . the concerns addressed throughout Matthew dealt more with second century Christians as opposed to the issues that would have confronted someone who lived in the time of Jesus. . . While not known for sure, it is generally held that the community of Matthew would have been in or near Antioch of Syria, which was the third largest city in the Roman empire at the time. . . Like the author, the community was likely composed of Jewish Christians. . . The Gospel of Matthew was written approximately 85 A.D., some 50 years after the earthly life of Jesus and 15 years following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. . . "

Father then goes on to discuss all the rich material contained in Matthew, as we can do with Mark.

[Irene]

Frances, those statements are consistent with the majority of contemporary Catholic biblical scholarship.

[Frances]

Does any of this help?

On page 34 of his book Catholicism, Bishop Robert Barron writes:
"On the slopes of the Capitoline Hill in Rome, in the second half of the first century, a Christian named Mark had a residence. Mark had been a secretary, translator, and companion to St. Peter, and around the year 70 Mark composed the first of what came to be called the 'Gospels.' "

Our associate pastor, a student of the gospels, wrote this last year:
"The Gospel of Matthew was written approximately 85 A.D. This means that it was authored some 50 years after the earthly life of Jesus, and 15 years after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. . . Like most ancient authors of his day, the writer of Matthew did not identify himself. However, it is safe to say that the author was not Matthew the apostle. . . Matthew was believed to be a tax collector and people in that profession lived on the fringe of Jewish religious life. The author of the gospel had an extensive knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament, unlikely for a tax collector. . . The concerns addressed throughout Matthew dealt more with second century Christians as opposed to the issues that would have confronted someone who lived in the time of Jesus. . . While not known for certain, it is generally held that the community of Matthew would have been in or near Antioch of Syria which was the third largest city in the Roman Empire of the time. Like the author, the community was likely composed of Jewish Christians."

Father then went on to discuss all the rich theological material to be found in the Gospel of Matthew, as we will do when we turn to the Gospel of Mark.

[Frances]

Thank you, Irene. My computer told me that my first typing didn't go through. Sorry for the repeat.

[Kerstin]

I think ultimately the synoptic problem will never be fully answered. The issue will remain fluid to some extend where the various proponents delineate their key arguments. I have to wonder whether we are getting "lost" in a side-issue, for as intellectually stimulating this may be. The four major Gospels were officially included in the scriptural canon, and this carries its own weight.

[Manny]

Yikes, there's a ton to respond to and I probably won't get to it all. Let me address this that Irene stated:

"What I was reacting to was the claim that most who believe that Mark is the first Gospel to be written were secular scholars, those outside the faith."

I don't think I said that and if I implied it, it was not my intention. I fully acknowledge that Mark having primacy is the consensus opinion among scholars today, both within Catholicism and without. I admit, I am arguing counter to the conventional opinion.

To Francis: Yes, apparently Bishop Barron supports the consensus opinion.

To Susan: Thank you for pointing out no one was being disrespectful. I don't see my comments or anyone else’s as disrespectful.

To Kerstin: I agree, the Synoptic problem will never be fully answered. There are holes in all the established theories, including the one I've been pointing out.

With that I want to remind everyone of Joseph's comment, #45. Joseph is a seminary student in college right now. Here's his entire quote:

"I'm just going to jump in that this is hotly debated among professional scripture scholars. There are representatives of both schools at the seminary where I study and we won't know for sure which theory is right until we can ask the Evangelists themselves "So which of you wrote first?"

That is to say that while Mark may be the consensus opinion, it is not absolute. Frankly consensus opinions about ancient texts, not just Christian texts, have the half-life of an gnat's lifespan. Mark may be the consensus now, but in fifty years it's quite possible, if not probable, the "scholars" will move on to another opinion, maybe even go back to the opinion the Catholic Church had for almost two thousand years.

I did a search for those who support Matthew as primacy and found Taylor Marshall does:
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/why...

I don't know who Christopher Fischer is, but he goes through the history as to why the Catholic Church chose Matthew as first and why he believes it is the first. It's a great read, here:
https://realityisnotoptional.com/2012...

Let me just conclude, the reason the Catholic Church has long held that Matthew was first was because several of the Church Fathers claimed it, and they further claim that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and was later translated to Greek. Rhetorically it just seems to me that Mark is condensing Matthew, not Matthew elaborating on Mark.

[Manny]

Let me separately respond to a point Kerstin made. She said:

"I have to wonder whether we are getting "lost" in a side-issue, for as intellectually stimulating this may be."

Perhaps I'm mostly to blame for this, but I have also offered other observations from Mark, such as that wonderfully constructed chapter five and how much more of the sea we get in Mark than the other Gospels. I barely got a peep of reaction from those observations, but I guess it's the more controversial issues that draws fire and energy. I'm just making comments as I see it.

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "Let me separately respond to a point Kerstin made. She said:

"I have to wonder whether we are getting "lost" in a side-issue, for as intellectually stimulating this may be."

Perhaps I'm mostly to..."

Ah, I should have phrased this differently {roll eyes}
I meant to draw out the relation between the scholarly aspect and the faith aspect. The last thing I want to do is shut down a good conversation :)

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "Let me just conclude, the reason the Catholic Church has long held that Matthew was first was because several of the Church Fathers claimed it"

To me this is an important point. They put their reputations on the line writing what they did, and if no one called them out, chances are they were right.

[Susan]

Manny wrote: "Yikes, there's a ton to respond to and I probably won't get to it all. Let me address this that Irene stated:

"What I was reacting to was the claim that most who believe that Mark is the first Gos..."

They were interesting, thanks. I pay for Taylor Marshall's New St. Thomas Institute - I really like him...

[Kerstin]

The Christopher Fischer blog is really interesting.

It is not my intention to dis biblical scholarship, but one has to wonder where they are coming from if laypersons can connect the dots just the same.

What about this question: Could the brevity of Mark just be a personal writing style? Mark may have been a person who was not in the habit of embellishing. Or maybe Peter himself didn't embellish much, giving Mark little to elaborate on.

When you go through various reasonable permutations, do biblical scholars over-interpret the texts before them? I have asked myself the question numerous times.

[Irene]

Manny wrote: "Yikes, there's a ton to respond to and I probably won't get to it all. Let me address this that Irene stated:

"What I was reacting to was the claim that most who believe that Mark is the first Gos..."

Manny, Here is exactly what you posted.

Joseph and Kerstin, thank you. It is not a resolved question as the modern scholars want you to think. And frankly most of them are secular scholars, many of which don't even believe in Christianity.

So, yes, you did say that most of those who argue for the primacy of Mark are secular scholars who do not even believe in Christianity. I am sorry if I reacted to something that you did not intend. But, this format of short posts force us to take what is written at face value.

Kirsten, I agree that this may not be the most productive argument. That is why I stated early in that I would not continue to argue for the dating of any gospel, and I have kept that promise. However, I could not allow a falsehood to go unchallenged. There are many reading this thread who have done little reading in the area of biblical studies. It would be too easy for such a person to accept that statement and to believe that the claim for the dating of Mark as first to be written is coming primarily from those who do not believe in Christianity while the faithful are on the side of Matthew as the oldest text.

[Manny]

Kerstin wrote: "The Christopher Fischer blog is really interesting.

It is not my intention to dis biblical scholarship, but one has to wonder where they are coming from if laypersons can connect the dots just the..."

Could the brevity of Mark just be a personal writing style? Mark may have been a person who was not in the habit of embellishing. Or maybe Peter himself didn't embellish much, giving Mark little to elaborate on.

Mark is actually quite lengthy in the chapters and scenes that interest him. This also makes me suspect he's using other sources, such as Matthew's Gospel. He feels the obligation to include certain scenes from other sources but not the obligation to fully delineate them, or perhaps doesn't feel he has the knowledge to fully delineate them.

Mark's Gospel feels like an accordion. He contracts and reduces to minimalism the places that feel like obligatory insertions and expands on those he feels he either has personal knowledge or feels are very significant.

[Manny]

Irene wrote: "Manny wrote: "Yikes, there's a ton to respond to and I probably won't get to it all. Let me address this that Irene stated:

"What I was reacting to was the claim that most who believe that Mark is..."

Manny, Here is exactly what you posted.

Joseph and Kerstin, thank you. It is not a resolved question as the modern scholars want you to think. And frankly most of them are secular scholars, many of which don't even believe in Christianity.

So, yes, you did say that most of those who argue for the primacy of Mark are secular scholars who do not even believe in Christianity. I am sorry if I reacted to something that you did not intend. But, this format of short posts force us to take what is written at face value.


Ah, I'm guilty! Sorry. That is an overstatement on my part. I guess I don’t know one way or the other since I’ve never seen a poll on it. I would like to think that most scholars on Christianity are not atheists.

Still I didn't mean to be disrespectful. It was just my impression.

[Manny]

Irene in her last comment above brought out the issue of dating the Gospels. Modern scholars have dated all the Gospels to be post destruction of the Temple which occurred in 70 AD. As far as I can see the sole reason is that Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, and so the modernist assumption is that the Gospel writers had to wait until the destruction of the Temple in order to write in a prediction. Again this goes back to the assumptions. If Christ is truly God, then He should have been able to predict the future coming of the Temple's destruction.

In my research over this, I found the Catholic Church traditionally maintained that Matthew was written somewhere between 40-45 AD, not post Temple destruction, and that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (I had never known this, and my next reading of Matthew in its entirety I'm going to look for echoes that have been pointed out) and that Mark followed Matthew, which completely jives with the rhetorical constructions I'm seeing in Mark during this current read. Catholic Answers has a great layout of the traditional Catholic understanding of when and how the Gospels were written. It really behooves a close reading of it, here:
https://www.catholic.com/index.php/ma...

I think everyone should ask themselves this: If you support the dating of the Gospels to post Temple destruction, why are you doing so? If you are accepting the reason that the Gospel writers could not have known of the Temple's destruction until it happened, then you are unconsciously supporting the secularization of Jesus Christ.

[Irene]

Actually, the dating of each gospel is far more complex than a single historical event. Manny, I realize that you have freely admitted that you have not read much in the area of biblical scholarship. But, if you did, you would know that the destruction of the temple is only one element in a long and complicated conversation about how to date these texts. It is not at all the secularization of the Bible or a denial of Jesus' knowledge of future events. Again, I promised that I would not put forth any further arguments for the early dating of Mark. But, I will correct inaccuracies.

[Manny]

Irene wrote: "Actually, the dating of each gospel is far more complex than a single historical event. Manny, I realize that you have freely admitted that you have not read much in the area of biblical scholarshi..."

So fill us in. What are some of the other reasons for dating them post Temple?

[Irene]

Well, I don't want to further a debate about dating, just want to make sure falsehoods are not inevertantly placed here unchallenged. I can list some generalities, but can't develop the thinking behind them. If anyone is really interested in reading in this area, Fr. Donald Senior is among the top biblical scholars in the US, but his writing is very accessible. I would highly recommend him.

So, some of the other issues considered in dating the texts:
ecclesial language and references that imply a generation of church life,
conflating of various Jewish groups that would be highly unlikely if the audience was living among them or even if they were still functioning,
shifting attitudes to Rome and Roman authority that indicate an increasing inculturation in Roman society,
use of particular terms that place the story in areas reached by the Gospel at particular moments but not before,
the need to explain various Jewish practices which would be unlikely prior to Christianity no longer being a predominantly Jewish religion,

I could go on, but I think you get the sense. The dating of the texts is a very nuanced and complex study. It is not a single event issue. If it were simply based on the dating of the destruction of the temple, it would not carry as much water as it does in the majority of Catholic and main line Protestant scholarly circles. Rather, the discussion would focus only on the passages that speak of the temple's destruction. Arguments might be made about whether or not they were later additions or if Jesus spoke them, but they could not account for the gospel as a whole.

[Kerstin]

Irene wrote: "Kirsten, I agree that this may not be the most productive argument. That is why I stated early in that I would not continue to argue for the dating of any gospel, and I have kept that promise. However, I could not allow a falsehood to go unchallenged. There are many reading this thread who have done little reading in the area of biblical studies."

Irene, I understand your concern. A forum like this has its limitations and pitfalls. I look at it this way, we each are able to use our own discretion when reading these comments and see where the individuals participating come from. I find the probing that's been going on here quite interesting, and it doesn't take away at all from what you and Frances have posted. I would describe it more with the German term "hinterfragen," literally "to question behind," as in questioning, probing, scrutinizing.

[Manny]

Thanks Irene. I'll have to look into those language and cultural nuances that could effect dating. Dating by the Temple destruction is certainly not nuanced and so it’s a vivid mile marker, but perhaps there are more subtle methods that have gone on. I guess I've been scarred by post-modernist scholars when it comes to literature. I have a masters in English Literature and my engaging with professors and articles during school was definitely forming. The scholarship across the university system is so biased against western tradition and religion I learned that once you probe their assumptions, most of their arguments start falling apart. This is especially true with the post-modernist critics who have it as a mission to deconstruct - and by implication destroy established western norms and traditions, whether by intent or by following "the consensus." I've learned that consensus in scholarship means little to me.

As to theology, I've found this fantastic article on Crux, a Catholic online magazine, about how a current crop Catholic theologians - Scott Hahn, Brad Pitre, others - who are now "correcting" (I would have used the word, revising) the modernist scholars of this century. Like I said, "consensus" in ancient texts has a half-life of a gnat's life. Definitely another excellent read:
https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/05/07...

By the way, Brad Pitre is excellent. I read his Jewish Roots of the Eucharist and it's a wonderful read. Highly recommend it. Also, his new book "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ" is on sale at Kindle for $1.99. I just bought it yesterday. It got a great write-up somewhere. I don't know how long it will stay at that price. Here:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Bib...

Here's the concluding paragraph in the Crux article:

"Put simply, the skepticism of Bultmann, Borg, Crossan and Ehrman is out of date. New discoveries have pushed scholarship beyond their fanciful theories and dubious conclusions. The new wave of New Testament scholars readily accept the positive findings of a century’s worth of research, but in the spirit of true scholarship, they have also learned how to be critical of the critics."

So just because I'm in a minority voice, don't think that what I'm arguing is far afield. It's just not with the consensus.

[Susan]

Manny wrote: "Thanks Irene. I'll have to look into those language and cultural nuances that could effect dating. Dating by the Temple destruction is certainly not nuanced and so it’s a vivid mile marker, but per..."

Thank you. I love is it, Brant I think, Pitre? I agree. Jewish Roots of the Eucharist was amazing! I will look for The Case for Jesus....
And I agree....I don't trust any one any more - especially almost if they are "highly educated"...................

[Manny]

Kerstin wrote: "Irene wrote: "Kirsten, I agree that this may not be the most productive argument. That is why I stated early in that I would not continue to argue for the dating of any gospel, and I have kept that..."

I would describe it more with the German term "hinterfragen," literally "to question behind," as in questioning, probing, scrutinizing.

Germans come up with such great terms! bildungsroman, sturm und drang, blitzkrieg, gestalt, schadenfreude (my favorite!), zeitgeist. What's the one for world view? It's at the tip of my tongue but I can get it out.

[Manny]

Susan wrote: "Manny wrote: "Thanks Irene. I'll have to look into those language and cultural nuances that could effect dating. Dating by the Temple destruction is certainly not nuanced and so it’s a vivid mile m..."

Oh yes, Brant. I must have been thinking Brad Pitt...lol.

[Susan]

Manny wrote: "Susan wrote: "Manny wrote: "Thanks Irene. I'll have to look into those language and cultural nuances that could effect dating. Dating by the Temple destruction is certainly not nuanced and so it’s ..."

I only remember because I have a husband Brad and a son Brad...

[Kerstin]

I think I read the Fr. Longenecker article (Crux) before... It is definitely worth reading again!

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "Germans come up with such great terms! bildungsroman, sturm und drang, blitzkrieg, gestalt, schadenfreude (my favorite!), zeitgeist. What's the one for world view? It's at the tip of my tongue but I can get it out.

Do you mean 'Weltvorstellung'?

One who is really good at composite words is Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. The way he weaves them into his writings is just amazing. Sometimes I wonder how a translator would put this into English or any other language. They do find a way, for his writings in English don't seem to lose their impact. Though if I can, I read them in the original German.

[Manny]

Kerstin wrote: "Manny wrote: "Germans come up with such great terms! bildungsroman, sturm und drang, blitzkrieg, gestalt, schadenfreude (my favorite!), zeitgeist. What's the one for world view? It's at the tip of ..."

No, I found it. It's Weltanschauung. We use it in literary anaylsis. When I looked up Weltvorstellung it does seem to have the same meaning. I don't know what distiguishes them.

Oh I didn't even notice that article was written by Fr. Longenecker. Now I know it's solid information.

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "No, I found it. It's Weltanschauung. We use it in literary anaylsis. When I looked up Weltvorstellung it does seem to have the same meaning. I don't know what distiguishes them."

Ha! I knew there was another one but it didn't pop into my head :)
The two words, Anschauung and Vorstellung are used somewhat interchangeably, especially when the context is belief systems. But it isn't all that easy to make a distinction and translate it into English. I think when one deals with a concept captured in one word one can only get approximations.

Anschauung - goes in the direction of opinion, idea, notion. The verb "anschauen" means to look at (literally) or to examine

Vorstellung - goes into the direction of idea, illusion, imagination, presentation, performance. The verb "vorstellen" (literally stand before) means to introduce, to present, to imagine.

P.S.
Just edited it a bit as I thought more about it...

[Kerstin]

Anyone want to start the discussion on the second part of Mark, chapters 9-16 or the Gospel as a whole? We were so immersed in the discussion of the origins of Mark, the actual Gospel got a little lost.

[Manny]

Oh I was waiting for next week. I thought part two was next week. I may have gotten my weeks confused. Im sure I'll have something to say.

[Frances]

After the spirited discussion we had over the Matthew/Mark issue, we can now turn to the (long) ending of Mark. At the start I would like to put out for consideration a book by Nicholas P. Lunn. It is titled The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for The Authenticity of Mark 16: 9-20. (Pickwick Publications, 2014)

I learned of the book in a video by the theologian N.T. Wright, who, having studied originals of the Dead Sea Scrolls, agrees with Lunn's presentation of manuscript evidence. Some might like to read the Amazon reviews of Lunn's work.

[Manny]

Francis, that is very interesting. I have't gotten to the last chapter in this read yet, but in past read it did feel like it was tacked on. So in this case I might be supporting the established position, though I can't say I feel that strongly about this one. Like I said before scholarly consensus on ancient texts are forever fluid. Theories are built on suppositions that are near impossible to verify, and so are easy to reassess.

Amazon has a lengthy description of the book, and you can also peek inside. Here:
https://www.amazon.com/Original-Endin...

The hard copy format is a bit pricey but the kindle is affordable. Perhaps some day I will pick it up.

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "Oh I was waiting for next week. I thought part two was next week."

LOL! I posted the continuation Sunday and we were too absorbed in the other discussion :)

[Manny]

LOL. Well it wasn't we. It was me!

[Susan]

My Hillsdale lecture about the Gospel of Mark was very interesting I thought. You all may have made all these connections, but I did not, so I figured I would try to synopsize what he said.
He believes, although many say Mark is rather unorganized, that it is not. He sees narrative sets of 3. It starts out with the Baptism and then the calling of the disciples which is broken up into 3 separate stories. In chapter 4 we hear, "He began to teach" - something new is starting - large crowd
Disciples express, "What does this mean?"
Chapter 6 Isaiah 'parables' - see, but not perceive; hear, but not understand
storm - no faith?
miracles - feeds large crowd
boat - to the other side
storm - "Don't be afraid"
miracles - feeds large crowd
boat -> other side
then the disciples are worried about eating!
something is right in front of their eyes and they don't see it!
then about the blind man
Jesus stands in front of a blind man and then in front of Peter
Jesus did not succeed in healing the blindness on the first attempt. It takes two attempts. Jesus is not limited, therefore, 1) lack of readiness of the blind man, 2) Jesus wanted to fix it in two stages; both.....
Peter doesn't quite understand who Jesus is
blind man from Bethsaida, Peter is from Bethsaida!
The question the Gospel was written to answer, "Who do people say that I am?" Peter finally gets the right answer. Jesus IS the Messiah...but then Peter is called Satan!
suffer, die and rise on the third day....THAT doesn't = a Messiah!
Peter is starting to see, but not clearly (like after the first attempt of the initial blind man)
It is not the temporal understanding of a Messiah
Passion prediction 3x
disciples 'on the way to Jerusalem' but still clueless
heals another blind man, only takes one time this time
Have to see that Jesus is the Messiah, but the Messiah has to suffer and die...two parts to the understanding...
the Jewish leaders suffered a sort of blindness - they only saw in the Scriptures what they wanted to see...blind to verses such as Isaiah 53...
We can be blind too....we need to pick up our cross with Jesus....
Sorry, I know I butchered that, but it was actually very interesting and maybe offered a different slant of how to see Mark...if you can make any sense of that!

[Frances]

Thank you, Susan. I think you did an excellent job. And yes, there are new insights when one approaches Mark in this way.

[Manny]

Susan, I am glad you mentioned all that. I didn't know how much I should mention it myself. One of the reasons I've seen why Mark is so curt on various scenes is that he is not interested in providing a biography of Jesus. He leaves out all that biographical detail (notice no birth narrative) so that he can focus on the one question and this is the overriding question of the Gospel, Who is Jesus? So even the resurrection is not all that important, but the Messiah who cleans away the sins of the world through His sacrifice is the answer. Therefore we see the roughly put together last chapter. It comes across as a fill in afterwards. Now that doesn't mean Mark didn't write it. My theory on that last chapter is he wrote it after he had finished it as an add on.

Mark supposedly has a reputation as a bad writer. Supposedly he has grammatical errors in his Greek and it's supposedly of an inexperienced writer. Now that may be, I can't read ancient Greek, and because of that he was not thought of as a skilled craftsman of writing. Scholars have come to appreciate his story telling abilities, such as the triple scenes laid out side by side in a chapter. Chapter five as I went through in some detail up above is a perfect example of how skilled he can craft narrative. Mark's narrative doesn't necessarily move in a chronological manner, but in a thematic manner. Now only does he lay things out in triple scenes but he also repeats in doublets: two feeding of the thousands scene, two curing of blind men, two demoniac possessed people cured. The triplets and doublets are a fascinating way to tell a story.

[John]

Kerstin wrote: "Let’s get started on the discussion of the Gospel of Mark. This week we’ll do chapters 1-8 and next week 9-16."

I read this last week while on vacation, but didn't have access to post much. I've been swamped with work since I got back, but I'll try to catch up over the next few days.

[John]

Kerstin wrote: "Joseph, the icon I used for our read is just a stand-in. The Gospel of Mark is not published separately from any Bible - at least from what I saw."

The Navarre Bible Commentary publishes a separate volume for Mark.

[John]

Manny wrote: "Doreen, you're probably right. I didn't realize it, but while Mark wasn't one of the twelve apostles, he was apparently one of the seventy. And Mark later participated on St. Paul's journeys and ul..."

The Navarre Commentary lays out the traditional understanding, which it finds to make sense in light of the way different figures such as Peter are treated in the Gospel, etc. That view is that Mark was likely the son of Mary, the woman who owned the Cenacle and that he was the young man who followed Jesus and the 11 from the Last Supper out to Gethsemane wrapped only in a sheet, but who dropped the sheet and fled naked when the soldiers arrested Jesus. Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas but had some conflict with Paul, though this must have been patched over later as Paul asks that he be sent to him in Rome. He then traveled extensively with Peter and the thinking is that this Gospel is the one Mark heard Peter preach over and over, again and again over the years. There is a sense then in which we can hear Peter's voice in this Gospel.

[John]

Manny wrote: "If you look at most of Mark's chapters, at least the early ones, they have about four or five short scenes, one leading to the next, sometimes in an unconnected fashion. (That's why I get the feeling that Mark is summarizing Matthew or something else in those short scenes.)"

Manny, I don't want to revisit prior disagreement, but this is where I hear the voice of Peter, the impulsive, active fisherman, who spoke first, acted first, but repented and loved with all his heart.

EDIT: Ooops. I guess I should have read all of the new posts before posting this.

[Kerstin]

John wrote: "The Navarre Bible Commentary publishes a separate volume for Mark."

Great! Thanks :)

[Kerstin]

In the 10th chapter is one of my favorite comments about Jesus:

32 And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; and they were amazed and afraid.

Bishop Robert Barron commented on this in his Catholicism series, that in the Old Testament awe and fear are common responses to God.

Jesus walks ahead, for we are to follow him. He walks toward Jerusalem and the cross. Now that's unsettling. And for all his loving human presence and the magnetism he must have had, there also must have been a reaction of uneasiness and fear. All these miracles he had performed, the sea he had commanded - this is not part of any person's normal experiences anywhere. Where do you put that? You try to grasp the ungraspable. No wonder even the apostles, his inner circle, had immense difficulties making sense of who Jesus is.