Introduction to The Gospel of Mark

[Vinnie]

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

First Five Sections are Up.

Vinnie

[Clutch]

Very interesting, Vinnie. Thanks.

An observation and a question about this section:* Mark: Abba, Father, all things are possible for you.
* Matt: My father, if it is possible
* Luke: Father is you desire


There is an increasing trend towards softening here.Observation: Section 4 struck me as a continuation of the above point from S3. I didn't quite see why it was better off in its own section.

Question: Is your suggestion in S3&4 that, over time, the gospel writers and redactors became increasingly concerned to portray Jesus as fully on board with God the Father's plan? (Ie, special plan 97, Operation Jesus Must Die.)

[Vinnie]

Hi Clutch.

Originally posted by Clutch
Very interesting, Vinnie. Thanks.

An observation and a question about this section:Observation: Section 4 struck me as a continuation of the above point from S3. I didn't quite see why it was better off in its own section.

Question: Is your suggestion in S3&4 that, over time, the gospel writers and redactors became increasingly concerned to portray Jesus as fully on board with God the Father's plan? (Ie, special plan 97, Operation Jesus Must Die.)

<-- Sort of confused.

What you quoted came fro msection 1. Now sections 3 and 5 are close but I think they are fine as they now stand as different sections.

A case might be made that five should be before four. There is a lot of overlapp in these. I think its fine as is.

I think as far as the Gethsemane stuff goes, Mark has a ridiculously "human" Jesus. As John Dominic Crossan wrotes in Who Killed Jesus ( I just read this today actually :) ) "If Jesus is painfully human for Mark, he is serenely transcendental for John."

I think Matthew and Luke had some difficulty with Mark's very stark account with a very troubled and sorrowful Jesus. Thus, they tone it down. Mark has Jesus fall to the ground in distress whereas Luke has him kneel.

In one sense I would say yes, the author had more trouble with Jesus asking the cup to be removed than did Mark. Their softening demonstrates this. John, on the other hand, scoffs entirely at the notion.

But we must note that Mark also has Jesus on board (all the passion predictions and so on) so pointing out some glaringly huge or even moderately huge trend on this basis is not very persuasive IMO. Mt and Lk none the less, softened Mark's account and John scoffs at the synoptic notion.

I would also say that the trend of Jesus being in line with his death started before the Gospel of Mark. I think Mark had to defend this idea against competing views. Thats why he calls the apostles dumb for not understanding it (= possibly they never believed in things specifically as did the author of Mark which is most clearly seen in the case of the food laws).

I agree with Crossan. Christians searched the scriptures to find Jesus after he was crucified. They found Jesus there. Some visions probably aided along the way.

But I am stil ltrying to work out the specific beliefs of Jesus' followers and the Jerusalem school. I tend to think they did believe in Resurrection but I think they understood it completely different from Mark.

For those following along I'll add a section on Mark and the historicity of Jesus in sections 11-15 :)

Vinnie

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Hi Clutch.

What you quoted came fro msection 1. Now sections 3 and 5 are close but I think they are fine as they now stand as different sections. Sorry, I used the term "sections" loosely here. I meant, under 1B Gethsemane, your Pointe The Fourthe looked like an extension of Pointe the Thirde. (In other words, this was a very minor structural note!)

As for the rest, I guess that's the reply I expected. I thought the suggestion was interesting, but was curious to know just how strongly you thought it should be interpreted. Thanks.

[Vorkosigan]

Very nice work.

:notworthy