Beginning at the Beginning. Again.
The Gospel According to Mark*
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
It is written in Isaiah, the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” – “a voice crying in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”
And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark* has been my favorite gospel since Seminary. It wasn’t always. There’s not a lot of “red letters” in Mark. Jesus’ speech is short, clipped, and to the point in Mark’s account, and I have come to appreciate that. Despite the shorter, crisper style of Mark, it is not without art and certainly not without a distinct feel of humanity.
Today, when I read these opening words, again, I was struck by the word “beginning.” Sure, it’s obvious that this is the beginning of Mark’s gospel, right!? I mean, you know it’s “a” gospel, right? And that bit of knowledge sort of handicaps us. See, most scholars believe Mark was the first complete, written account of the life of Jesus, which quickly came to be known as a “gospel.” But this “gospel” was not exactly an existing genre of literature. So it is unlikely Mark meant “gospel” as a type of literature. More likely, gospel here refers to the larger idea of good news. But I digress. See, the reason I cared about the “beginning” of the gospel is that I know a few important things about the end. If you were to flip to the last words in Mark, you might be surprised at the lack of resolution. There is no verse that says, “And thus concludes the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God.” Nope. The most likely ending speaks of fear, confusion, distress. I like that. Ending? What ending? Why should good news end? It might freak you out, but end? Not so much.
Now, as for Mark’s Bible Quotation skills! If you have a “good” bible, there should be two footnotes referencing Mark’s “Isaiah” quotation. And only one of them should reference Isaiah. They should point you FIRST, not to Isaiah, but to Malachi 3:1, then to Isaiah 40:3. Which raises the question: “Why did Mark conflate these two verses? Why did he say Isaiah but quote Malachi?” The answer, of course, is simple: WE DON’T KNOW!
There have been some terrifyingly smart people (and otherwise) who have confronted this issue and come up with some wonderful hypotheses which I find intellectually stimulating but personally unsatisfactory. I am much more intrigued by the fact that this didn’t seem to bother the early church. I am much more comforted by the idea that Mark, like people like you and me, might (now, deep breaths here) misquote the bible. That’s not the same as saying the bible is “wrong” or has “errors.” It is a beautiful reminder that even when proclaiming the coming of God into the midst of humanity, we are still pretty darn human: flawed, fallible, and (at least in the eyes of divinity) lovable, maybe even redeemable.
Mark’s idea of a beginning is unique. No mangers. No stars shining in the east. No meandering philosophizing about the “word.” I’m guessing Mark probably had access to the existing orally transmitted stories about Jesus’ miraculous birth. But Mark’s Jesus comes on the scene after an appropriately brief quote from the scriptures of Israel (read: continuity) and an appearance from Jesus’ cousin John.
OK, now, here is the scary part: Notice what John was proclaiming: a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. If you grew up in church like me, you may have heard this phrase so many times that it fails to strike you that this phrase comes well before what many, in fact most, Christians consider the saving moment in the Jesus story: the crucifixion and resurrection. Not here. This is just the prep work to bring Jesus on the scene. Without delving into an extended and contentious study of salvation theory (soteriology for the theology nerds among us), I would assert that this is a reminder that God has always been in the business of calling humanity to their second chance. God has always been interested in you living a healthy life: physically, mentally, spiritually. God has always been intent on forgiving people through a relationship with them. As we study Mark together, that would probably be a great thing for us to be on the lookout. Just because it’s good news doesn’t mean it is new. God has, from the beginning, decided to include us in the story. And God is well aware of what having a relationship with you will mean. You aren’t bringing anything to the table that wasn’t already common knowledge to God when he built the table to which you are now bringing whatever the heck it is you are bringing to said table. John’s part of the story? To let you know that the aforementioned table has been set, dinner is ready, wash your hands, and come eat.
* I have left out the chapter and verse numbers in the text to promote attention to flow of the text rather than location of the “verses.”
** Now, to be honest, all four of the gospels in the canonical (read: leatherbound) New Testament (hereinafter, NT) are anonymous. The oldest and most reliable manuscripts lack internal claims of authorship, and even as the gospels came to be attributed to MtMkLk&Jn, it was by a simple phrase at the head of the text, such as “kata markon” i.e., “according to Mark.” The closest thing we have to a claim of authorship comes at the beginning of Luke, and there the author neglects to include his name! I chose not to get into a lengthy debate over traditional authorship of the canonical gospels. If “Mark” was in fact the author of the gospel that now bears his name, we have no absolute proof for or against this notion (although some rather impressive arguments have been mounted for and against). Rather, the argument I will engage in is that it doesn’t matter. Which Mark? John Mark? Even if so, “So what?” What do we know about Mark that would add or take away from the text before us? Little. So, for the sake of simplicity, clarity, and respect, I will refer to the gospel by its traditional name and refer to the author by his traditional name.
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
It is written in Isaiah, the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” – “a voice crying in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”
And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark* has been my favorite gospel since Seminary. It wasn’t always. There’s not a lot of “red letters” in Mark. Jesus’ speech is short, clipped, and to the point in Mark’s account, and I have come to appreciate that. Despite the shorter, crisper style of Mark, it is not without art and certainly not without a distinct feel of humanity.
Today, when I read these opening words, again, I was struck by the word “beginning.” Sure, it’s obvious that this is the beginning of Mark’s gospel, right!? I mean, you know it’s “a” gospel, right? And that bit of knowledge sort of handicaps us. See, most scholars believe Mark was the first complete, written account of the life of Jesus, which quickly came to be known as a “gospel.” But this “gospel” was not exactly an existing genre of literature. So it is unlikely Mark meant “gospel” as a type of literature. More likely, gospel here refers to the larger idea of good news. But I digress. See, the reason I cared about the “beginning” of the gospel is that I know a few important things about the end. If you were to flip to the last words in Mark, you might be surprised at the lack of resolution. There is no verse that says, “And thus concludes the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God.” Nope. The most likely ending speaks of fear, confusion, distress. I like that. Ending? What ending? Why should good news end? It might freak you out, but end? Not so much.
Now, as for Mark’s Bible Quotation skills! If you have a “good” bible, there should be two footnotes referencing Mark’s “Isaiah” quotation. And only one of them should reference Isaiah. They should point you FIRST, not to Isaiah, but to Malachi 3:1, then to Isaiah 40:3. Which raises the question: “Why did Mark conflate these two verses? Why did he say Isaiah but quote Malachi?” The answer, of course, is simple: WE DON’T KNOW!
There have been some terrifyingly smart people (and otherwise) who have confronted this issue and come up with some wonderful hypotheses which I find intellectually stimulating but personally unsatisfactory. I am much more intrigued by the fact that this didn’t seem to bother the early church. I am much more comforted by the idea that Mark, like people like you and me, might (now, deep breaths here) misquote the bible. That’s not the same as saying the bible is “wrong” or has “errors.” It is a beautiful reminder that even when proclaiming the coming of God into the midst of humanity, we are still pretty darn human: flawed, fallible, and (at least in the eyes of divinity) lovable, maybe even redeemable.
Mark’s idea of a beginning is unique. No mangers. No stars shining in the east. No meandering philosophizing about the “word.” I’m guessing Mark probably had access to the existing orally transmitted stories about Jesus’ miraculous birth. But Mark’s Jesus comes on the scene after an appropriately brief quote from the scriptures of Israel (read: continuity) and an appearance from Jesus’ cousin John.
OK, now, here is the scary part: Notice what John was proclaiming: a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. If you grew up in church like me, you may have heard this phrase so many times that it fails to strike you that this phrase comes well before what many, in fact most, Christians consider the saving moment in the Jesus story: the crucifixion and resurrection. Not here. This is just the prep work to bring Jesus on the scene. Without delving into an extended and contentious study of salvation theory (soteriology for the theology nerds among us), I would assert that this is a reminder that God has always been in the business of calling humanity to their second chance. God has always been interested in you living a healthy life: physically, mentally, spiritually. God has always been intent on forgiving people through a relationship with them. As we study Mark together, that would probably be a great thing for us to be on the lookout. Just because it’s good news doesn’t mean it is new. God has, from the beginning, decided to include us in the story. And God is well aware of what having a relationship with you will mean. You aren’t bringing anything to the table that wasn’t already common knowledge to God when he built the table to which you are now bringing whatever the heck it is you are bringing to said table. John’s part of the story? To let you know that the aforementioned table has been set, dinner is ready, wash your hands, and come eat.
* I have left out the chapter and verse numbers in the text to promote attention to flow of the text rather than location of the “verses.”
** Now, to be honest, all four of the gospels in the canonical (read: leatherbound) New Testament (hereinafter, NT) are anonymous. The oldest and most reliable manuscripts lack internal claims of authorship, and even as the gospels came to be attributed to MtMkLk&Jn, it was by a simple phrase at the head of the text, such as “kata markon” i.e., “according to Mark.” The closest thing we have to a claim of authorship comes at the beginning of Luke, and there the author neglects to include his name! I chose not to get into a lengthy debate over traditional authorship of the canonical gospels. If “Mark” was in fact the author of the gospel that now bears his name, we have no absolute proof for or against this notion (although some rather impressive arguments have been mounted for and against). Rather, the argument I will engage in is that it doesn’t matter. Which Mark? John Mark? Even if so, “So what?” What do we know about Mark that would add or take away from the text before us? Little. So, for the sake of simplicity, clarity, and respect, I will refer to the gospel by its traditional name and refer to the author by his traditional name.
posted by graysandpeas | 1:40 PM
3 Comments:
Yeah, I was taught that too, even through my undergrad religion degree. Two things ultimately made that approach untennable for me. First, I find it odd that orthodox christianity says in unison: "Jesus was simultaneously fully human and fully divine." In other words, as holy and "God-incarnate" as we proclaim Jesus to be, he still gets to be fully human. Why can we not afford that same option to the Bible? Keep in mind, there can be no divine inspiration without someone to recieve the inspiration. I refuse to cut the human out of the equation, since it is humans for whom Jesus came.
Second, I think the triple-I (inspired, inerrant, infallible) approach misses the point. We can either focus on the witness (the words of the bible) or the thing witnessed to (the Word made flesh, the Holy Spirit in our midst, etc.). I lean toward the latter.
I mean in NO WAY to disparage the faith or validity of those who chose to read the bible through that lens. I've done so. And have found that other lens have worked as well, if not more so, for this journeyman.
On the other hand, I have to at the same time address the one who would say that errors disprove "inspiration" or "authoritativeness." To that I say, maybe we need a bigger definition of inpiration. If I tell you what I remember about the day a dozen years ago when I got married but screw up a few details, I'm no less married. The event is still real. Disclaiming any authoritativeness becuase of errors is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That, and I thought the point was that humans err. Right? And on the other hand, if we had a phonebook completely without error, would that make it inspired? Or a candidate for it?
Thanks for the comment. I've been on this road so long, I somtimes forget how hard it was for me to change directions.
Yeah I know I'm coming in a little late in the game here, but two things:
1)I too was taught that the Bible is infallible, I think this is the case. My thinking here is that if God was endeavoring to put forth an instruction manual for how we wanted us to live our lives then He's going to make certain it's not screwed up. With that said... I think there is still room for the human error, as long as wee keep in mind that it's just that... HUMAN error. With your example Mike, I wouldn't think it was too much of a stretch that God either meant for this misquotation on Mark's part, or rather allowed it to happen, for the exact reason that you seem to love it so much. It reminds you that we're human and allowed to make errors, and that unlike God, we ARE fallible... haha, and seems like God never likes to miss an opportunity to remind us of our imperfection so that we can better appreciate his perfection. Perhaps this was a mistake of Mark's but I don't know that God didn't intend for it to be exactly the way it was.
Yeah I know I'm coming in a little late in the game here, but two things:
1)I too was taught that the Bible is infallible, I think this is the case. My thinking here is that if God was endeavoring to put forth an instruction manual for how we wanted us to live our lives then He's going to make certain it's not screwed up. With that said... I think there is still room for the human error, as long as wee keep in mind that it's just that... HUMAN error. With your example Mike, I wouldn't think it was too much of a stretch that God either meant for this misquotation on Mark's part, or rather allowed it to happen, for the exact reason that you seem to love it so much. It reminds you that we're human and allowed to make errors, and that unlike God, we ARE fallible... haha, and seems like God never likes to miss an opportunity to remind us of our imperfection so that we can better appreciate his perfection. Perhaps this was a mistake of Mark's but I don't know that God didn't intend for it to be exactly the way it was.
Post a Comment
<< Home