pMark's portrayal of Jesus

LM Barre · Oct 3, 2015

My study of the Gospel of Mark led me to the conclusion that there is indeed an earlier version of Mark contained within the Gospel. This earlier version of the Gospel is mostly now called "pMark. It concludes with the so-called " Passion Narrative" which I think ends in 15:39 with the centurion's assessment of Jesus. This of course excludes the final two episodes of the burial of Jesus and the empty tomb.

The PN has also received Markan expansions. When removed, I find that Jesus is portrayed as a messianic pretender who embodies the characteristics of the classic tragic hero. The author rejects the notion altogether of a coming Messiah who would initiate the supernatural establishment of the Messianic Age where Jesus is installed as king in Jerusalem.

The climax of the story comes at Jesus' trial when he is asked by the high priest if he thinks he is the Messiah. Jesus boldly declares that indeed he is. Then he backs his claim with this statement: "And you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.". Here is alludes to the fullest and clearest Messianic prophesy of Dan 7:13-14.

Since this is something that the high priest will see, Jesus meant that he (and everybody else) are about to see a supernatural establishment of the Messianic Age! In this way Jesus' claim to be the Messiah would indeed be proven. Indeed, this is why Jesus usurped the authority of the high priest when he cleansed the temple. By what authority? Royal authority...Messianic authority. Jesus was convinced that a material Kingdom of God was now being established and Jesus acted as he thought he should...as the promised Messiah.

Alas, the end of the story finds that no establishment of the Messianic occurred so that when he felt death coming on, he cried, " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Then he let out a loud cry and then died.

Why did Jesus cry out in anguish? I submit that he did so when realized why he was forsaken, why he was not established as the ruling Messiah as he expected in his answer to the high priest. According to his own thinking, it meant that he was not the Messiah. John was wrong. Thus Jesus was added to a list of Messianic Pretenders. Indeed, it may have instantly driven to insanity. In any event the story only states that Jesus loudly cried out just before he perished. So the essence of the plot has Jesus move from extreme confidence that he was the Messiah and that the prophesy in Daniel was to soon be fulfilled to a resent to extreme disappointment and a mos painful conclusion that he was a messianic pretender. His death made the conclusion abundantly clear and inescapable.

Finally, we have the assessment, the epiphany of the Roman centurion. He declares that Jesus was either "The Son of God," a Christian proclamation, or "a son of a god," a Roman assessment of Jesus as divine man." A "divine man" was usually refered to as a theos aner. Even so, given the portrayal of Jesus, one that regarded the notion of a Jewish mythological false notion, it seems that the author, having rejected and illustrated the wrongness of the Jewish view, offered his Gentile, Roman assessment. No, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, as even Jesus was forced to realized. He was instead, what Romans made of him. He was, among others, a "Divine Man," a Tragic Hero whose fatal flaw was his belief in a coming Messiah which he mistakenly thought he was.

To what degree is this portrayal historical? On the one hand, it is an artful, even an Aristolean story of a Tragic Hero. On the other, its intention seems to be to this Jesus of Nazareth to a Roman audience primarily. Did the author have access to the events he "reports?" I can only surmise that it is possible that he did witness or learn of what actually happened to Jesus from his arrest to his death. But I must confess that on this question I am speculating even though I find it to be a realistic account of the issues .that surrounded the fate of this Jesus. Another reason that I lean in this direction is because the words, eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani bear the marks of an authentic saying of Jesus and they are central to the plot of the story.

I look forward to what others think on this question

Lukamu · Oct 3, 2015

I think "Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani" is referring to Psalms 22. Read the Psalms 22 first and see if that influences your thoughts.

LM Barre · Oct 3, 2015

Lukamu said:
I think "Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani" is referring to Psalms 22. Read the Psalms 22 first and see if that influences your thoughts.

Psalm 22 has eli, eli. Jesus is portrayed as misquoting it. Matthew corrects to the Psalm.

Lukamu · Oct 3, 2015

I guess I'm not up to speed on Aramaic! I am just reading the verses as they are written in my Bible. Here is a comparison: Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46. Now that I compare them, I see the difference in spelling: Eli in Matthew and Eloi in Mark, but they are both translated the same in the second half of the verse. Enlighten me on the difference?

Edit: Psalms 22:1 also agrees with the translation in the second half of the verse.

LM Barre · Oct 3, 2015

Lukamu said:
I guess I'm not up to speed on Aramaic! I am just reading the verses as they are written in my Bible. Here is a comparison: Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46. Now that I compare them, I see the difference in spelling: Eli in Matthew and Eloi in Mark, but they are both translated the same in the second half of the verse. Enlighten me on the difference?

Sir, I d

Edit: Psalms 22:1 also agrees with the translation in the second half of the verse.

eloi is neither Hebrew or Aramaic. This is why hearers mocked Jesus for saying it. "Is he calling for Elijah?". Apparently Jesus was trying to say " elohi.". This is also Hebrew for "my God.". That Jesus could not properly quote the Psalm or even utter the Hebrew for " my God" adds to the pathos of the story. It appears that he realized his error and so finished the botch quotation in his vernacular Aramaic.

Sir, do I detect a certain snideness in your tone? Please refrain. I am only attempting to interpret here. Thank you.

LM Barre · Oct 3, 2015

The saying in 15:34 does indeed provide evidence for the historicity of the plot of the story. The saying is likely authentic because it invokes the criterion of Embarrassment and it is partially in Aramaic. That it was an embarrassment is shown that Matthew corrected it, not to mention that Jesus misquoted the Psalm and botched the word for "God!"

Lukamu · Oct 3, 2015

Sorry, "enlighten" was the wrong word for me to use. No snideness, I am just trying to understand your reasoning. You have my full respect, whether or not we agree/disagree. Are you a scholar of ancient texts and languages, or are you getting your sources from somewhere else? And which translation of the Bible are you interpreting from?
The last twelve verse of the Gospel of Mark are included in most contemporary Bibles with a phrase like: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20." There are many opinions about why these verses are include in some manuscripts but not others, but yours is the first opinion that I've heard which also excludes verses 1 through 8. Why do you exclude these verses?

SkyWriting · Oct 3, 2015

LM Barre said:
That Jesus could not properly quote the Psalm or even utter the Hebrew for " my God" adds to the pathos of the story.

Whatever your point.......I don't think so.

LM Barre · Oct 3, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Whatever your point.......I don't think so.

He is cruelly mocked for his verbal mistake.

LM Barre · Oct 3, 2015

Lukamu said:
Sorry, "enlighten" was the wrong word for me to use. No snideness, I am just trying to understand your reasoning. You have my full respect, whether or not we agree/disagree. Are you a scholar of ancient texts and languages, or are you getting your sources from somewhere else? And which translation of the Bible are you interpreting from?
The last twelve verse of the Gospel of Mark are included in most contemporary Bibles with a phrase like: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20." There are many opinions about why these verses are include in some manuscripts but not others, but yours is the first opinion that I've heard which also excludes verses 1 through 8. Why do you exclude these verses?

Allow me to clarify. The term, "pMark," refers to an alleged earlier version that has been expanded by a later hand to produce the final form of the Gospel of Mark. He is called "Mark.". (" pmark" is short for "protoMark"). I argue that pmark ends in 15:39 with the centurion's declaration regarding the expired Jesus. Therefore, the two following episodes are Markan and thus do not enter into the interpretation of pmark, the last part of which is known as the " Passion Narrative."

I hold a doctorate in Hebrew Bible from Vanderbilt University (1986). My minor was New Testament Literature.

LM Barre · Oct 4, 2015

LM Barre said:
The saying in 15:34 does indeed provide evidence for the historicity of the plot of the story. The saying is likely authentic because it invokes the criterion of Embarrassment and it is partially in Aramaic. That it was an embarrassment is shown that Matthew corrected it, not to mention that Jesus misquoted the Psalm and botched the word for "God!"

The key saying which implies the plot also shows evidence of orality and dissimilarity, two more reasons to support the conclusion that it is indeed an authentic saying of Jesus. Orality in that it is partially in Jesus' vernacular and unlike most any other saying in being in Aramaic and which has Jesus forsaken by his God.

Lukamu · Oct 4, 2015

Okay, so you have done plenty enough study and research to speak from your own experience then. Do you agree with the scholars who say that the author of the Gospel of Mark is the same person who is mentioned in Acts 12:12 and other places in the new testament? Or who then is the original author?

LM Barre said:
The PN has also received Markan expansions. When removed, I find that Jesus is portrayed as a messianic pretender who embodies the characteristics of the classic tragic hero. The author rejects the notion altogether of a coming Messiah who would initiate the supernatural establishment of the Messianic Age where Jesus is installed as king in Jerusalem.

The climax of the story comes at Jesus' trial when he is asked by the high priest if he thinks he is the Messiah. Jesus boldly declares that indeed he is. Then he backs his claim with this statement: "And you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.". Here is alludes to the fullest and clearest Messianic prophesy of Dan 7:13-14.

Since this is something that the high priest will see, Jesus meant that he (and everybody else) are about to see a supernatural establishment of the Messianic Age! In this way Jesus' claim to be the Messiah would indeed be proven. Indeed, this is why Jesus usurped the authority of the high priest when he cleansed the temple. By what authority? Royal authority...Messianic authority. Jesus was convinced that a material Kingdom of God was now being established and Jesus acted as he thought he should...as the promised Messiah.

Alas, the end of the story finds that no establishment of the Messianic occurred so that when he felt death coming on, he cried, " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Then he let out a loud cry and then died.

Why did Jesus cry out in anguish? I submit that he did so when realized why he was forsaken, why he was not established as the ruling Messiah as he expected in his answer to the high priest. According to his own thinking, it meant that he was not the Messiah. John was wrong. Thus Jesus was added to a list of Messianic Pretenders. Indeed, it may have instantly driven to insanity. In any event the story only states that Jesus loudly cried out just before he perished. So the essence of the plot has Jesus move from extreme confidence that he was the Messiah and that the prophesy in Daniel was to soon be fulfilled to a resent to extreme disappointment and a mos painful conclusion that he was a messianic pretender. His death made the conclusion abundantly clear and inescapable.

Finally, we have the assessment, the epiphany of the Roman centurion. He declares that Jesus was either "The Son of God," a Christian proclamation, or "a son of a god," a Roman assessment of Jesus as divine man." A "divine man" was usually refered to as a theos aner. Even so, given the portrayal of Jesus, one that regarded the notion of a Jewish mythological false notion, it seems that the author, having rejected and illustrated the wrongness of the Jewish view, offered his Gentile, Roman assessment. No, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, as even Jesus was forced to realized. He was instead, what Romans made of him. He was, among others, a "Divine Man," a Tragic Hero whose fatal flaw was his belief in a coming Messiah which he mistakenly thought he was.

To discuss your original question, I would refute the "messianic pretender" stance with other passages in the book of Mark that describe the miracles that Jesus performed, including the healings, casting out demons, feeding thousands, and the transfiguration, as well as the multiple occurrences of Jesus being called "Most Holy One," "Son of God", etc. In Mark 10:32-34, Jesus clearly predicts that he will die on the cross and rise again three days later. Therefore, Jesus understood that he was the Messiah and that these things would happen to the Messiah. He was "forsaken" by God because he was allowed to go through so much physical/spiritual/emotional anguish at the hands of the Jews and Romans, all to fulfill the prophecies from the Old Testament.
I think that you are interpreting "You shall see the coming..." as an immediate or near future event, when it must be interpreted as a distant future event, as referenced in Revelation 14:14. Jesus must have known this as he spoke it, being the Son of God, but the high priest did not understand - by interpreting what he said similar to how you have done.
Am I correct in thinking that Mark is written to the Romans, whilst Matthew is written to the Jews and Luke is written to Theophilus and the Gentiles? Perhaps the intended audience explains the difference in spelling - or that Jesus may have been so physically exhausted by his punishment that it was difficult for him to speak clearly.
(P.S. I do not have a doctorate or any degree in religious texts, but I have studied the Bible for many years. I enjoy discussing these ideas with someone who has a higher education than myself!)
- Lukamu

LM Barre · Oct 4, 2015

Lukamu said:
Okay, so you have done plenty enough study and research to speak from your own experience then. Do you agree with the scholars who say that the author of the Gospel of Mark is the same person who is mentioned in Acts 12:12 and other places in the new testament? Or who then is the original author?

To discuss your original question, I would refute the "messianic pretender" stance with other passages in the book of Mark that describe the miracles that Jesus performed, including the healings, casting out demons, feeding thousands, and the transfiguration, as well as the multiple occurrences of Jesus being called "Most Holy One," "Son of God", etc. In Mark 10:32-34, Jesus clearly predicts that he will die on the cross and rise again three days later. Therefore, Jesus understood that he was the Messiah and that these things would happen to the Messiah. He was "forsaken" by God because he was allowed to go through so much physical/spiritual/emotional anguish at the hands of the Jews and Romans, all to fulfill the prophecies from the Old Testament.
I think that you are interpreting "You shall see the coming..." as an immediate or near future event, when it must be interpreted as a distant future event, as referenced in Revelation 14:14. Jesus must have known this as he spoke it, being the Son of God, but the high priest did not understand - by interpreting what he said similar to how you have done.
Am I correct in thinking that Mark is written to the Romans, whilst Matthew is written to the Jews and Luke is written to Theophilus and the Gentiles? Perhaps the intended audience explains the difference in spelling - or that Jesus may have been so physically exhausted by his punishment that it was difficult for him to speak clearly.
(P.S. I do not have a doctorate or any degree in religious texts, but I have studied the Bible for many years. I enjoy discussing these ideas with someone who has a higher education than myself!)
- Lukamu

Understand that I am interpreting only pMark' portrayal of Jesus. pmark is a scholary attempt to separate an earlier version of the Gospel by removing what are argued to be textual expansions by a later hand and who !s responsible for the final form of the Gospel. He is referred to as "Mark." The attemt to recover an earlier form is a critical endeavor known as "source criticism." The study of. The alleged expansion is called "Redaction criticism." These criticisms are employed based on the conclusion that a work is not a unified composition but one in which an earlier version has been expanded by a second person. Thus it is a question as to the composition of a work.

In regard to the arguments that Mark contains expansion of an earlier version, please see my YouTube video, "Jesus: Messianic Pretender as Tragic Hero. Alleged Markan expansions of an underlying text are identified in a Yahoo Groups forum called " Mainstream Biblical Scholarship." My reconstruction of pmark is .found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Biblical_Scholarship/conversations/messages/91

Lukamu · Oct 4, 2015

Thank you for your comparison of pMark's version and the classic Tragic Hero - they do align if I've understood your explanation, and so your original post makes more sense to me.
How historically accurate do you believe pMark's story to be: 100% true or less than 100% true?
What about the supernatural events in pMark's account? Casting out demons, the darkness at noon, the tearing of the veil in two? Are these factual events, or are they fictional events that add to the elements of the Tragic Hero story?

If pMark's version is indeed the full story, then the Tragic Hero description fits. However, Jesus' tragic demise on the cross is the penultimate step of his ascension into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father until his return, as prophesied in both the Old and New Testament scriptures.

If you could address one question for me: why did pMark write his gospel?

LM Barre · Oct 4, 2015

Lukamu said:
Thank you for your comparison of pMark's version and the classic Tragic Hero - they do align if I've understood your explanation, and so your original post makes more sense to me.
How historically accurate do you believe pMark's story to be: 100% true or less than 100% true?
What about the supernatural events in pMark's account? Casting out demons, the darkness at noon, the tearing of the veil in two? Are these factual events, or are they fictional events that add to the elements of the Tragic Hero story?

If pMark's version is indeed the full story, then the Tragic Hero description fits. However, Jesus' tragic demise on the cross is the penultimate step of his ascension into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father until his return, as prophesied in both the Old and New Testament scriptures.

If you could address one question for me: why did pMark write his gospel?

Note that there is nothing in pmark about a resurrection, ascension or a return. The account ends in Mark 15:39 with the centurion's assessment of Jesus. End of story. It is Mark that later expanded the story, making it a Christian message, especially with addition following 15:39, namely the episodes of the burial of Jesus and the final episode of the empty tomb.

Given the content of the account, the author seems provide what to make of Jesus of Nazareth from the viewpoint of a thinking, literate Roman. If Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah as Jesus thought, and was so tragically forced to realize it, what then was one to make of him? The question mightily begged for answer. If he was not the Messiah, then what was he? His answer is articulated in the last line of the account by Roman (!) centurion. No, Jesus as not the Jewish Messiah as the story of Jesus demonstrated. In Roman terms, he was "a son of a god," "a divine man." This is how the account ends and in this way communicates the "correct" understanding of who Jesus was according to the author.

LM Barre · Oct 4, 2015

pmark is comprised of several, originally independent episodes, including the Passion Narrative and seem to be uneven in terms of their historical accurancy as we would expect.

LM Barre · Oct 4, 2015

LM Barre said:
pmark is comprised of several, originally independent episodes, including the Passion Narrative and seem to be uneven in terms of their historical accurancy as we would expect.

On the centurion's assessment of Jesus as a son of God, I found this in Wikipedia in the article on the Gospel of Mark:

In Hellenistic culture, in contrast, the phrase meant a "divine man," covering heros like Hercules, god-kings like Egyptian Pharaohs, or famous philosophers like Plato.

LM Barre · Oct 5, 2015

Lukamu said:
Thank you for your comparison of pMark's version and the classic Tragic Hero - they do align if I've understood your explanation, and so your original post makes more sense to me.
How historically accurate do you believe pMark's story to be: 100% true or less than 100% true?
What about the supernatural events in pMark's account? Casting out demons, the darkness at noon, the tearing of the veil in two? Are these factual events, or are they fictional events that add to the elements of the Tragic Hero story?

If pMark's version is indeed the full story, then the Tragic Hero description fits. However, Jesus' tragic demise on the cross is the penultimate step of his ascension into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father until his return, as prophesied in both the Old and New Testament scriptures.

If you could address one question for me: why did pMark write his gospel?

Here is my version of the pre-Markan Passion Narrative:

Http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biblical_scholarship/conversations/messages/196

SkyWriting · Oct 5, 2015

LM Barre said:
He is cruelly mocked for his verbal mistake.

So you're sitting in court explaining yourself,
and either the judge, the jury, the lawyers,
or the people of the gallery cruelly mock you.

Does that add validity to the complaint?

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

LM Barre said:
My study of the Gospel of Mark led me to the conclusion that there is indeed an earlier version of Mark contained within the Gospel. This earlier version of the Gospel is mostly now called "pMark. It concludes with the so-called " Passion Narrative" which I think ends in 15:39 with the centurion's assessment of Jesus. This of course excludes the final two episodes of the burial of Jesus and the empty tomb.

The PN has also received Markan expansions. When removed, I find that Jesus is portrayed as a messianic pretender who embodies the characteristics of the classic tragic hero. The author rejects the notion altogether of a coming Messiah who would initiate the supernatural establishment of the Messianic Age where Jesus is installed as king in Jerusalem.

The climax of the story comes at Jesus' trial when he is asked by the high priest if he thinks he is the Messiah. Jesus boldly declares that indeed he is. Then he backs his claim with this statement: "And you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.". Here is alludes to the fullest and clearest Messianic prophesy of Dan 7:13-14.

Since this is something that the high priest will see, Jesus meant that he (and everybody else) are about to see a supernatural establishment of the Messianic Age! In this way Jesus' claim to be the Messiah would indeed be proven. Indeed, this is why Jesus usurped the authority of the high priest when he cleansed the temple. By what authority? Royal authority...Messianic authority. Jesus was convinced that a material Kingdom of God was now being established and Jesus acted as he thought he should...as the promised Messiah.

Alas, the end of the story finds that no establishment of the Messianic occurred so that when he felt death coming on, he cried, " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Then he let out a loud cry and then died.

Why did Jesus cry out in anguish? I submit that he did so when realized why he was forsaken, why he was not established as the ruling Messiah as he expected in his answer to the high priest. According to his own thinking, it meant that he was not the Messiah. John was wrong. Thus Jesus was added to a list of Messianic Pretenders. Indeed, it may have instantly driven to insanity. In any event the story only states that Jesus loudly cried out just before he perished. So the essence of the plot has Jesus move from extreme confidence that he was the Messiah and that the prophesy in Daniel was to soon be fulfilled to a resent to extreme disappointment and a mos painful conclusion that he was a messianic pretender. His death made the conclusion abundantly clear and inescapable.

Finally, we have the assessment, the epiphany of the Roman centurion. He declares that Jesus was either "The Son of God," a Christian proclamation, or "a son of a god," a Roman assessment of Jesus as divine man." A "divine man" was usually refered to as a theos aner. Even so, given the portrayal of Jesus, one that regarded the notion of a Jewish mythological false notion, it seems that the author, having rejected and illustrated the wrongness of the Jewish view, offered his Gentile, Roman assessment. No, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, as even Jesus was forced to realized. He was instead, what Romans made of him. He was, among others, a "Divine Man," a Tragic Hero whose fatal flaw was his belief in a coming Messiah which he mistakenly thought he was.

To what degree is this portrayal historical? On the one hand, it is an artful, even an Aristolean story of a Tragic Hero. On the other, its intention seems to be to this Jesus of Nazareth to a Roman audience primarily. Did the author have access to the events he "reports?" I can only surmise that it is possible that he did witness or learn of what actually happened to Jesus from his arrest to his death. But I must confess that on this question I am speculating even though I find it to be a realistic account of the issues .that surrounded the fate of this Jesus. Another reason that I lean in this direction is because the words, eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani bear the marks of an authentic saying of Jesus and they are central to the plot of the story.

I look forward to what others think on this question

It seems to me this idea (which has been discussed at book length in "This Tragic Gospel" and which has fast becoming a cliche of liberal postmodern theology) is the sort of thing Unitarian Universalists would get excited about, but it stands in opposition to the tradition of the early church and has the effect of isolating and devaluing Mark.

What is more, it also attempts to evaluate Mark using contemporary methods of literary criticism that are quite inapplicable to the first century. The first known work of fiction identifiable as a novel dates from the first century, the rather obscene Satyricon of Petronius the Arbiter (which has the effect of confirming thr worst fears about the rampant sexual immorality of Rome during the early Empire). So it seems to me silly to even attempt to apply modern literary criticism to a society which had only just invented the novel, and then primarilynas a form of inappropriate contentography. Our concept of a tragic hero depends on a knowledge of Shakespeare, Milton and other writers working with a sophistication unimaginable to the ancient Romans, who did have Virgil and Greek tragedy, but these works were simplistic, whereas the literary sophistication required to conceive of Jesus Christ as a tragic hero I think was simply unavailable to someone like Mark, considering that even the accounts of the death of Socrates fall short of the critical standard such a conception of Mark requires.

My contention is that if Plato and Xenophon were unable to intentionally render a historic event with the sort of tragic pathos that Mark would imply if we subscribed to the theory advocated in "This Tragic Gospel" or the OP, then such narrative technique would be entirely unavailable to someone like St. Mark the Evangelist, living as he did outside of the rarified world of Roman literature.

Lastly, despite enormous efforts on the part of the author of "This Tragic Gospel" to discredit it, the Gospel of John remains highly regarded as the apex, narratively and stylistically, of the New Testament, and this has the effect of disrupting the position of the OP regarding Mark, in that if one adopts a view of the Gospels as fictionalized accounts of the life of Christ, then John comes out ahead narratively, whereas if one piously recognizes their accuracy, then the superior prose of John coupled with the intense doctrinal content suggests that Mark was simply a less developed precursor, an initial attempt if you will of conveying the life of Christ in a written form, and this tends to invalidate the idea that Mark was intentionally styling our Lord asma tragic figure on the basis of Greek drama et cetera.

pMark's portrayal of Jesus

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Active Member

The Librarian

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

The Librarian

Pray For Brussels!

Similar threads