PART A
MARK'S THEOLOGY REFLECTED IN WRITING
Mark and the other evangelists used basically five ways to change, edit or enhance
Jesus' sayings to reflect their own views of Christianity. According to the Five Gospels
Book, plagiarism and changing of writing was not a crime, but actually very common Mark's
time. Besides, Mark never knew Jesus first-hand, he somehow had to make a 'story' from
basically Hearsay!
Mark groups different parables and sayings of Jesus by topic; making a false
impression that these things happened in order. This may have little effect on changing the
meaning of the lesson, however it illustrates the fact that Mark was trying to author a
"readable" story for people, rather than a book of facts. The best example would be in
Mark 10:17-31 (Jesus Counsel to the Rich) & (Parable of The Camel and the Eye of a
Needle). It is doubtful that these things happened at the same time; however, they are
GREY in The Five Gospels anyway ... and probably didn't happen as Mark describes. This
brings us to Mark's writing style.
Mark seems to "tack-on" sentences to Jesus' teachings to make them more
"Christian." This really changes the meaning more than any other tactic! Who knows what
Mark may have edited-out to accomplish what he wanted to impress upon his readers? In
this, he tries to interpret the meaning of Jesus' actions ... and does this in a misleading way!
For example: Mark 2:19, Jesus regarding Fasting. Jesus makes a strong statement against
importance to fasting, but Mark (in 2:20) tags on:
"But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them,
and they will fast in those days."
This blatantly shows that Mark held higher regard for the Old Traditions of Fasting
rather than Jesus' new teachings! This is also an example of "Christianizing Jesus" according
to traditions that have already earned respect from Jews in their tradition. (Wow, this is
starting to sound like a fight between Today's Political Parties, isn't it?! [Jesus = Liberal
Politics / Judaism = Conservative Politics]).
Finally, Mark likes to "soften the blow" of Jesus' Hard sayings. He does this for
probably the same reason Paul preached that Circumcision was not required for Christians.
A good example is The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:28-). Jesus clearly states that words
against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable. However, Mark adds that "all things are possible
with God," which softens this harsh rule!
MARK & THE PAROUSIA
Mark lived during the Jewish War of 66-70 ADE. Unlike the later evangelists,
Matthew and Luke, Mark believed the Parousia was upon us, about to happen at any time!
And, for obvious reason: he lived in an extremely troubled time for the Jews, and he had
not been worried yet by the Parousia's delay as were later evangelists.
Mark 13:4 - 'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all
these things will be fulfilled?' According to Mark's writing, Jesus first predicts the
destruction of the Temple. However, Mark had written after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 ADE! This tactic agrees with The Five Gospels: writing apocalyptic sayings of Jesus
after they have already been "fulfilled." I would suppose he did this to give credit to his
writing of the second coming of God.
An example is the parable of The Fig Tree in Mark 13:28-37. This addition,
obviously written by Mark and not said by Jesus, shows the urgency in which Mark expected
the parousia:
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these
things take place."
You can easily see why the other evangelists, Matthew, Luke & John, re-wrote
Mark's apocalyptic writing to be more of a "Sacred Time," and less definite.
Mark used a common tactic of quoting scripture (especially Dan, Isa, Mic & some
Psalms) for his apocalyptic writing. We also saw this in Paul's letters years before. People
regarded scripture as fact, therefore a perfect tool to give credit to Mark's & Paul's new
writing!
Our own culture today is wrapped-up in tradition and Bible quotes as undisputable
fact, even though people twist these things to promote their own interests! My own family
justifies their hatred for gays by quoting the Bible; they justify a "Woman's Place" by using
the Bible; they justify their racism through the Bible (saying that "Love your Brother" could
only possibly refer to people of your own color, because your brother could not possibly be
of another color); they justify violent punishment for criminals by using the Bible; they
choose their political party according to their actions being as conservative as the Bible.
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish that my own community was not still
living in the dark-ages.
PART B
THE PARABLE: THE UNFORGIVING SLAVE
This parable reflects a part of our American Lifestyle that is very Un-Jesus! Our
culture, our government and our judiciary system thrives on punishment; at least we don't
still have debtors' prison!
Contrary to Mark's interpretation of this parable, I belive it represents a type of
perfect love for one's neighbor that is reflected in Jesus' Kingdom of God. Rather than
forcing a rule upon the reader, as Mark does, Jesus meant it to be a story where the listener
may choose an appropriate mode of behavior; for forgiveness cannot be compromised
without undesirable consequences.
Instead, Mark adds a Threat to the end of the parable (which is obviously NOT the
words of Jesus)!
"That's what your heavenly Father will do to you, unless you find it in your heart
to forgive ..."
I find in many examples that Jesus wanted to have his followers think for
themselves, and make choices according to their own conscious; He only made sayings and
parables to aid followers in finding the truth for themselves (much like Socrate's tactic for
the finding of Truth or Justice).
Mark, for his own reasons, felt that it was his duty to attach every saying of Jesus
with a command or threat ... therefore making God seem vindictive!
CONCLUSION: COMPARISON TO MY FIRST PAPER
I remember that when I wrote my first paper, I made a point to discuss quotes from
Jesus that seemed foreign to my traditional feeling for Jesus. I wanted to see something in
Jesus that I never knew before! Well, I was surprised to find that these same quotes turned-
up to be mostly Pink in the Five Gospels (some grey, but no black)!
My first quote of Jesus was from Matthew 12:49-50; Jesus refers to the multitudes as
his mother and brothers. This turned-up pink in the Five Gospels. I thought that this
quote represented Jesus as a God on a equal level with his followers, creating a sense of
community (I think that if Jesus were around today (and wasn't in an asylum), he would be a
Communist). To me, this contradicts today's church of authority, having Bishops, Deacons,
etc.
Next, I quoted a few of Jesus' words to live by in chapters 6 and 7 of Matthew.
Most of these quotes turned up pink, however a few were mixed with grey, showing the
additions of Matthew's redaction. I noted in my paper that I felt these rules were simple &
logical ways to lead a happy and loving lifestyle, rather than hard rules that we are used to.
The next two quotes I used (Matthew 12:13 - Jesus Breaking the Sabbath) (Mark
15:1-15 - Jesus' dealing with P. Pilate) were grey and black in the Five Gospels. The
interesting point to this is that these are the two quotes in which I criticized Jesus' actions. I
made points that I thought Jesus was a hypocrite in preaching to keep Jewish Law, and at
the same time, break the Sabbath! I also seriously questioned Matthew's interpretation that
P. Pilate tried to save Jesus, knowing that Pilate was not a friend to the Jews! It is refreshing
to me to find these quotes in grey & black, because they were very confusing to me in
forming an opinion about Jesus.
I have enjoyed this assignment because I really feel like I am getting to understand
the Historical New Testament! I tested my knowledge of Jesus by reading his quotes from
my New King James Version Bible, and tried to spot additions that were not Jesus', and by
guessing the color of some of his quotes. In checking back with The Five Gospels, I found
myself to be pretty darn accurate! Amazing!
MARK'S THEOLOGY REFLECTED IN WRITING
Mark and the other evangelists used basically five ways to change, edit or enhance
Jesus' sayings to reflect their own views of Christianity. According to the Five Gospels
Book, plagiarism and changing of writing was not a crime, but actually very common Mark's
time. Besides, Mark never knew Jesus first-hand, he somehow had to make a 'story' from
basically Hearsay!
Mark groups different parables and sayings of Jesus by topic; making a false
impression that these things happened in order. This may have little effect on changing the
meaning of the lesson, however it illustrates the fact that Mark was trying to author a
"readable" story for people, rather than a book of facts. The best example would be in
Mark 10:17-31 (Jesus Counsel to the Rich) & (Parable of The Camel and the Eye of a
Needle). It is doubtful that these things happened at the same time; however, they are
GREY in The Five Gospels anyway ... and probably didn't happen as Mark describes. This
brings us to Mark's writing style.
Mark seems to "tack-on" sentences to Jesus' teachings to make them more
"Christian." This really changes the meaning more than any other tactic! Who knows what
Mark may have edited-out to accomplish what he wanted to impress upon his readers? In
this, he tries to interpret the meaning of Jesus' actions ... and does this in a misleading way!
For example: Mark 2:19, Jesus regarding Fasting. Jesus makes a strong statement against
importance to fasting, but Mark (in 2:20) tags on:
"But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them,
and they will fast in those days."
This blatantly shows that Mark held higher regard for the Old Traditions of Fasting
rather than Jesus' new teachings! This is also an example of "Christianizing Jesus" according
to traditions that have already earned respect from Jews in their tradition. (Wow, this is
starting to sound like a fight between Today's Political Parties, isn't it?! [Jesus = Liberal
Politics / Judaism = Conservative Politics]).
Finally, Mark likes to "soften the blow" of Jesus' Hard sayings. He does this for
probably the same reason Paul preached that Circumcision was not required for Christians.
A good example is The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:28-). Jesus clearly states that words
against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable. However, Mark adds that "all things are possible
with God," which softens this harsh rule!
MARK & THE PAROUSIA
Mark lived during the Jewish War of 66-70 ADE. Unlike the later evangelists,
Matthew and Luke, Mark believed the Parousia was upon us, about to happen at any time!
And, for obvious reason: he lived in an extremely troubled time for the Jews, and he had
not been worried yet by the Parousia's delay as were later evangelists.
Mark 13:4 - 'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all
these things will be fulfilled?' According to Mark's writing, Jesus first predicts the
destruction of the Temple. However, Mark had written after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 ADE! This tactic agrees with The Five Gospels: writing apocalyptic sayings of Jesus
after they have already been "fulfilled." I would suppose he did this to give credit to his
writing of the second coming of God.
An example is the parable of The Fig Tree in Mark 13:28-37. This addition,
obviously written by Mark and not said by Jesus, shows the urgency in which Mark expected
the parousia:
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these
things take place."
You can easily see why the other evangelists, Matthew, Luke & John, re-wrote
Mark's apocalyptic writing to be more of a "Sacred Time," and less definite.
Mark used a common tactic of quoting scripture (especially Dan, Isa, Mic & some
Psalms) for his apocalyptic writing. We also saw this in Paul's letters years before. People
regarded scripture as fact, therefore a perfect tool to give credit to Mark's & Paul's new
writing!
Our own culture today is wrapped-up in tradition and Bible quotes as undisputable
fact, even though people twist these things to promote their own interests! My own family
justifies their hatred for gays by quoting the Bible; they justify a "Woman's Place" by using
the Bible; they justify their racism through the Bible (saying that "Love your Brother" could
only possibly refer to people of your own color, because your brother could not possibly be
of another color); they justify violent punishment for criminals by using the Bible; they
choose their political party according to their actions being as conservative as the Bible.
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish that my own community was not still
living in the dark-ages.
PART B
THE PARABLE: THE UNFORGIVING SLAVE
This parable reflects a part of our American Lifestyle that is very Un-Jesus! Our
culture, our government and our judiciary system thrives on punishment; at least we don't
still have debtors' prison!
Contrary to Mark's interpretation of this parable, I belive it represents a type of
perfect love for one's neighbor that is reflected in Jesus' Kingdom of God. Rather than
forcing a rule upon the reader, as Mark does, Jesus meant it to be a story where the listener
may choose an appropriate mode of behavior; for forgiveness cannot be compromised
without undesirable consequences.
Instead, Mark adds a Threat to the end of the parable (which is obviously NOT the
words of Jesus)!
"That's what your heavenly Father will do to you, unless you find it in your heart
to forgive ..."
I find in many examples that Jesus wanted to have his followers think for
themselves, and make choices according to their own conscious; He only made sayings and
parables to aid followers in finding the truth for themselves (much like Socrate's tactic for
the finding of Truth or Justice).
Mark, for his own reasons, felt that it was his duty to attach every saying of Jesus
with a command or threat ... therefore making God seem vindictive!
CONCLUSION: COMPARISON TO MY FIRST PAPER
I remember that when I wrote my first paper, I made a point to discuss quotes from
Jesus that seemed foreign to my traditional feeling for Jesus. I wanted to see something in
Jesus that I never knew before! Well, I was surprised to find that these same quotes turned-
up to be mostly Pink in the Five Gospels (some grey, but no black)!
My first quote of Jesus was from Matthew 12:49-50; Jesus refers to the multitudes as
his mother and brothers. This turned-up pink in the Five Gospels. I thought that this
quote represented Jesus as a God on a equal level with his followers, creating a sense of
community (I think that if Jesus were around today (and wasn't in an asylum), he would be a
Communist). To me, this contradicts today's church of authority, having Bishops, Deacons,
etc.
Next, I quoted a few of Jesus' words to live by in chapters 6 and 7 of Matthew.
Most of these quotes turned up pink, however a few were mixed with grey, showing the
additions of Matthew's redaction. I noted in my paper that I felt these rules were simple &
logical ways to lead a happy and loving lifestyle, rather than hard rules that we are used to.
The next two quotes I used (Matthew 12:13 - Jesus Breaking the Sabbath) (Mark
15:1-15 - Jesus' dealing with P. Pilate) were grey and black in the Five Gospels. The
interesting point to this is that these are the two quotes in which I criticized Jesus' actions. I
made points that I thought Jesus was a hypocrite in preaching to keep Jewish Law, and at
the same time, break the Sabbath! I also seriously questioned Matthew's interpretation that
P. Pilate tried to save Jesus, knowing that Pilate was not a friend to the Jews! It is refreshing
to me to find these quotes in grey & black, because they were very confusing to me in
forming an opinion about Jesus.
I have enjoyed this assignment because I really feel like I am getting to understand
the Historical New Testament! I tested my knowledge of Jesus by reading his quotes from
my New King James Version Bible, and tried to spot additions that were not Jesus', and by
guessing the color of some of his quotes. In checking back with The Five Gospels, I found
myself to be pretty darn accurate! Amazing!