Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

BS = Bible Study... Get it?

Moderator: BaldySlaphead

Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby Milo » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:57 pm

I am not a bible scholar nor do I wish to be one. Volumes have been written about the New Testament and I want to avoid being bogged down in detail while still touching on some theories put forth by people like Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong, Earl Doherty, etc. There is not one thing that one scholar has said that another one doesn't contradict. That being said, most agree that Mark was the first of the gospels, written between 65 and 80 AD. Mark, along with Q documents, was the source for Matthew and Luke. Authorship is traditionally given to Mark, the companion of Peter, and was written in Greek.

An important theme of Mark is the Messianic Secret and this will be pointed out as we read the text. The Gospel of Mark may have been written as midrash.

The evangelists did not conceive of their writings as history, he [Spong] declares. Rather, they were stories, never intended to be taken literally, which served to illustrate the meaning of Jesus (that is, the presumed historical Jesus) according to a longstanding Jewish practice. This practice was known as "midrash". In this particular expression of midrash (there are many ways this word and concept can be applied), the writer retold an existing biblical story in a new story and new terms, basing many of its details on specific scriptural passages. Thus Jesus was portrayed as a new Moses, in settings and with features which paralleled the stories of Moses; he was represented as performing actions such as "cleansing the Temple" which embodied ideas expressed in prophets such as Zechariah. In this way, all the significances and associations of the older context would automatically be soaked up by the new one. To the knowledgeable reader or listener, a story or anecdote modelled on an identifiable prototype in scripture would convey a meaning and inspiration far deeper and more detailed than that contained in the simple words themselves. This was the power of midrash.

Review of LIBERATING THE GOSPELS Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, by John Shelby Spong, written by Earl Doherty http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/spongrev.htm

It has also been theorised that Mark was written as liturgy to be read aloud according to yearly cycles of ritual and celebration in the early church.

I will use the King James version and consult other translations as needed. Hopefully this will go quickly and we will knock out the first gospel in record time. If anyone is still reading by then, we can decide to go back to the Old Testament or finish the gospels.
Stop doubting and beleive Milo. Then everything will make sense.
User avatar
Milo
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:17 pm

Milo wrote:...There is not one thing that one scholar has said that another one doesn't contradict.


So true.



Milo wrote:That being said, most agree that Mark was the first of the gospels, written between 65 and 80 AD.


I've quoted John MacArthur here:
"The first one that was written was Matthew.
The next one that was written was Mark.
And then came Luke.
And about 30 years later, around 90 A.D., the gospel of John"


Not proof of anything. Not a challenge. I'm just agreeing with you.
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby MaxFF » Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:28 pm

Thus Jesus was portrayed as a new Moses, in settings and with features which paralleled the stories of Moses


I read something similar, which I wish I remembered where so I could link it. Anyway, rather than Jesus being a new Moses, it said he was a new Joshua, because the name is the same in Hebrew. Now I really wish I had the link to that because it was interesting, but it was more than just the name I think. Oh well, never mind, I don't have a link or a good enough memory.
It's obvious that guns are the work of an omniscient creator, how else would they fit perfectly into the human hand
-Stephen Colbert on the topic of god given second amendment rights.
User avatar
MaxFF
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:48 am
Location: Canada, eh

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby Milo » Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:41 pm

@ freed

I assume you made a typo because it sounds like you agree with John MacArthur and not with me. Or were you just giving me an example of another opinion?
Stop doubting and beleive Milo. Then everything will make sense.
User avatar
Milo
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby E-lad » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:40 pm

Milo wrote:@ freed

I assume you made a typo because it sounds like you agree with John MacArthur and not with me. Or were you just giving me an example of another opinion?


I also noticed the incongruity.

Freed cannot agree with you and MacArthur at the same time.

I'm sure it is merely a typo.

However, anyone that supports the "Matthew first" scenario is far far away from Christian and Secular scholars alike.
The vast majority of bible scholars have come to the conclusion that Mark was written first.
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:45 pm

Milo wrote:@ freed

I assume you made a typo because it sounds like you agree with John MacArthur and not with me. Or were you just giving me an example of another opinion?



No, I was just giving you an example of another opinion.
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby rufustfirefly » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:01 am

John MacArthur actually believes that the gospels were written in the order in which they appear now in the NT?
User avatar
rufustfirefly
 
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby Vagon » Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:16 am

I think we should ask David Barton.
"Jesus said its gonna be alright; he's gonna pack my bags so I can walk in the light; you don't mind if I abuse myself so I can hold my head up?" The Choirboys
User avatar
Vagon
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:44 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby rufustfirefly » Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:12 am

I think we should ask David Barton.


I'm sure Barton would happen to pull something out of his ass for us.



I am not a bible scholar nor do I wish to be one.


Hector Avalos, in The End of Biblical Studies, asks why all this attention on the Bible? There are numerous ancient texts that could be studied. Let's move on.
User avatar
rufustfirefly
 
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:23 am

rufustfirefly wrote:John MacArthur actually believes that the gospels were written in the order in which they appear now in the NT?



Evidently. I copied that from a written copy of one of his sermons.

Further in his sermon, is this:
"Somewhere between 50 and 60, Matthew writes.
Somewhere around 60-61, Luke writes.
In 90 John writes.
And you can slip Mark in there between Matthew and Luke, perhaps in the late 50's.

I didn't intend to get stuck on this point other than to agree with what Milo wrote, but I have to ask,
does it really matter who wrote what first?
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

Next

Return to SMRT BS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron