THE TRADITIONAL |
GOSPEL OF MARK |
Copyright Protected © 1991 by K.L.M. Kathel |
|
There are no miracle birth scenarios in Mark's Gospel; no babes leaping for joy, no divine genealogies, and no supernatural endings. Never once are we told about Jesus' early childhood. Nor are we ever told that his father was a carpenter named Joseph. When Mark begins his Gospel Jesus is presented to the reader a man; and by the frequently used term the 'son of man', he will remain so throughout; at all times displaying such human qualities as love, empathy, compassion, rebellion, anger, fear and doubt. The Codex Sinaticus Yet ever since Richard Tischendorf's discovery of the Codex Sinaticus in 1859, and his subsequent publication of it in 1863, theologians, scholars and historians have broken the traditional precepts by telling us that Mark, chapter one verse one does not contain the phrase 'Son of God' and that Mark chapter sixteen ends with the words; "But they going out, fled from the sepulchre. For a trembling and fear had seized them: and they said nothing to any man; for they were afraid." (Mk 16:8). It would appear then, that Mark's Gospel is in direct opposition to three of the most important tenants of Christianity; Christ-hood, ascension and resurrection. Without those basic foundations, Jesus is not God incarnate, nor does he have the supernatural ability to raise himself from the dead. This is a most impressive realization because the fourth century discovery at Saint Catherine's monastery in Mount Sinai makes it the oldest surviving Greek text of the entire New Testament. Based upon the authority of a recent Roman Catholic Study Bible, sanctioned by Pope Paul II, the additional twelve verses have come to be known as the 'Longer Ending' (New American Bible, pp 1140). They were inserted in the second century by a presbyter named Ariston; and even though they appear in Saint Jerome's 5th century masterpiece, were finally approved by the Council of Trent in the mid 1500's and with the exception of Tischendorf's 'Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum', faithfully reproduced in almost every Catholic and Protestant bible ever since. According to the 'Secrets of Mount Sinai', by James Bentley, for example, a fourth century scribe brought Mark's Gospel to a close with a fine artistic squiggle after Mk 16:8, and then addedthe words 'The Gospel According To Mark' (pp 139). Bentley also points out that scribal markings styled after the manner of the 'Canons' of Eusebius suggest a dating of A.D. 340 (ibid., pp 118-119). Historically that would place the Codex Sinaticus approximately fifteen years after the Council of Nicaea A. D 325, Catholicism as the official religion of the Roman Empire and the formation of the Nicene Creed. The Priority of Mark In his History of the Church, Eusebius (AD. 260-339) records that Mark was Peter's interpreter and that his Gospel was based upon the recollections of Peter. Nothing could be further from the truth, for there is nothing in Mark's Gospel that would tend to suggest that Mark was Peter's interpreter. And although Peter was Jesus' constant companion, in the end he not only denies him three times, he deserts him; for "he went forth" (Mk 14:66). Presumably to Galilee (Mk 16:7). The question must be raised; if Peter stood outside the courtroom during Jesus' trial, then how is it that the inner proceedings are fully accounted for in Mark's Gospel? Certainly not by Peter, because he was "far below" (Mk 14:66) and could not have overheard. Reason dictates:
That Mark was Jesus's interpreter, there can be no doubt, for none save a man trained in matters of observation could have provided us with an accurate time-table of the events which had their statistical beginning with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. The exact timing of which probably coincided with Mark meeting Jesus for the very first time. Like no other writer before him, Mark and Mark alone has provided us with dates, times and events, even unto the last quarter hour. True his entire Gospel has become an religious record of events from baptism to revival, and also true may be the fact that Jesus died sometime after the crucifixion, but the events leading up to the Jesus' trial belong solely to Mark's recollection. That is to say, with the exception of Jesus' Galilean travels. Dating Mark Christian Theology Christian theology is also dependant upon Saint Paul's salvation through Christ Jesus; and the divine Son-ship of John's Christ. But most of all, Christian theology is dependant upon the word Christ as defined by the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholicism is also dependant upon the special discipleship of Peter as portrayed in Matthew's gospel. Protestantism is not. Mark on the other hand presented a totally different view of Jesus. He starts out as a man in need of salvation and ends up as a martyred king. Emphasis is placed on two major themes; baptism and king-ship. In his epistles Saint Paul freely admits that he was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:29). In Acts 17:23, he writes; ""For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an alter also, on which was written: To an unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you." Since Saint Paul spoke and wrote in the Greek it is highly likely that the word Christ was first used by him. John's divine genealogy of Jesus begins with the words; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God" (Jn 1:1-5) and ends with the words of divine Son-ship; "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (Jn 1:14). Accordingly, Son-ship is a direct emanation of God and even precedes Luke's descendancy from Adam. Yet this logos freely admits that John the Baptist was a man sent from God (Jn 1:6); but then he downplays Mark's importance of him by telling us that John came for a witness to give testimony of the light (Jn 1:7). "John beareth witness of him," crieth John's John in verse fifteen. Certainly not because of the words: the 'only begotten of the Father', because these words come directly from the fourth century Nicene Creed. Mark's Premise A Synopsis of Mark Soon afterwards, Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem. There is a triumphant entry on a colt; three visits to the Temple; a Bethanian dinner and a pre-anointing by an unidentified woman. What follows next is described traditionally as the passion scene; a Passover dinner, an arrest, a trial, a sentencing by Pilate, a Roman crucifixion, a kingly proclamation; and without the 'Longer Ending' a revival and a disappearance. During his Galilean travels disciples are collected. Three are given top priority; Simon called Peter, and the brothers James and John. Twelve are named but only these three are witnesses to the transfiguration. And although Peter calls him the Messiah (Mk 8:29), two verses later he rebukes Jesus. Jesus responds with a sharp reprimand, saying: "Go behind me Satan, because thou savourest not the things of God, but that are of men." (Mk 8:33). After his arrival in Jerusalem, and during the passion scene, one man denies him; one betrays him; and all twelve desert him. Here again, it is Peter who denies Jesus. Hardly the man Catholicism portrays as the foundation of the Church, for nowhere in Mark's Gospel do we see the Peterian phrase: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," (Mt 16:18). Two Miracles Both miracles are viewed as a anointing of Spirit. The baptism is described as a descent of Holy Spirit and that Spirit was disguised as a dove. The transfiguration is also described as a descent of Holy Spirit and that said Spirit was disguised as an all engulfing white light. In both cases a voice came out of the heavens. The baptismal voice said, "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased," (Mk 1:11); and the transfiguatory voice proclaimed, "This is my most beloved son; hear ye him." (Mk 9:6). In the first case, Spirit spoke directly to Jesus. In the latter case, Spirit spoke through Jesus. In both anointings Son-ship is dependant upon the phrase 'my beloved son' but Messiah-ship is based upon authority. In neither of these two miraculous events does Spirit call Jesus, the Messiah (i.e., as our Christ); yet if we look close enough we will notice that the Messianic concept is contained in both anointings. Witnesses were present during both Marcan episodes, but only one was our lord's anointer and only one deserved the title the Lord's Anointed. That man was described in Mark's Gospel as John the Baptist. And even though he was the Anointed One he never received the title John the Christ, (and we do wonder why). Strong evidence of his Godly (i.e., Messianic) authority appears in chapter eleven. When asked the question: "By what authority do you do these things?" (Mk 11:28) Jesus replied: "The Baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men? Answer me." (Mk 11:30). Mark's Gospel seems to rest on this theological point, although kingship is never attributed to John. Presumably because he was killed. Kingship, As a Theme By eliminating the phrase the 'Son of God', for example, Mark's opening sentence would read: This is the gospel of Messiah Jesus. And by eliminating the 'Longer Ending', Mark's concluding message would have been: Our king is alive! Rendered together Mark's message is: This is the story of our king. Messiah-ship is kingship, not Christ-ship; for both concepts are diametrically opposed. For one is a Judaic concept and the other is a latter-day Christian concept. They are not the same! For the Messianic prophesies of the day were calling for the advent of the 'son of David'. This is the correct term that we should be looking for, and not the quote/unquote 'Son of God'. For Mark, kingship rest on four major scenarios: 1). The Baptism 2). The Transfiguration 3). The Pre-anointing 4). The Proclamation by Pilate Seen in this light, we should understand, that the verdict of the Chief Priest who condemned Jesus should not be interpreted in our Christian sense, for neither Jesus nor any of his peers believed in a Christianized or in a Romanized God --- unless of course they be blasphemers. So that the Chief Priest could not have possibly have asked him if he were the Christ the Son of the blessed God? For neither Christianity nor the word Christ made its appearance until the writings of Saint Paul and those of the fourth gospel writer, for these are the only writers who wrote directly from the Greek. In other words, if the Chief Priest accused him of anything, he was being accused by his enemies as if he were the Messiah, and not as the Christ. There is a difference. There is also a major difference when we understand that Mark wrote in defense of Jesus and not to condemn him. To say otherwise, is to agree with the inhumane verdict of the Chief Priest who delivered him to Pilate for sentencing. An Author's Line My line I drew not after sixteen point eight but at Mark one point fourteen. For the Song of Mark is based upon the premise that Mark, six point seventeen along with John's entire death scene belongs in the beginning of Mark's Gospel, setting as it were a primary factori'. Because of this major change it was necessary to reevaluate the prophesies of Isaias and Malachi, and to place John at the center of Mark's Gospel and to show that Jesus did indeed walk in John's footsteps. It is our contention that Mark's Gospel was so tampered with, that invaluable information on the lives of both John the Baptist and Jesus were either discarded or misplaced out of chronological order. One might say, in an attempt to make a fish's tail longer. We like so many, on the other hand would like to restore Mark's Gospel back to its original status. |
~~~@~~~ |
|
|
|
Pages Created and Maintained by Cosmeta® |
|
Copyright © 1997 |
|
All Rights Reserved |
|
