The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

169 Pages·2010·3.03 MB·English

by  R.G.Price

The Gospel of Mark
As Reaction and Allegory
R.G. Price
rationalrevolution.net
Copyright © 2007 by R.G. Price
www.rationalrevolution.net
This work contains a modified republication of the following previously published article:
The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory - © 2007
2
Contents
Preface..........................................................................................................5
Introduction....................................................................................................7
Methods and Materials..................................................................................9
Allusion and Symbolism in the Gospel of Mark...........................................11
Significant Examples of Literary Allusion................................................. 13
Examining the Gospel of Mark in Detail......................................................25
Mark I.................................................................................................................25
Mark II................................................................................................................33
Mark III...............................................................................................................39
Mark IV...............................................................................................................43
Mark V................................................................................................................47
Mark VI...............................................................................................................53
Mark VII..............................................................................................................63
Mark VIII.............................................................................................................69
Mark IX...............................................................................................................77
Mark X................................................................................................................83
Mark XI...............................................................................................................89
Mark XII..............................................................................................................95
Mark XIII...........................................................................................................105
Mark XIV..........................................................................................................115
Mark XV...........................................................................................................135
Mark XVI..........................................................................................................145
Analysis of the Analysis.............................................................................147
Development of the Other Gospels...........................................................151
Summary and Conclusion.........................................................................163
3
About the Cover
The cover of this book is composed of an
image of a relief from the Arch of Titus
overlaid on top of an image of the last
chapter of the Gospel of Mark from the
Codex Vaticanus.
The Arch of Titus is a famous Roman arch
that was built to commemorate the victory of
the emperor Titus over the Jews in 70 CE.
The relief shown on the cover depicts the
sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of
the Temple.
The Codex Vaticanus was produced in the
4th century and is the oldest complete
manuscript of the Christian Bible. The ending
of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex
Vaticanus is shorter than the canonical
ending today. The Gospel of Mark ends at
16:8 in the Codex Vaticanus, as well as in
other early manuscripts. In later versions it
was extended to 16:19.
4
Preface
This book is largely a follow-up and companion piece to my previous book, Jesus - A
Very Jewish Myth. At the same time this book stands on its own and is in some ways
much more significant than Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth. The implications of this book are,
I think, more easily and broadly applicable. While this book does contribute evidence to
the argument that Jesus never existed, this book by itself cannot make that case and by
itself does not necessarily lead to that conclusion.
I began work on this piece really with a hypothesis, which I was not certain would fully
pan out, but which I had been reasonably confident in for over a year. The hypothesis
developed during the writing of Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth and a cursory exploration of it
is presented in that work. The hypothesis is basically that the entirety of the Gospel of
Mark can be, and is best, explained as an allegory based on the Hebrew scriptures. To this
hypothesis I added that the works of Paul were also used by the writer of the Gospel of
Mark as well.
After giving this a cursory investigation in Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth I decided to
investigate this fully to see if in fact every detail of the Gospel of Mark could be explained
in such a way. The exploration of this hypothesis has actually exceeded my expectations
and I feel that my hypothesis has been confirmed and my case has been made.
The main case that is made in this book is that the Gospel of Mark is a purely fictional
work and that the Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Romans in 70 CE. The implication is that not only does the narrative of the Gospel
of Mark lack any historical truth, but it is also not based on traditions or oral history that
supposedly contained the facts of the life of Jesus.
This case is made because the narrative scenes in the Gospel of Mark can be shown to be
explicitly tied to the destruction of Jerusalem, which means that these scenes were
specifically crafted with this event in mind, which means that they cannot be based on
traditions or stories or oral histories that existed before the destruction of Jerusalem.
The other major case that is presented in this book is the idea that the writer of the Gospel
of Mark was a follower of a Pauline sect of early Christ worshipers and that this writer
was familiar with the writings of Paul and that in fact many of the scenes in the Gospel of
Mark are based on the writings of Paul.
The implication here is that the similarities between the Gospel of Mark and the writings
of Paul are not due to different people independently recording the same historical facts,
the similarities between these works are due to the fact that the writer of the latter based
his work on the writings of the former. This reveals not "Jesus" as the source of the
teachings in the Gospel of Mark, but Paul, a man whose only "contact" with Jesus was
supposedly through "visions".
5
6
Introduction
For most of Christian history the Gospel of Mark was the least appreciated Gospel and
viewed as the least significant. This is partly because the Gospel of Mark is the shortest
Gospel, was not viewed as an eyewitness account, contains the least significant
theological constructs, lacks any mention of the birth or origin of Jesus, paints the least
flattering image of the disciples, and was believed to have been written after the Gospel of
Matthew. This changed, however, in the 18th century when the theory of Markan priority
was first proposed. Since that time there has been a growing interest in the Gospel of Mark
and its status has changed from being viewed as the least significant Gospel to far and
away the most significant Gospel, if not the most significant Christian writing period, and
arguably the single most influential writings of all time.
The importance of the Gospel of Mark is elevated all the more not simply because it was
certainly written before the others, but indeed because all of the other canonical Gospels
are based on it. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are directly based on the Gospel of
Mark, and this is now widely accepted among Biblical scholars. Because of this, these
three Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels.
There is debate, however, as to whether or not the Gospel of John was influenced by the
Synoptic Gospels. It was long accepted that it was, even before the Synoptic Problem was
outlined, but some apologists have tried to argue that John is a fully independent work,
which was not influenced by the Synoptics. This argument has gained favor among
Christian apologists in an attempt to strengthen the Gospel tradition by asserting that the
Gospels do still contain independent accounts of the life of Jesus, as was believed prior to
the outlining of the Synoptic Problem, which showed that, unlike the traditional belief, at
least the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were not independent accounts, and thus not
eyewitness accounts. I will argue here, however, that the Gospel of John was also
influenced by the Synoptic works as well.
Another significant realization of modern scholarship about the Gospel of Mark is that it
was written during or shortly after the conquering of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem
by the Romans in 70 CE. That the Gospel of Mark was written during or shortly after the
war between the Jews and Romans that spanned from 67 to 73 CE is widely accepted by
modern scholars and supported by internal evidence from within the work, based partly on
the descriptions of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Mark 13.
What most Biblical scholars have failed to do, however, is fully recognize the significance
of the destruction of Jerusalem in relation to the Gospel of Mark. Most Biblical scholars
simply view the destruction of Jerusalem as a reference point in time in relation to which
the Gospel of Mark can be dated, simply an event on a timeline, but few actually put the
Gospel of Mark in the context of the Jewish War. This is because most Biblical scholars
view all of the Gospels as being "about Jesus". For them Jesus is the subject, Jesus is the
7
impetus, Jesus is the driving factor behind the writing of the Gospels. If you were to ask
most Biblical scholars why the Gospels were written the answer would invariably be, "In
order to record the life and teachings of Jesus Christ." The Gospel of Mark is viewed no
differently than the other Gospels in this regard. Why was the Gospel of Mark written
according to Christians? In order to record the life and teaching of Jesus of course...
Well, not so. At least, what I propose and hope to demonstrate is that this is not so. I will
demonstrate that the Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of
Jerusalem, and that the destruction of Jerusalem is not simply an event which can be used
to date the writing, but that the destruction of Jerusalem was the impetus for the writing of
the Gospel of Mark, that it is central to understanding the Gospel of Mark, and that the
narrative of the Gospel of Mark is rooted in symbolism about the destruction of Jerusalem.
I will here argue that the author of the Gospel of Mark was writing a fictional story and
that the author himself knew that Jesus was not a real person, but rather the author was
using Jesus as a fictional character in an intentionally fictional and allegorical narrative.
I hope to demonstrate the following key points:
• The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
CE
• The Gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical fiction
• The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
• The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
• The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus
• Almost all the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are symbolic and/or literary allusions
to the Hebrew scriptures
• The author of Mark regarded the earlier Jewish oriented Christ movement as a
failure
Throughout history many scholars have considered the Gospel of Mark a puzzling, and at
times incoherent, work. This is yet another reason why this Gospel was so little regarded
for so long, but what I hope to demonstrate here is that confusion over the Gospel of Mark
stems from supposing that it is something which it is not, and that once you realize that the
Gospel of Mark was not written as a foundational religious document at all, but that it was
written as an allegorical story to portray the Judean Jews and the early Christian apostles
as fools who brought destruction upon themselves, then the work makes perfect sense.
As a story that was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem the Gospel of Mark
is a story of absurdity and despair. This story of loss, despair, and destruction was only
later transformed into a story of hope and resurrection by the later Gospel writers, and by
those who edited the Gospel of Mark and added the portions after Mark 16:8. Indeed, the
Gospel of Mark may have been written by a disaffected ex-Christian who viewed the
Christian movement in general as a failure. That such a bizarre and disaffected story
would have become the basis for the other narratives which portray a life of Jesus (the
other Gospels) can only indicate the sheer lack of other biographical material.
8
Methods and Materials
The majority of this work and analysis is based simply on the Biblical texts themselves.
The primary Bible translation used for this analysis was the NRSV (New Revised
Standard Version). As a secondary translation I also used the NIV (New International
Version). For the "Old Testament" scriptures I also heavily used the Septuagint,
specifically the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). My primary Biblical
reference was the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible.
All Bible quotations presented in this article are from the NRSV unless otherwise
specified. In addition, I make use of the translational notes and will often substitute the
text from the notes in place of the text that is found within the body of the translation
because the notes are often more accurate. What is typically presented in the body is either
a more traditional reading (even though such a reading is not supported by the best or
earliest manuscripts) or a reading that is altered in order to achieve a certain effect that is
intended by the compliers of the translation. For example the NRSV often uses "brothers
and sisters" in places where the real texts use only "brothers", or in some places they
substitute the word "servant" for "slave", etc. In the quotations I present I use the text that
is deemed more likely to be closer to the original based on what the notes say.
Deciding how to make comparisons between passages from the Gospel of Mark and the
"Old Testament" can be difficult. This is because nobody knows exactly what translations
the author of Mark may have had access to or used. Furthermore, it is impossible to know
what variations of the texts could have been in the materials that the author of Mark used.
Even, for example, if we know that the author of Mark used the Septuagint, the Greek
translation of the Hebrew scriptures, further variations from our known versions of the
texts could have been present. In addition, the author could have used a mix of both Greek
and Aramaic or Hebrew translations. We simply don't know, and can't know, the exact
wording of the Hebrew scriptures that the author of Mark used, and it has been proposed
by several scholars that the author of Mark did use a combination of both Aramaic and
Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures.
Most modern English versions of the Old Testament (which I also refer to as "the Hebrew
scriptures"), such as the NRSV and NIV, minimize the use of Greek sources and
maximize the use of Hebrew sources in an attempt to construct what is believed to be a
"most accurate" version of the "Old Testament" texts. This may be a valid approach for
trying to construct what is believed to be an accurate translation of "the word of God", but
this is not useful for understanding the texts that the Gospel writers would have been
familiar with since they were most likely using the Septuagint.
When comparing the text of Mark to the Hebrew scriptures I looked first to the
Septuagint, because this is most likely closest to the text that the author of Mark would
have been using. However, since it is possible that he was also using Hebrew / Aramaic
9