One More Powerful Than I

7 And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Each time I prepare for this study of the Gospel of Mark, I keep being struck by the depth of the material when examining just a couple of verses. Looking at verses seven and eight of the first chapter of Mark, there are a number of themes that can be explored.

• The elevation of Jesus over John
• Baptism as a holiness rite and Jesus as an alternate source of Holiness
• Baptism as a sign of conversion - Gentile audience - non-circumcised
• Baptism with the Holy Spirit - source - allusion to move away from law to the spirit.

Elevating Jesus Over John

In the previous post, we looked at the need for the Gospel writer and his community to elevate Jesus over John and the importance of portraying John as endorsing Jesus as not only carrying on the spirit of his mission, but being its purpose. John was likely a more popular and well known figure than Jesus in the time and place the Gospel was written. Jesus had also likely been a student of John and only twenty years after Jesus' death there may have been those around who remembered this. John was popularly accepted as a figure exemplifying holiness and renewal. His endorsement legitimizes Jesus with the audience and sets the tone that his teaching follows the same vein.

 Baptism As A Holiness Rite

There are also a couple of themes in Mark's Gospel that are introduced here. One of these themes is the presentation of Jesus as an alternate source of holiness and purity to the Jewish people. 

One of the major principles of First Century Second Temple Rabbinical Judaism was holiness. This viewed God's defining attribute as being holy, special, set apart, and pure, as opposed to the baser nature of his creation. The goal of humanity and the chosen of Israel was to imitate God in this regard. In Exodus 22:31, they are told, “You are to be my holy people", and likewise in Exodus 19:6, "you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This ethos can be summed up in the phrase, "be Holy as God is Holy" (Lev. 20:26). As such, much of Judaism saw things in terms of a dichotomy between that which was holy and that which was profane, what was clean and what was unclean, what was pure and what was base. 

The Law centred on separating the people from those objects and behaviours that were considered unclean and would contaminate them, making them unable to approach the holiness of the presence of God. Breaking the purity laws through exposure to blood and other bodily emissions, dead bodies, certain foods, and other items considered to be base, broke the holiness contract between the Hebrew people and God. This contract provided a penalty for breaches in the form of animal sacrifice, but the people were also required to perform ritual cleansing and purification rites to even approach God to make those payments.

Jesus and his followers held a different view on God's defining attribute. As 1 John 4:8 states, "God is love". Jesus portrayed God as a loving intimate parent, his "Abba", or "Poppa". All the law could be summed up and fulfiled with just two commandments, love God, and love others. For Jesus true holiness was found in the principles behind the social laws, not the minutiae of purity practises.

You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. (Matthew 23:23)

The ethos of the followers of The Way, as they called themselves, could be summed up in a different, imitatio Dei, that could be stated as, "be Loving, as God is Loving". Given this, and the description given of early Christian community in Acts, we could expect that the community that the writer of Mark belonged to did not practise many of the purity taboos prescribed by the law. As such, we can imagine that they suffered the scorn and criticism of their more observant neighbours.

Opening the Gospel with a baptism scene could have been a way to reinforce to themselves and those around them that they were not abandoning purity and holiness before God. Jesus and The Way were not anti purity, they just saw it in a different manner. The statement about Jesus coming to baptise the people with the Holy Spirit implies an even greater purifying and holiness.


Baptism As An Initiation Rite
Baptism, along with being a purity rite, was also used by Judaism as an initiation ritual into the Jewish faith. 
Kaufmann Kohler and Samuel Krauss in their article on baptism state that:

According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism 

Given the accounts in Acts of early Christian communities and the fact that the book of Mark spells out some Jewish practise as to someone who was unfamiliar with it, we can be certain that there was a Gentile component to the community of Mark. Again looking to Acts, we see that circumcision was not required for non-Jewish converts as had been demanded in main stream Judaism. With the temple being destroyed, sacrifice was not an option either. This left baptism as the sole initiation ritual for Gentiles entering this sect of Judaism. As such, it would have been important for Christian Gentiles in order to claim to be part of "God's chosen people" and claim the heritage which this entailed. By opening their Gospel with a baptism scene, they could have been reminding themselves, and pointing out to those around them, that they had a legitimate claim to the Jewish faith.

Baptism With The Holy Spirit

Verse eight in today's passage has John testifying that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit. Kohler and Krauss have some insights on this as well:

The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark i. 8; John i. 27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based upon Isa. xii. 3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a).  http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism

John's statement that Jesus would baptise the people with the Holy Spirit introduces another theme in the Gospel; Jesus as one who fulfils and supersedes the Law. This alludes back to the giving of the Law with Moses and the Hebrew people at Mount Siani. The people felt that the presence and Spirit of God was too much for them and asked Moses to be their intermediary.

 18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.” (Exodus 20:18-19)

Moses was anointed with the Holy Spirit as part of his intimacy with the presence of God. After spending time in the presence of God, receiving God's instruction, his face would shine with the radiance of the Holy Spirit. The rest of the people, unable and unwilling to come into God's presence, had to do with God's direction second hand in the poor substitute of the Law.

Jesus, according to this announcement, had come to bring this same Spirit and intimacy as Moses had with God to the people. As such, Jesus, was initiating them with a baptism of the Holy Spirit into an access to the presence of God that made the Law no longer necessary.

Paul's letter to the Galatians was written before the Gospel of Mark. These letters were used by the early Christian communities as part of their liturgy. It is not known if Mark's community had access to this specific letter, but it suggests the thinking of these communities in terms of Jesus and the Law.

4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:4-6)

John the Baptist Appears!

⁴ And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ⁵ The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. ⁶ John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. (Mark 1:4-6 NIV)

Researching context for these verses in the first chapter of Mark, I quickly realised how much I didn't know about first century Jewish practises and ideas and how much information there is that relates to these verses.  I've tried to share my exploration below and provide links to sources of information I've found.

The first thing that strikes me about this passage is the phrase, "appeared in the wilderness".  This makes me think of the tradition of Tanakh (Old Testament) prophets who spent time in the wilderness receiving special revelations from God that they brought back to the people.  I believe that the author of the Gospel is casting John in that role in order to give credibility to his endorsement of Jesus later in the chapter.  The word "wilderness" also reminds me of the forty years in the wilderness of the Hebrew people where the writers of Exodus illustrated the people experiencing a special presence and direction from God.

The next part of the passage discusses John's practice of baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the crowds of people that went to be baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Researching this, I found that being baptized in the Jordan is still popular and is presently a tourist industry.  I found a site advertising vacation packages that includes this for faith based group  travel to the Holy land.

https://www.yourfuturegrouptravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Jordan-River-Baptismal-Site.jpg

Experience what Jesus Christ did with John the Baptist baptized him in the Jordan River on your faith based group travel to the Holy Land booking on www.yourfuturetravel.com or Personalized Services International Travel Agency.

https://www.yourfuturegrouptravel.com/?attachment_id=749

Two good sources for explaining baptism in First Century Judaism are an article by Kaufmann Kohler, Samuel Krauss at the "Jewish Encyclopedia" web site and an article from Christianity Today by Steven Gertz

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/mar14.html

Ritual washing in First Century Judaism was an entrance requirement for going to the Temple to perform sacrifice in order to meet part of the laws of ritual purity found in Leviticus.  There were a number of ritual impurities that could be contracted through such acts as touching a corpse or a leper that required ritual washing before being allowed to visit the Temple.  Total immersion was felt to be a requirement by many Rabbis connecting it with the sanctification practice of the Israelites before the Revelation on Mt. Sinai in the book of Exodus. 

Ceremonial washing or baptism in the Jordan River was felt to confer a special level of ritual purity and cleansing.  There is a story in Judaism of Adam standing up to the neck in the Jordan for forty days to atone for his sins.  As well, Elisha, in II Kings, tells Nathan to bathe seven times in the Jordan to recover from his leprosy.  Kohler and Krauss in the article linked above state:

The powers ascribed to the waters of the Jordan are expressly stated to be that they restore the unclean man to the original state of a new-born "little child." This idea underlies the prophetic hope of the fountain of purity, which is to cleanse Israel from the spirit of impurity (Zech. xiii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; compare Isa. iv. 4).

I think that there is an expression here of the Markian community's idea of Messiah.  As we have explored earlier, part of this doctrine popular in the period held an expectation of a messiah who would rescue the Jewish people from their enemies and restore the state of Israel after they went through a purification process to cleanse them for past breaches of their covenant with God.  This passage certainly ties into the purification part of that narrative.  Jesus did not fulfil the military aspect of this expectation, but there were other aspects beyond this that were part of this doctrine which can be seen as being portrayed in the Gospel.  Part of this ideology was the idea of the, "Messianic Age", a new period of fidelity and communion with God.  It may be that the community of Mark saw this less political and statehood dependent aspect of this ethos as what Jesus was fulfilling.

By starting the Gospel with John's practice of baptizing the people in the Jordan, the writer may also have been tying Jesus to the egalitarian and inclusive nature of his act.  Religious teachers of the times specified that to be truly pure before visiting the temple one needed to bathe in, "living" (moving) water.  Wealthy Pharisee's put together associations that shared membership in specially designed bathing pools with an upper and lower section which allowed water to flow while performing the rite.  John offered a purification that did not discriminate on the basis of wealth and allowed for a ritual access to God to all.

Having explored all this information, let's get back to the purpose of the study, to try to understand what the writer and the community he or she belonged to meant to express and what it meant to them.  More than the story of Jesus,  this is the story of this communities' traditions and vision of who Jesus was to them. The teachings and stories chosen and the way they were interpreted reflect what was important to this group, how they saw the world, who they saw themselves as and their hopes for the future.

It would seem to me that in this passage the community is expressing their faith that the Way of Jesus that they followed was or was like the Messianic Age, a period of fidelity and fuller communion with God.  By evoking the legacy of the purification of multitudes in Jerusalem and the Judean countryside, they were fulfilling the requirements for viewing the Way of Jesus in terms of this new age of a closer relationship with God.  They were also making the claim that their way brought a fuller holiness, a greater purity before God, and that this way was egalitarian and open to all.


This holiness and egalitarian aspects are important when we consider who this community was made up of.  If it was like the early christian communities talked about in Acts, it was a mixed one of Jew and gentile, male and female, the poor and marginalized next to those who had been wealthy and connected.  That there was a gentile portion is confirmed by the practise throughout the Gospel of spelling out Jewish practises as to an audience that would not be familiar to them.  
We must also consider what was happening at the time.  This gospel would have been written at the time of the destruction of the Temple, the centre of Jewish practise.  Many Jewish sects would be competing in advertising their practises as God's new way for the Jewish people once Temple sacrifice was no longer possible.

Jews outside of this movement would have considered a community that included uncircumcised gentiles and did not keep strict Jewish purity practises as highly suspect as the successor of Temple sacrifice.  Ritual purity and holiness was a big deal to mainstream Judaism.

This may be why an endorsement from a popular holyman and dessert ascetic was important.  Who could be more holy and pure than one who devoted his life to solitude in the desert and lived in a constant state of abstinence and penance by eating the simple and unappealing fare of locusts and honey, and wore scratchy and uncomfortable clothing made from camel hair.

Introducing John the Baptist



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zxDkvYy9BE4
/TtxChRr50aI/AAAAAAAAAGo/jPuYvL5wm1o/
s1600/voice+in+the+wilderness.jpg

2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’” (Mark 1:2-3 NIV)

In the second verse of the Gospel of Mark, the author preludes the introduction of John the Baptist by quoting the Jewish Prophets.  In this way the author sets up the perspective through which "Mark" wants us to view both John and Jesus and the relationship  between them.  By quoting Hebrew Scripture, the author sets the tone that both are legitimately part of the Jewish tradition giving their story authority.  I believe that this is the only direct quotation of the Scriptures in Mark. This may have been due to some of the intended audience being non Jewish.  In which case, it must be very important to the story.  It also makes a statement that the Jesus of this story is very much Jewish and that his message is not only part of the on going story of Judaism, but "the" God sanctioned and initiated continuation of the Covenant.
A question comes up when looking at these quotes.  Was the author and "Mark's" community saying that John and Jesus' mission, or experience, was "like" those quoted, or did they see those passages as prophesying specifically about John and Jesus?  If the latter, how literally did they take it and how much of the rest of the quoted passage was thought to apply?.

Two different  Scriptures are quoted here and strung together to make one statement and cited as if from one source.  The first part about the messenger is from Malachi 3:1 while the second part about the voice calling in the wilderness is from Isaiah 40:3.  Yet the entire thing is introduced as from Isaiah.  What are we to make of this?  Was the author/community not studied enough in the Scriptures to recognize that the first part is from Malachi?  Perhaps this may be the case if this was a predominantly  non Jewish community.

http://introduction.io/sites/default/files/external/imagecache/fullwidth/
projectimages/215/Jesus%20Christ%20and%20John%
20the%20Baptist%20in%20the%20desert.jpg

“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.  Malachi 3:1


 Isaiah 40:3-5
A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
    the way for the Lord[a];
make straight in the desert
    a highway for our God.[b]
4 Every valley shall be raised up,
    every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
    the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
    and all people will see it together.

What this suggests to me is that the beginning is more like a turn of phrase or loose allusion and not meant to point to significant further revelations from the Scripture cited.  They are simply saying that John is a messenger, preparing the way for something  greater  like the messenger  of Malachi.  Some Christian tradition has made much more of this, viewing the writer as wanting the reader to see the greater section of the passages quoted as pertaining to John and Jesus. I don't see this as the case.

I think that two things are going on here.  The first is that the writer is trying to establish the relationship between Jesus and John and their relative status.  Secondly, I believe that the writer is trying to establish Jesus' legitimacy with his Jewish audience by tying him to the Messiah role.

We have reason to believe that John the Baptist was much better known and popular than Jesus was at this period of time. There is no contemporary to the period historical mention of Jesus besides the Gospels which were written by the followers of his teachings over a period of 20 to 70 years after his death. John the Baptist, however, was an important enough figure that he is mentioned in, Jewish Antiquitiesy, written by the Jewish historian Flavius in this time period. This is important enough that later Christian scribes added embellishments to his work to include references to Jesus.
http://www.livius.org/sources/content/josephus-on-john-the-baptist/

Later in the chapter, the author seems to put a lot of effort into showing that Jesus is more important than John, that John is only the messenger, God's herald for Jesus, who is so much more important that John considers himself unworthy to tie Jesus' shoes. I certainly get a case of, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", and get the sense that there was a real need to downplay John because of his popularity. 
Bruce Chilton, in his book, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, has suggested that the reason the Gospel writers needed to stress Jesus as having elevated authority and importance over John is that Jesus had been a disciple of John before starting his own ministry. As Chilton argues, this would explain the, "missing years", of Jesus life before his ministry not accounted for in the Gospel stories. It would also make sense seeing that there is no mention of his father Joseph after Jesus' visit to the Temple when he was twelve. Chilton argues that Jesus would have been considered a mamzer, one suspected of non-Jewish parentage, since his mother was not living with Joseph when Jesus was conceived. Without Joseph to vouch for him, Jesus would have been ostracized from the community, excluded from the synagogue, and ridiculed by others. As such, leaving the wider community to live with a wilderness holiness group led by John the Baptist would have been one of his few options and would have helped him regain a religious legitimacy that would allow him to later return to the wider Jewish society. The Gospel of Mark is the one written closest in time to Jesus life, around 60 CE, 20 years after Jesus' death, close enough that some might remember Jesus as a student of John and therefore requiring a clear statement that the student was more important than the teacher.



http://www.amazon.ca/Rabbi-Jesus-An-Intimate-Biography/dp/0385497938

The second thing I believe the author of Mark was trying do with this quotation from Hebrew Scripture was to confer the legitimacy of the Messiah role on Jesus.  Outside of the Rabbinic Literature, there is a doctrine in Jewish eschatology of Messiah which was quite popular in Jesus time.  The Jews of the first century expected to be rescued from foreign dominion. Looking to texts such Deuteronomy 4:32, Isaiah 40:1-2, and Jeremiah 31:27-40,  many believed that this would only occur after they suffered a purification process for past breaches of their covenant with God.  As such, they looked for an immediate earthly wrath and judgment by God on the people of Israel led by an anointed of God, or messiah, who would then lead them in the restoration of the state of Israel.  I believe "Mark's" citing of Hebrew Scripture was to suggest that Jesus fit this role, or at least to tie him to the legitimacy which that role might confer.

The good news of Caesar

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 1:1 NIV)

Caesar by his epiphany exceeded the hopes of those who prophesied good tidings (euaggelia), not only outdoing benefactors of the past, but also allowing no hope of greater bene-factions in the future; and since the birthday of the god first brought to the world the good tidings (euaggelia) residing in him.  
 

An inscription in Priene on the west coast of present-day Turkey.  

JESUS: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. Copyright � 2006 by Marcus J. Borg. 

Jesus' wasn't the only one with "good news".  In this inscription Caesar is identified as a god.  He was more often called the, "son of god". The second title given to Jesus in the opening verse of Mark is also, " Son of God".  In this case I don't believe that the author was saying that Jesus was divine.  Most Bibles have a footnote at this phrase stating that it does not appear in all early manuscripts.  Also, coming as it does right after the title of, "anointed one", I would guess that this is a repetition or reinforcement of that term, the one chosen by God to be king.  God's son is a term used in the Jewish scripture in many places to refer to God's chosen king. King David is referred to as God's son and no indication is made that he is somehow divine, a god himself.

Caesar on the other hand used the phrase to suggest that he was in fact divine, justifying and legitimizing his rule. I would have to imagine that the gospel community were evoking and subverting this image of Caesar when giving this title to Jesus. They were saying that Jesus was the true " king" chosen by God and it his claim to authority that is legitimate.

So to sum up the opening verse, this book is about the ongoing important message about Jesus who is legitimized by being chosen by God to be king.

The beginning of the good news about Jesus

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.

This first sentence tells us so much, but we come to it with a lot of later christian doctrine that can obscure what it might have meant to the original listeners.  Who was this original audience? If this early christian community is like those described in Acts, then I can imagine a tight knit group of people who had turned their backs on the conventions of society to live as part of what was essentially a commune where they had surrendered all their personal property to share all in common with the group, turned their backs on family, and defied social boundaries by joining Jews and gentiles, men and women, free and slave, the formally privileged and the  social outcast together.  This document codifies the communities' reasons for joining together and living in this radical way.  This is their mission statement and the topic given is the good news about Jesus.

I am struck by the fact that the book begins by saying that this is just the beginning of the good news about Jesus.  Whatever it is about Jesus that is important to them isn't finished.  The community sees this as something that's still occurring, or yet more to occur.  What that important message might involve is suggested by the title given to Jesus in this opening sentence.  He is called, the Messiah, literally, "the anointed one".  This title comes with a lot of baggage to the modern reader.  What did it mean to this group? In Jewish scripture the anointed one who had been set apart or chosen by God for a special purpose, specifically to be king of the Jewish nation.  Both Saul and David were anointed by the prophet Saul to announce that they had been chosen by God to be king.  It comes to mind that in the case of David, there is quite a period of time between when he is anointed and when he is recognized by the people as king.  So the Markian community is not only calling him king they are claiming that he is God's chosen king.  Another reason they may have used this title rather than directly calling him king, maybe a nod to the fact that most of his people do not recognize him as such like David when he was first anointed.

The title, "Messiah", would have come with some other associations to a listener of the time.  There was a popular belief in the Jewish community that God would send an " anointed one" who would free them from their oppression from the Romans and give Israel it's independence ushering in a new age of fidelity with God, the messianic age.  I don't know a lot about first century messiahism, but Jesus didn't exactly live up to the military leader expectation. Did the community see Jesus as fulfilling this hope?  Perhaps some still hoped for this kind of action; that Jesus would return and drive out the Romans.  Maybe that was why they called this record the beginning of the good news.  I don't think this is the case however. As we get further into this story the authors have Jesus less than enthusiastic about the title and prevaricating whenever asked if he is "the Messiah".  He also shows no interest in condemning the Romans or enciting any resistance against them. It would seem that this group makes use of the popular image of Messiah in some ways, but not in others.  Yet this was a dangerous title to use.  The Romans did not look kindly on those who claimed a king other than Caeser or one of the client kings under his authority.  There were several examples in Jesus time of rebels in Palestine who had countered Roman authority and had been ruthlessly been eliminated such as Simeon of Peraea C 4BCE, a former slave of Herod the Great, who had himself crowned.

The thought comes to me that the title may be a teaching device in line with those that Jesus uses in his wisdom teaching.  The authors often have Jesus use sayings and parables where the expected is contrasted with the unexpected to make the listener rethink their perspectives on the world.  The poor and meek are blessed, a father welcomes a son who has disgraced him, a woman spends all day searching for a coin of little value.  Likewise, in the macro story of Jesus, the whole idea of kingship and leadership is turned on its head.

More about Mark

I mentioned in the last post that the community Mark is writing for was mainly non Jewish and that the earliest copies of this writing is Greek.  I would imagine that one thing this group would know in common would have been Greek or Hellenistic culture.   Alexander the Great had conquered all of the Mediterranean and the Middle East as far as present day Pakistan leaving Hellenistic culture in his wake. After his death, Palestine was part of the Selucid kingdom.  The Herrads were all about a renaissance of Hellenistic culture and the Romans, taking their turn as world conquers, were also steeped in Greek culture.  Everyone in the possible location of Mark's community would have been versed in Greek thought, philosophy, myth and probably aware of the various mystery religions.

Another interesting thing about Mark's Gospel is that it puts Jesus' teachings in the context of stories about his life and makes the biography an intrical part of the message. The Gospel of Thomas, which is believed to be earlier, is a list of Jesus' sayings with no biographical information or context.  I would imagine that this would be the more common way a Rabbi's teaching would be recorded if written down.  Not knowing much about the literature of the first century, this seems unique to me.  Was there a form of biographical literature that he was following or influenced by?  The examples that come to mind are the stories of Moses, the prophets and kings in Jewish scripture.  Perhaps the myths of the Greek gods and the stories about Ceasar that were part of the Roman civic religion.  Whatever the influences may be, the stories about Jesus gives context to the teachings and gives us the author's interpretation for sayings that in straight lists like the Gospel of Thomas can be quite enigmatic.

I should also mention that the dating of this book, 60 A.D., would put it at the time of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans and most certainly amongst the Jewish revolt.  Even if the community was outside of Palestine, it would have been unsettling times full of apocalyptic rumours about Judgement and the end of the world.  Jesus and his disciples saw themselves as totally faithful to Judaism and the loss of Temple worship would only reinforce the communites' faith in their interpretation of Judaism as legitimized by God.

It was also a time when there is historic mention of some persecution of Christians.  Nero is said to blame them for the great fire in Rome.  Adhering to a religion other than the Roman state religion was tolerated as long as one also practiced the civic religion and took part in the socially expected religious ceremonies and practices.  This was something that even the mainstream sects of Judaism did.  However, the early Jesus communities were known for refusing to participate.  A few Jews doing this could be ignored by gentiles as a quirk of their race.  But when communities of mainly non-jews did this I would imagine that it caused the greater community to be less sympathetic.

I could probably say more, but as a last word before I get to the actual text, I just want to remind myself that more than the story of Jesus this is the story of this communities' traditions and vision of who Jesus was to them.  The teachings and stories chosen and the way they were interpreted reflect what was important to this group, how they saw the world, who they saw themselves as and their hopes for the future.

Starting with Mark

I've decided to start my study with the book of Mark.  Although it is not the first book in the order of the New Testament, it is the earliest written of the four and sets the style for the other three particularly the synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke.  Starting out, I am going to use this blog entry to spell out what I know, or think I know about this gospel, before I begin my study.  These are my preconceptions, what I think I know about the writer, his audience, and the time period and culture the book was written in.  This isn't a scholarly paper so I'm not planning on sourcing much.  Just to say that most of these ideas are not original but come from my own culture of growing up in the church and the various books I've read.

I started out noting that Mark is the earliest of the Canonical Gospels.  It is believed to be written around 60 CE, 20 years after Jesus' death.  The Gospel was originally anonymous and it wasn't until the second century that we have writers attributing the authorship to Mark, a figure offhandedly mentioned in Acts and First Peter as a companion of Peter in his travels and nephew of Barnabas.  The mythology claims that Mark recorded these stories from Peter on his missions to spread Jesus' teachings.

Another important tidbit that I have read is that the book was written for a non-jewish audience.  This is speculated because the writer spells out Jewish practices as for someone unfamiliar with them. This is important because it gives us insight into the audience the book was written for, a community either of gentiles or one that had a predominately non-jewish membership, probably living outside of Isreal.  Were they "God fearers", gentiles that subscribed to the Jewish religion, readers of the Septuigant, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, or fresh converts to this new Jewish sect?  Did they live in Rome or Syria or Egypt?  Why would they be interested in the teachings of this Jewish Rabbi that was a nonconventional interpretation of a religion from another country?

Our oldest fragments of this book are in Greek as are all our earliest samples of the gospels.  It is speculated that, given the grammatical errors, that this was not the author's first language. Greek was the language of commerce throughout the Roman Empire, so it is not surprising that if someone was writing for a group beyond a strictly Jewish academic audience that they would write it in Greek since it could be communicated to people from a number of nationalities and native languages. Would this be odd for writings of the time on the teachings of other Jewish Rabbis?