Friday, September 14, 2007

I spent an hour on the first two chapters of Mark and I struggled against that nagging feeling, as I always do, that I'm missing lots of important stuff. You know, that significant details were getting past me, going over my head, that my ignorance prevented me from fully realizing the richness of the text. But, that's how it goes. This is why we learn and why we have to start somewhere.

Getting uptight about it or waiting until I know more before starting doesn't solve anything.

So, the Malachi and Isaiah citations evoked for me images of the Exodus. "I am sending my messenger before you ..." makes it clear that this whole enterprise is of God and is in fulfillment of a promise. Through Jesus, God brings consolation to the people of God (Isaiah 40 ff., "The Book of Consolation"). Jesus identifies with the people of God in his baptism, recalling the Red Sea experience and in his wilderness temptation, recalling the 40 years of wandering.

The verse from Malachi is typically applied to John the Baptist as Elijah, the forerunner. But I thought the passage was better applied to Jesus when read in its original Old Testament context (Exodus 23:20), as the messenger or angel who leads the Israelites to the Promised Land.

Some conclusions about Jesus, then, based on Mark's first two chapters and, yes, some of these are redundant, the product of a muddled mind:
  • Jesus is sent by God to God's people
  • Jesus does God's work
  • Jesus is God's promise, God's prophetic fulfillment
  • Jesus is the promised one
  • Jesus is the consolation of Israel
  • Jesus speaks for God
  • Jesus proclaims the gospel of God, the time of fulfillment, the kingdom of God (whatever that means)
  • Jesus taught with authority, heals with authority, has the authority to forgive sins
  • Jesus came to preach
  • Jesus is the Holy One of God, further identifing him with Israel (Daniel 7:18)
  • Jesus is the physician, the bridegroom, calls sinners, interprets the law regarding the sabbath and fasting, teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath
Just a couple of things more.

One, regarding the longer ending of Mark: I had blogged about some trouble accepting the critical text of the New Testament which I guess retains the longer ending out of a sense of tradition? I can't lay my hands on Metzger's textual commentary at the moment ...

For whatever reason, the longer variant is printed and translated in English Bibles and duly footnoted. And a footnote in my Catholic Bibles indicates that the longer ending, Mark 16:9-20, was deemed inspired and canonical at Trent. That alone kinda takes the guesswork out of it for me.

The second point is much less important, but I just wondered whether the leper in fact obeyed Jesus, whether he showed himself to the priests and offered what Moses prescribed (Mark 1:43-45). Because it doesn't seem to me as if he did! The NIV even reads, "Instead"!

2 comments:

James Snapp Jr said...

Dear Teresa,

Actually most of the old manuscripts *do* have Mark 16:9-20. Only two old Greek copies of Mark 16 fail to include 16:9-20. While these are the oldest two existing copies (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both of which are from the 300's, probably c. 330), the passage is cited in patristic writings that are much older: Justin Martyr (160) uses 16:20 in ch. 45 of "First Apology," and Tatian (172) used it in his "Diatessaron," and Irenaeus (184) quoted Mk. 16:19 in "Against Heresies," Book III, 10:6.

Along with the evidence from the 100's, we should consider the following:

(1) Mark 16:9-20 is in all undamaged Greek copies of Mark except for Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus -- that's over 1,300 manuscripts -- and one medieval copy that was probably based on a damaged exemplar. What's important to see is not just the quantity of manuscripts involved, but the quantity of locales where the passage was accepted.

(2) In Codex Vaticanus, the copyist left a prolonged blank space after Mark 16:9-20, as if he knew that something was missing in his master-copy.

(3) In Codex Sinaiticus, all the text from Mark 14:54 to Luke 1:56 is on a supplemental page; we don't have the original pages of the manuscript for this portion of the text.

There is more to the story than the technically true but highly misleading Bible-footnote that says that "The earliest manuscripts lack Mark 16:9-20" or some such thing. I welcome you to investigate the subject further at www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html .

Yours in Christ,

James E. Snapp, Jr.

Matt said...

Hey Moonshadow -

Don't know if you know it but EWTN is running a program on the Gospel of Mark called..."The Gospel of Mark: Memoirs of St. Peter." I think its by Timothy O'Donnell at Christendom College. I've seen two episodes and it looks pretty decent so far. I think new episodes are Mondays at 5pm. Just an FYI.