View on Mark

[Herald]

I am in the midst of a study of the gospel of Mark which I post on my blog daily. My approach has been to interpret Marks narrative in two ways: 1. As a unique manuscript by the author. 2. In cohesion with the rest of the gospels. I have been challenged, by a scholar I greatly respect, to read Mark as a unique manuscript, independent from the rest of the gospels. Since I have always viewed the bible in a symbiotic fashion, I am having problems with this line of thought.

Comments? Suggestions? Observations?

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
I am in the midst of a study of the gospel of Mark which I post on my blog daily. My approach has been to interpret Marks narrative in two ways: 1. As a unique manuscript by the author. 2. In cohesion with the rest of the gospels. I have been challenged, by a scholar I greatly respect, to read Mark as a unique manuscript, independent from the rest of the gospels. Since I have always viewed the bible in a symbiotic fashion, I am having problems with this line of thought.

Comments? Suggestions? Observations?

Each gospel has its own uniqueness and should be (in my opinion) interpreted in that vein first.

Consider the short, terse style of Mark as compared to the longer, flowing narratives of Matthew and Luke. Consider Mark's preoccupation with demon possession and the work of Satan. Who is Christ in Mark's narrative or should I say whom does Christ remind you of in Mark? Hint: think Israel loaded with 'Philistines.' Who is going to clean them out?

Finally, if you are going to study the gospels, I highly recommend Ridderbos' "The Coming of Kingdom."

http://www.monergismbooks.com/coming4087.html

Blessings on your study!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I see Mark as the basis for the other two synoptics. Matthew and Luke seem to take Mark as a starting point and add other things here and there.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I see Mark as the basis for the other two synoptics. Matthew and Luke seem to take Mark as a starting point and add other things here and there.

Yes, I have heard of that view. Of course, the presupposes that Matthew and Luke read Mark's gospel and then used it as a framework. Considering the personal nature of Luke's gospel and the strong Jewish flavor of Matthews, I don't hold that view. But from a practical perspective is sure looks that way.

 

[Herald]

"Each gospel has its own uniqueness and should be (in my opinion) interpreted in that vein first."

I agree. I may have failed to express that thought originally. With that in mind, do you ever use other gospel accounts to aid in your understanding of Mark, or do you hold Mark as completely independent?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Why would the personal nature of Luke's gospel or the Jewish flavor of Matthew's make this not an option? I see it as completely viable, considering they both had a calling to write a gospel account of Christ; it would make the most sense for them to start with their brother Mark's account and go from there in their respective emphases.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Why would the personal nature of Luke's gospel or the Jewish flavor of Matthew's make this not an option? I see it as completely viable, considering they both had a calling to write a gospel account of Christ; it would make the most sense for them to start with their brother Mark's account and go from there in their respective emphases.

It possible? Yes, certainly. The fact that they are synoptic certainly is a feather in your cap regarding that argument. I should be content enough to say that I personally don't hold to that view.

 

[fredtgreco]

Just to throw a monkey wrench in, before modern higherr criticism, "Q" and "proto-gospels," the Church considered for about 1800 years that Matthew was written first.

 

[RamistThomist]

I reject Q.
I hold to Matthean priority (now, I am not going to die on this hill; I have just found that Q arguments hang on much-needed a prioris).

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I reject Q.
I hold to Matthean priority (now, I am not going to die on this hill; I have just found that Q arguments hang on much-needed a prioris).

I agree with you Jacob. I think that there are good arguments for Markan priority, but not to the level that they are "gospel truth" in today's scholarship.

You will enjoy Ireland's balanced, calm presentation of this, even if you disagree with him. (If I recall, he is Markan priority, but he does know his stuff and is never over the top).

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Just to throw a monkey wrench in, before modern higherr criticism, "Q" and "proto-gospels," the Church considered for about 1800 years that Matthew was written first.

Interesting. I suppose if Matthew was written first (by the way, nice monkey wrench!) it renders the previous discussion (Mark as a framework for the other two synoptics) moot. ???

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I reject Q.
I hold to Matthean priority (now, I am not going to die on this hill; I have just found that Q arguments hang on much-needed a prioris).

I agree with you Jacob. I think that there are good arguments for Markan priority, but not to the level that they are "gospel truth" in today's scholarship.

You will enjoy Ireland's balanced, calm presentation of this, even if you disagree with him. (If I recall, he is Markan priority, but he does know his stuff and is never over the top).

I am interested in what he has to say. I came from an environment where the most conservative guy we read was Bruce Metzger, so I rejected a lot of "scholarly" arguments simply because they rested on arbitrary unbelieving presuppositons.

I was so excited at the way Dr Ireland approached the Bible. He approached it on the Bible's own terms! I had never had a prof do that before!

Btw, I like what Metzger does on languages--I am not knocking him.

[Edited on 8--27-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I reject Q.
I hold to Matthean priority (now, I am not going to die on this hill; I have just found that Q arguments hang on much-needed a prioris).

I agree with you Jacob. I think that there are good arguments for Markan priority, but not to the level that they are "gospel truth" in today's scholarship.

You will enjoy Ireland's balanced, calm presentation of this, even if you disagree with him. (If I recall, he is Markan priority, but he does know his stuff and is never over the top).

I am interested in what he has to say. I came from an environment where the most conservative guy we read was Bruce Metzger, so I rejected a lot of "scholarly" arguments simply because they rested on arbitrary unbelieving presuppositons.

I was so excited at the way Dr Ireland approached the Bible. He approached it on the Bible's own terms! I had never had a prof do that before!

Btw, I like what Metzger does on languages--I am not knocking him.

I am absolutely not ashamed to say that Dennis Ireland is one of my favorite Christian teachers in the world. He is a godly man, who cares about students and is balanced. While I would not agree with him about translations, for example, (he is an NIV man) and prof that gets teary-eyed when lecturing on the crucifixion, describing what Jesus did for sinners - when it is like the 15th time he has taught the lecture - is a man I want to be like.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Just to throw a monkey wrench in, before modern higherr criticism, "Q" and "proto-gospels," the Church considered for about 1800 years that Matthew was written first.

Interesting. I suppose if Matthew was written first (by the way, nice monkey wrench!) it renders the previous discussion (Mark as a framework for the other two synoptics) moot. ???

Bill,

Yes. And no. Even with Matthean priority, and even if we completely reject any "source sharing" (not sure we have to), it would still make sense to say that there is a shared source - the Holy Spirit. Not just in a vague sense, but in the sense that the Spirit gave some of the exact same material and words to each writer.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I skimmed through one book (sorry, can remember the title) and this scholar took the approach that the similar "Markan material" was the result of coming "third" after Matt & Luke. His argument was that Mark was the recorder of Peter's gospel preaching which used either one of the other accounts available, both at different times or at once. Peter would have taken up both/either Matthew's and Luke's accounts, and taking material from each that he wanted for his presentation, he supplemented with his own unique contributions. Eusebius (I believe) wrote that Mark wrote the gospel down after Peter's death (either from memory or from notes). That is the author's argument, and it sounds plausible. You be the judge, but it is more reasonable from a biblical-authority standpoint than the Q-hypothesis.


I also think that the liberals are hamstrung by their commitment (in the face of mounting eidence) to late date, non-apostolic & non-eyewittness testimony, unrelated community "development" notions of Scripture formation. They have the "chronological problem". How does the basic Christian doctrine get spread widely and consistently if all of them are coming up with their own traditions in Asia, Africa, elsewhere. The existence of Paul's mission within 20 years of the death of Jesus and the propagation of his doctrine without any internal disputation is indicative of a point-origin for the gospel in Jerusalem.

Back in the day, it was easy to postulate some doctrinaire imposition of conformity by 4th or 6th century curchmen--the only evidence for which is the lack of evidence for any opposition (they were that successful you see; does this remind you of any other bad argumentation?). Unfortunantly for them, the documentary evidence, not to mention the internal evidence of the biblical materials themselves do not lend themselves to this view on careful examination. The similarities of the three synoptics are attributable to a pre-existent and consistent oral testimony (preaching) that had coalesced into a basic outline of Jesus' life and work within a very few years, perhaps even months, of Pentecost. Of course, this means that ACTS is not principally a work of fiction...

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

These are all "news" to me. At Southern Seminary I was taught the Q/Markan viewpoint.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Just to throw a monkey wrench in, before modern higherr criticism, "Q" and "proto-gospels," the Church considered for about 1800 years that Matthew was written first.

Interesting. I suppose if Matthew was written first (by the way, nice monkey wrench!) it renders the previous discussion (Mark as a framework for the other two synoptics) moot. ???

Bill,

Yes. And no. Even with Matthean priority, and even if we completely reject any "source sharing" (not sure we have to), it would still make sense to say that there is a shared source - the Holy Spirit. Not just in a vague sense, but in the sense that the Spirit gave some of the exact same material and words to each writer.

Fred, now THAT I can accept. If Matthean priority is the correct view, then I have no problem accepting the premise that the Holy Spirit superintended much of the same material in the three synoptics. But wouldn't that be a foundational concept to accepting any scripture? It is all 'Theou pneustos'; although I can see a specific dynamic at work if the Spirit was intended a relevance between all three synoptic books.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Fred, now THAT I can accept. If Matthean priority is the correct view, then I have no problem accepting the premise that the Holy Spirit superintended much of the same material in the three synoptics. But wouldn't that be a foundational concept to accepting any scripture? It is all 'Theou pneustos'; although I can see a specific dynamic at work if the Spirit was intended a relevance between all three synoptic books.

The relationship between the Synoptics is different than the relationship between other books of the Bible (e.g. Ezekiel and Acts). The latter are both "God breathed" and are in harmony as to doctrine and truth; the former also are in harmony as to the actual events covered (hence, "Synoptics").

 

[Bladestunner316]

Q: Oh, heavy is the burden of being me!