Here we go:

1 The beginning of the good news [gospel] of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,

'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way;

3 the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,"

4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

7 He proclaimed, 'The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.

8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.

11 And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.'

12 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

Already so much to discuss.

"Jesus" is a Hellenization of Yeshua (meaning YHVH saves), the name we'd now call Joshua. A common Jewish name of the time and place.

"Christ" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew moschiach (messiah), meaning "anointed one," a priest or king anointed with oil to show that he has been chosen by God.

"Son of God" appears in some versions of 1:1 but not others. Possibly an interpolation.

The quote in 1:2 isn't actually Isaiah but a mix of Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1. The quote in 1:3 is from Isaiah 40:3:

A voice rings out:
"Clear in the desert
A road for the Lord!
Level in the wilderness
A highway for our God!"

which refers to the return of the Jews (and their God) to Israel after the Babylonian Captivity, not the coming of a messiah.

Then we've got John (Yochanan) the Baptist, the Obi Wan to Jesus's Luke (not that Luke), "proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." (1:4) That seems to have been the sort of thing the Essenes or members of the Qumran sect were doing at the time (more or less) in anticipation of the immanent End of the World.

John is described as clothed in camel's hair with a leather belt (1:6), a sign that he is the returned prophet Elijah, who dressed the same way. (2 Kings 1:8) Elijah was said to have been bodily assumed into heaven, and his appearance was supposed by some to herald the appearance of the Messiah (not just a generic king or priest, THE Messiah, a King Arthur-ish leader who would deliver the Jews to freedom, independence, and peace).

John appears to have had his own followers who believed that he, not Jesus, was the Messiah. But since this is a Christian Gospel, he offers the obligatory disclaimer (1:7-8) that he's merely the prequel to the main feature.

Jesus shows up, with no back story. John baptizes Jesus (and hence forgives his sins? Later Gospels get tetchy about this) but doesn't treat him any differently from any of the other people he's baptizing (1:5), or offer any recognition that Jesus is the One to Come (1:9).

After the baptism, Jesus (and no one else) sees the sky rip open and the Spirit (whatever that is) descend LIKE a dove (not AS a dove). (1:9-10) A voice say that he's God's son, the Beloved, with whom God is well-pleased (1:11), mixing Psalm 2:7, the coronation anthem announcing that the King of Judah has been adopted by God ("You are my son; today I have begotten you"), Isaiah 42:1, where God says of the Jews returning from the Babylonian Captivity "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights," and Genesis 22:12, where God tells Abraham not to sacrifice his "beloved son" Isaac. So we get King, Servant, and Sacrifice in one line. Very elegant.

Then Jesus gets booted into the wilderness. (1:12)

Given the above, some see 1:9-11, and the Gospel of Mark as a whole, as saying that Jesus wasn't part of God, or born God, but was adopted as God's son at his baptism, the same way that God adopts a king as His son at his coronation.

Oof. Enough for now.

Just curious: Which translation are you quoting from here?

New Revised Standard Version.

Here.

I'm interested, for whatever reason, in John's diet - there are some who insist he had a sweet tooth and was eating carob (locust bean) with honey. But it seems likely he was eating bugs.

I'm wondering if there's a symbolic message there, since the two foods are locusts (wild, damaging swarms) and honey (made by domestic insects).

Also - is there any other biblical reference to dove besides the one in Noah? Interesting how this gospel, like John, begins with water, in a way. Baptism. Possible allusion to the end of the Flood.

grant:Also - is there any other biblical reference to dove besides the one in Noah?

Quite a few.

Evan:

grant:Also - is there any other biblical reference to dove besides the one in Noah?

Quite a few.

I see....

1. Noah's dove, the promise of a new world.

2. Sin offerings/sacrifices at the Temple.

3. Something meek, fragile, beautiful, flies to safety (Psalms/Songs).

4. Something trembling, foolish, unsafe (the prophets)

5. Something that can be compared to... Gentiles? Sons come to rebuild Israel? (Isaiah's dovecotes).

So Noah's the only *story*, but there are a few metaphors. Including that last, confusing one.

Here's The Oxford Bible Commentary on the subject:

The significance of the Spirit being symbolized as a 'dove' is uncertain, but may allude to the creation story in Genesis 1:2 where some Jewish exegetes interpreted the words there as refering to the Spirit 'hovering' like a dove. In that case, the story here may again be indicating the start of a new creation.

Of course, the author of Mark simply may have thought that it was a nice metaphor.

Just a note - I know I said I was up for this, and I am, but not immediately. I'm sick, and behind in my schoolwork (including my Scripture class, go figure), so I'll catch up with you guys in a couple days.

--Ember--

Feel better!

Might as well briefly note the plot of the story to date: a guy going through a purification rite administered by a respected elder has a profound spiritual experience, then feels compelled to seek a bit of privacy to sort it all out.

I imagine many of us can relate.

The significance of the Spirit being symbolized as a 'dove' is uncertain, but may allude to the creation story in Genesis 1:2 where some Jewish exegetes interpreted the words there as refering to the Spirit 'hovering' like a dove. In that case, the story here may again be indicating the start of a new creation.

The significance is undoubtedly due to the author - with his non-linear perception of time - seeking to encourage a John Woo adaptation, with Jesus played by Chow Yun Fat.

I imagine that many here will already be aware of this, but Nick Cave's Introduction to Mark makes for cracking reading.

I like the Cave piece.

Forgot to hit "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee" (1:9) above.

There's a reasonable argument that "Jesus of Nazareth" is a corruption of a description of Jesus as (like John the Baptist and James the Just) a Nasorean, a religious fundamentalist of the time. Robert Eisenman is a big supporter of this view.

There's even an argument that there was no town named Nazareth at the time of Jesus.

The Nasorean thing pops up in the it-was-all-Masons connect-the-dots books like The Hiram Key.

The authors trace the Nasoreans back to Egypt, natch, and forward into the Knights Templar.

Ahem.

Are we moving on? Interesting bits ahead, including a line of scripture I heard very frequently in my christian schools growing up.

14After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.

15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

16As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.

17"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

18At once they left their nets and followed him.

Verse 17 I heard a hundred thousand times growing up, and never gave it much thought (many modern christians believe this to be the source for the so-called "Jesus Fish", the fish shaped like an alpha one sees on cars all over the place, an explanation I never really bought into). This apparent call to evangelism is in the synoptic gospels but absent from John, in which John the Baptist pointed Jesus out to a few of his own disciples (Andrew brother of Simon being one) who promptly left John to follow Jesus.

Also: what's with fish and Christianity? Discuss.

The Hiram Key guys traced the fish back to the Nasoreans... same thing is repeated on this Masonic page, six paragraphs up from 2.7.

The fish, on the other hand, is the ancient badge of priestliness and the symbol of the Nasorean party; the Christians used it at the end of the first century AD. The word "Nasorean" is a form of the word "Nazrani" that means "little fish" and "Christians" in modern Arab and in old Aramaic.

I don't know how *factual* that "ancient badge of priestliness" is, but it seems to be part of the story as far as the Masons go.

You skipped 13:

13 He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

Mark keeps things incredibly short and punchy.

How was he tempted? What was he doing with the wild beasts? Did the angels offer him a choice of starters? Mark doesn't say.

As for the bit with Simon and Andrew, might as well add the next lines, which also involve recruiting disciples:

19 As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets.
20 Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him.

These seem to be rewrites of Elijah's recruitment of Elisha in 1 Kings 19:19-21. They're recruiting stories, written and told to encourage others to drop all of their worldly attachments and become Christians. (No surprise you heard it a lot in church.)

Note that three out of these four (Simon/Peter, James, and John) are the most elite of Jesus's disciples. They're also the Pillars, the three Jewish Christians who supposedly led the Jerusalem Church after Jesus's death -- and clashed with Paul and other less Jewish Christians.

Mark is very anti-Pillar, and will make these guys look petty and stupid throughout the rest of the Gospel.

Tuna Ghost:Also: what's with fish and Christianity?

If I had to guess, I'd say it started with the similarity between the Greek words for Jesus (Iesous) and fish (Ichthus)

Here's a bunch of stuff on -- and a lot of speculation about -- the Ichthys symbol.

Satan - does he hang out in the wilderness full time, then?


---

The identity of the sons of Zebedee are a fun biblical puzzle, since there are (possibly) two Jameses and two Johns among the apostles. John Zebedee is definitely a pillar, but the James who's a pillar might be James the Less, not Zebedee. Unless they're the same James.

James the Less was the son of Alphaeus, and Matthew the gospel-writer was also a son of a man named Alphaeus, who might have been the same man, so if Mark was harshing on Matthew's brother, that might explain why Matthew could have felt the need to set the record straight. I dunno. Most people seem to think they were different Alphaeuses.

But John Zebedee is identified as the guy who wrote the fourth gospel.

Zebedee's wife (mother of James the Greater and John) is traditionally said to have been Salome, sister of the Virgin Mary, midwife of Christ and one of the women at the crucifixion. In Mark, it lists the women there and names Salome, and in Matthew, it lists the women and says "mother of the sons of Zebedee," and the same list in John says "Mary and her sister." So that's how they figure out who she is, and how all these kids are related. Or not.



---

Wikipedia also presents an interesting array of choices for Nasoreans & Nazarenes besides meaning "from Nazareth":

A Nazarite (??????) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained for a specified period of time from using alcohol and grape products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water. Thus the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-15) by his relative John the Baptist could have been done "to fulfil all righteousness" at the ending of a nazirite vow. However, following his baptism, the gospels give no reason to suppose Jesus took another Nazirite vow until The Last Supper, (see Mark 14:25). Matthew 2:23 says of Yeshua` (Jesus), "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." But had the prophets said 'Nazarene' or 'Nazarite'? It appears that they said ‘He shall be called a Nazarite’ because reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5 concerning Samson the Nazarite, and there is no word translated ‘Nazarene’ or any reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures. Luke 1:15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazarite from birth. James the Just was described as a Nazarite in Epiphanius' Panarion 29.4 .

...

The word nazara, "truth", another gnostic concept popularized through the Gospel of Philip: "The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarenos' is "The One of the Truth" ..." (Gospel of Philip, 47)

...

The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes" the same name used by spiritual leaders (see for example Yeshu Ha-Notzri) of a pre-Christian gnostic sect which evolved into the Mandaean religion....

...

The Greek transliteration ????????? (Nazareinos, from which the English "Nazarene" derived) of Neitzër (???), which is the Hebrew term meaning "offshoot(s)", especially from the branches of an olive tree (instead referring to a wicker in Modern Hebrew).

----

Why would Mark be "anti-Pillar"? He's "less Jewish"?

grant:The identity of the sons of Zebedee are a fun biblical puzzle, since there are (possibly) two Jameses and two Johns among the apostles. John Zebedee is definitely a pillar, but the James who's a pillar might be James the Less, not Zebedee. Unless they're the same James.

There's a strong argument that there's only one James and one John, and only one Mary as well. Again, Robert Eisenman is the key author on the subject, in James the Brother of Jesus. The argument makes my head hurt, but you can find a summary of sorts here.

grant:Why would Mark be "anti-Pillar"? He's "less Jewish"?

Briefly put, after Jesus's death there were essentially two camps of Christians: the Jewish Christians who believed that Christians should be observant Jews, and the proto-orthodox Christians who aggressively sought non-Jewish converts (who were turned off by the idea of getting circumcised and obeying the Jewish dietary laws).

The first group was controlled by the Pillars, who lived in Jerusalem, seemed to take their line of succession directly from Jesus, were run by James the Just (who was likely Jesus's brother), and included Simon/Peter (the "rock" on which Jesus supposedly built his church).

The second group included Paul (who gives a self-serving account of his dispute with the Pillars, but acknowledges their authority over him, in Galatians), the author of the Gospel of Mark, and essentially all of the authors of the works that became the New Testament (with the exception of the Jewish Christian works the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James).

They don't seem to have liked each other. (Paul directs a huge amount of venom towards the Jewish Christians in several of his letters.)

The first group limited itself to Jews -- most of whom weren't interested in Christianity -- and for the most part was in Jerusalem during the destruction of the city around 70 C.E. The second group did aggressive outreach to non-Jews and was spread throughout the region.

Guess which one eventually prevailed and got to pick which books of the New Testament would be canonical?

A good book on that is How Jesus Became Christian.

The more I think about it, the more I like the Iesous/Ichthus explanation for the connection between fish and Christianity.

Picture two Greek-speaking Syrians walking down the street (in the days before corrective lenses) and spotting a bit of graffiti:

Guy 1: "Fish is Lord?" What the hell does that mean?

Guy 2: Not "fish," you moron. Look closer. It says "Jesus is Lord."

Guy 1: Who's Jesus?

Guy 2: You know. He's that new Mithraic god all the women and slaves love.

Guy 1: So what does he have to do with fish?

Plus Iesous/Ichthus is the sort of punning play on words that's found throughout the Hebrew Bible.

And in the New. "Tu es Petrus" = "You are Peter" as well as "You are (the) rock".

Just for the sake of comparison, here's the translation of Mark (so far) from the Scholar's Version Ember mentioned in the other topic:

1 The good news of Jesus the Anointed begins

2 with something Isaiah the prophet wrote:

Here is my messenger,
whom I send on ahead of you
to prepare your way!

3 A voice of someone shouting in the wilderness:
"Make ready the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight."

4 So, John the Baptizer appeared in the wilderness calling for baptism and a change of heart that lead to forgiveness of sins.

5 And everyone from the Judean countryside and all the residents of Jerusalem streamed out to him and got baptized by him in the Jordan river, admitting their sins.

6 And John wore a mantel made of camel hair and had a leather belt around his waist and lived on locusts and raw honey.

7 And he began his proclamation by saying:

"Someone more powerful than I will succeed me, whose sandal straps I am not fit to bend down and untie.

8 I have been baptizing you with water, but he'll baptize you with holy spirit."

9 During that same period Jesus came from Nazareth, Galilee, and was baptized in the Jordan by John.

10 And just as he got up out of the water, he saw the skies torn open and the spirit coming down toward him like a dove.

11 There was also a voice from the skies: "You are my favored son -- I fully approve of you."

12 And right away the spirit drives him out into the wilderness,

13 where he remained for forty days, being put to the test by Satan. While he was living there among the wild animals, the heavenly messengers looked after him.

14 After John was locked up, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming God's good news.

15 His message went:

"The time is up: God's imperial rule is closing in. Change your ways, and put your trust in the good news!"

16 As he was walking along by the Sea of Galilee, he spotted Simon and Andrew, Simon's brother, casting into the sea -- since they were fishermen --

17 and Jesus said to them "Become my followers and I'll have you fishing for people!"

18 And right then and there they abandoned their nets and followed him.

19 When he had gone a little farther, he caught sight of James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John mending their nets in the boat.

20 Right then and there he called out to them as well, and they left their father Zebedee behind in the boat with the hired hands and accompanied him.

Here's what the NAB says about Mark, the person who may have written this gospel:

Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36- 39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tim 4:11; Philippians 1:24) and with Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter's "interpreter," a view found in other patristic writers....

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mark 7:3-4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mark 13:9-13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mark 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.

The Catholics don't mention that the Coptic Christians in Ethiopia trace their lineage back to Mark, too.

The footnotes for Mark 1 point out that John the Baptist's clothes are meant to resemble the prophet Elijah's, and also says that Christ being descended on by the dove and driven out to the wild beasts may be a riff on Isaiah 11, which talks about the Spirit bringing peace between wild animals. The angels who look after Jesus are similar to the ones looking after the Israelites in Exodus and the one who feeds Elijah in 1 Kings.

There's also a note that Jesus didn't start preaching until John the Baptist had been arrested - it was God's plan for them to come one at a time, it says. (Although I wonder if this isn't a remnant of some of that Mandean business, with John being the real one to watch.)

DEMONS!

21
Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught.
22
The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.
23
In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit;
24
he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!"
25
Jesus rebuked him and said, "Quiet! Come out of him!"
26
The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him.
27
All were amazed and asked one another, "What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him."

There's a note on 24 that's interesting, and somewhat at odds with this translation:

The Holy One of God: not a confession but an attempt to ward off Jesus' power, reflecting the notion that use of the precise name of an opposing spirit would guarantee mastery over him. Jesus silenced the cry of the unclean spirit and drove him out of the man.

In other words, more of a dramatic device, and less of an acknowledgment. The demon was only identifying the Son of God by accident as part of a kick-ass magical duel.

Sorry for my delay. Okay, Mark 1:1-27

1:9 In my class we've learned that it's reasonably reliable that Jesus was actually baptized by John, for the very reason that it was embarrassing enough that Luke dodged it (failing to say if it was John who baptizes him), Mathew excuses it (having Jesus "permit" it), and John obscures it (implying - but not clearly establishing - that John was already in prison when Jesus was baptized). Mark, the oldest of the four - probably the oldest we've ever found - just throws it out there without immediate justification. I don't know why it would be better to admit Jesus was baptized by nobody important at all, but they couldn't leave his baptism out entirely no matter what they wanted to say. The very awkwardness of this assertion, given the overall expectations of Jesus, supports the perception that it did indeed happen, and in fact was such common knowledge that the earliest Christians couldn't simply not mention it.

Even so, Mark does say John had already admitted to being the herald rather than the savior, and then there's the whole bit about the skies opening up in 1:10-11. Almost the same wording is used in Luke and Matthew, which indicates they copied from Mark, rather than qualifying as independent confirmation of such a thing. The Complete Gospels [CG] here calls attention to the vision and voice being a subjective experience had only by Jesus. Presumably nobody else saw or heard these things. This is perhaps the first example of the Messianic Secret scholars have observed in Mark's writing. And yet "The Voice From The Skies" is consistent with Jewish tradition of public communications from God.

1:12-13 As noted, other gospels elaborate specifically about the time in the wilderness being tempted. "Forty Days" is, of course, Jewish liturgical speak for "a long time", signifying that the time spent was sufficient for completion. CG points out that The term is used generally regarding big important transitional events.

1:16 Mark's transitions are notoriously brief. CG suggests that these transitions indicate where Mark has pasted together stories that were previously told separately.

1:16-20 That Jesus can call people away from work to come follow him with just a few words, never having met them before, indicates that he was a powerful public speaker, perhaps even with magical abilities of Enchantment (literally).

Heh, this always amuses me. CG translates Mark 1:25 as "But Jesus yelled at it, "Shut up and get out of him!" This is rather coarse, but that's the whole point of this translation - Mark's Greek was very coarse. This kind of stuff throughout this translation is part of what paints a portrait for me of a much angrier Jesus than I usually percieve in more cleaned-up translations. It really brings home to me how hard it might be to tell Jesus apart from other separatist charismatic cult leaders today.

It's also another example of the Messianic Secret - Demons (who are supernatural, and thus can tell) call out that Jesus is sent by God, and tend to say so, but Jesus always silences them. He similarly silences those he heals, or rather he tries to. All this forshadowing, and yet somehow when he dies, all his disciples are shocked and dismayed. It makes no sense!

So Wrede supposed in 1902 that the author of Mark added the bits about Jesus silencing people in after the fact, to explain their confusion later on. That is, the disciples didn't expect it, because Jesus was deliberately hiding his divinity from them. He didn't succeed in hiding it from everyone, but those nearest him believed him when he told them to think nothing of it, so they suspected nothing. Why cover it up at all? We suppose that historically speaking, they really didn't think Jesus was divine while he lived. That was invented/discovered/revealed after he died. But to admit nobody knew/thought/realized this until after the fact is embarrassing, and undermines their message. So the author of Mark may have been trying to cover it up.

1:22 & 1:27 There's tremendous significance to the question of Authority throughout these gospels. It's a big, big deal that Jesus was preaching his own vision, rather than citing prior tradition as the source of his authority. Whether he's a prophet, a visionary, a/the Messiah, or the Son of God, he's rocking the boat by claiming this. Similarly, the message of the Kingdom (CG: "Domain") of God is a discussion of authority. Different interpretations exist regarding whether the Kingdom/Domain in question has to do with rule on Earth, with Heaven, with overthrowing Rome, or with something less overtly spacial.

--Ember--

So, having kicked out a few demons, Jesus becomes famous:

NAB translation:
28
His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee.
29
On leaving the synagogue he entered the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.
30
Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever. They immediately told him about her.
31
He approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up. Then the fever left her and she waited on them.
32
When it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were ill or possessed by demons.
33
The whole town was gathered at the door.
34
He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him.
35
Rising very early before dawn, he left and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed.
36
Simon and those who were with him pursued him
37
and on finding him said, "Everyone is looking for you."
38
He told them, "Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come."
39
So he went into their synagogues, preaching and driving out demons throughout the whole of Galilee.
40
A leper came to him (and kneeling down) begged him and said, "If you wish, you can make me clean."
41
Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said to him, "I do will it. Be made clean."
42
The leprosy left him immediately, and he was made clean.
43
Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once.
44
Then he said to him, "See that you tell no one anything, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed; that will be proof for them."
45
The man went away and began to publicize the whole matter. He spread the report abroad so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly. He remained outside in deserted places, and people kept coming to him from everywhere.

A note on vs 40 says there are two instances of lepers being cured in the Old Testament, and describes a little bit about how leprosy made a person "unclean," thus by curing him and sending him for purification, Jesus was hoping the guy would be accepted back into his religious community.

I think this section might be read in the light of that "Messianic Secret" - the reluctantly famous guy going around doing what he does, a-healin' and a-preachin', trying to stay one step ahead of the crowds. A holy curmudgeon. Establishing indie cred.

Next up - trouble with Pharisees!

Dang.

I have a lot to say about the most recent verses (the fact that there were no synagogues -- essentially, meeting houses for Jewish expatriates -- in Galilee in Jesus's time, the long Jewish tradition of exorcism, etc.) but I've gotten a bit sidetracked.

Maybe this weekend.

Quick note before I have to head out:

Leprosy in the NT probably didn't refer to what we now understand the term to mean, but rather any kind of skin condition that create the appearance of flaky skin, or skin with rash or sores. Yes, unclean - that kind of thing is often caused by something contagious after all - but not quite the leprosy most folks picture these days.

Also- The Messianic Secret is more a product of the Author, not of Jesus himself. The point Wrede was trying to make was that "Mark" added the "shh! Don't tell!" bits in after the fact to explain why none of the Disciples seemed to know that Jesus was Divine at the time. If Jesus himself actually did say "Shh! Don't tell!" at the time, then there's some secrecy going on, yes, and it's perhaps accurately termed a messianic secret, but it's not "The Messianic Secret" that biblical scholars are referring to when they use that term.

--Ember--

on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught.

In and around Jesus’s time, "synagogues" were community centers for expatriate Jews living outside of Israel. They wouldn’t have existed in Capernaum, but they probably existed where the authors of Mark lived – probably in southern Syria – around 70 C.E.

In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!" Jesus rebuked him and said, "Quiet! Come out of him!" The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him.

There were a lot of Jewish exorcists around the time of Jesus. (Josephus discusses one named Eleazar, who supposedly performed for Vespasian.) As discussed in Ancient Jewish Magic, they generally relied on one of three different methods:

* the use of an animal, vegetal, or mineral substance (by burning it, anointing with it, etc.)
(e.g., the burning of a fish heart and liver in the Book of Tobit)

* the use of elaborate rituals and incantations
(e.g., Noah’s exorcism of his children and grandchildren in the Book of Jubilees)

* the innate power of the exorcist himself
(e.g., Abraham in the Genesis Apocryphon, found at Qumran, a community that may have been associated with Jesus, John the Baptist, or their followers).

The Gospel of Mark has Jesus use the third, generally associated with powerful holy men.

There’s a similar Jewish story about Shimeon bar Yochai, the supposed author of the Zohar, who exorcised the demon Ben Themelion by shouting “Ben Themelion, come out! Ben Themelion, come out!”

Here’s a great exorcism, attributed to David, from The Antiquities of the Bible:

Darkness and Silence existed before the world came into being; then Silence spoke, and Darkness became visible. Then your name was created . . . fastening together of what had been spread out; its upper part was called heaven and the lower earth. The upper part was commanded to bring down rain according to its season, and the lower part was commanded to produce food for all creatures. And after this was the tribe of your spirits created. Now do not be troublesome, since you are a secondary creation. Otherwise, remember Tartarus wherein you walk. Or is it not enough for you to hear that by means of what resounds before you, I sing to many? Or do you not remember that your brood was created from an echo in the abyss? But the new womb, from which I was born, will rebuke you, from which in time one will be born from my loins and will rule over you.

Is that a Messianic exorcism? And does it date reliably from before Christianity?

That "new womb/one will be born" business seems remarkably Christian.

It's First Century C.E. (about the same time as the Gospels), and probably originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, then Latin.

David supposedly exorcises Saul (per 1 Samuel 16:14-23) by saying the above incantation and playing the lyre.

The incantation repeats the beginning of the creation story, suggests that demons are merely a secondary by-product of creation that shouldn't exceed their station, and then discusses the "one [who] will be born from [David's] loins and will rule over you."

I'd say that's Solomon, David's son, known as the ultimate demon-binder, but it could apply to Jesus (another descendant of David) as well.

Although it should be noted that the lineages linking Jesus to David don't match, and in any case aren't likely to be historical.

--Ember--

Yep. Matthew 1:1-17 doesn't match Luke 3:28-38.

Also, Matthew traces Jesus's line through Coniah/Jechoniah, even though Jeremiah 22:30 says no descendant of his can ever be king, while Luke includes Levites, even though David's tribe was Judah. And both lineages rely on Joseph as Jesus's father.

The whole David-to-Jesus thing is tricky. The southern kingdom, Judah, thought David was a big deal. The northern kingdom, Israel (where Jesus supposedly came from), didn't, and preferred Joseph (as in the many-colored coat), which may be why Jesus's (sort-of) father is named Joseph.

In fact, in Mark 12:35-37, it looks like Jesus expressly criticizes the idea that the messiah has to be a descendant of David. This may mean that the author(s) of Mark understood that Jesus wasn't from the tribe of Judah, and thus couldn't have been a descendant of David.

(In the DC Comics tradition, I'm tempted to say we should think of four different, parallel-earth Jesuses: Earth-Mark, Earth-Matthew, Earth-Luke, and Earth-John. Earth-Mark Jesus can leap an eighth of a mile. Earth-John Jesus can fly. And the average person doesn't realize there's a difference between the two.)

In my class, I brought up the curious aspect of Jesus Davidean lineage being through Joseph, yet the claim being that Joseph never bedded Mary before Jesus was born. The Prof. said that Joseph acknowledging Jesus, and raising him as his own son is possibly enough to satisfy precedent, and that is perhaps why the Infancy narratives (which have almost no historical value at all anyway) put such emphasis on Joseph considering the alternatives and actively agreeing to keep Mary and Jesus as his own.

--Ember--

Mark 2:1-12

NAB translation
1 When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.

2 Many gathered together so that there was no longer room for them, not even around the door, and he preached the word to them.

3 They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.

4 Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd, they opened up the roof above him. After they had broken through, they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are forgiven."

6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves,

7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?"

8 Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?

9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk'?

10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"--

11 he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."

12 He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."

There's a few notes - first, this is the start of the trouble that leads to the crucifixion (the whole business with accusations of blasphemy is a set-up for Jesus' trial), and second, that this is where Jesus preached the message of "the nearness of the kingdom and the necessity of repentance and faith."

And, on vs 5, there's Christ's Green Lantern power battery: the faith of the crowds. "Accounts of other miracles of Jesus reveal more and more his emphasis on faith as the requisite for exercising his healing powers."

The NAB commentators think that vs 10 is a direct address to a Christian reader, not to anyone within the story (scribes or faithful).

We're moving from miracle stories to pronouncement stories.

Chances are the author(s) of Mark built this combination miracle story (2:1-5, 10-12)/pronouncement story (2:5-10) around a chreia (essentially, a pithy remark or exchange) attributed to Jesus: Challenge: "Who but God can forgive sins?" Response: "Which is easier, to forgive or to heal?"

Building a story out of a chreia or proverb was a classic Greek rhetorical exercise. (By the way, a great book on the creation/composition/structure of the Gospel of Mark is Burton Mack's A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins.)

Also, note that the healing was based on the faith of the paralyzed man's friends, not the paralyzed man himself.

By the way, note the repetition of the phrase "he said to the paralytic" both before and after the pronouncement story (in lines 5 and 11). That's a classic sign that material has been inserted into an earlier text. If you cut out the insertion, the story reads as follows:

1 When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.

2 Many gathered together so that there was no longer room for them, not even around the door, and he preached the word to them.

3 They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.

4 Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd, they opened up the roof above him. After they had broken through, they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.

5/11 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are forgiven. I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."

12 He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."

Reads a lot smoother.

So why the addition? To add a chreia attributed to Jesus, and to add a charge of "blasphemy" (by "scribes", the term Mark generally uses instead of "Pharisees") to foreshadow Mark 14.

The whole chapter might have been inspired by a story about Elijah in 2 Kings 1, in which a king falls through a hole in his ceiling and ends up lying ill in bed. That story has a less happy ending.

Reading Myth and the Christian Nation has inspired me to revive this topic. Hope others are interested.

Here's a lovely excerpt from that book that provides a bit of context:

When the Romans sacked Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D., Mark concluded that God had allowed it as a judgment against those who had killed Jesus, and he wrote a brief biography of Jesus to imagine how that could have happened. Others found his story irresistible. Even Matthew, still grounded in a Jewish milieu that had found a way to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Moses, and who should not have needed to link the death of Jesus with the destruction of the temple, found Mark's biography most interesting, and integrated his own group's collection of the teachings of Jesus into the story. Then Luke, a fairly well-educated Greek living somewhere outside Palestine in the early second century, perhaps in a city on the Aegean Sea, took Mark's story as the "fulfillment" of Israel's epic history and embellished it with teachings for what by then could be called gentile Christians concerned about their place in the Roman world. He also added a sequel or second volume known as the "Acts of the Apostles" to follow the story through the journeys of Paul as far as Rome.

Back to the text -- Mark 2:13-28:

13 Jesus went out again beside the lake; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them.

14 As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him.

15 And as he sat at dinner in Levi's house, many tax-collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples -- for there were many who followed him.

16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?"

17 When Jesus heard this, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners."

18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, "Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

19 Jesus said to them, "The wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

20 The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day.

21 "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.

22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."

23 One sabbath he was going through the cornfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?"

25 And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food?

26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions."

27 Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath;

28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."

So we have one question about Jesus's behavior ("Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?") and two questions about the behavior of his followers ("Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" and "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?").

These might have been intended by the author of Mark to explain to the people in his own early Christian community -- which likely included many a rel="nofollow" href="
Why? Because Jesus himself said so, wittily and pithily, in a chreia. At least according to Mark.

A few other things to hit right off the bat (and leaving aside the Pharisees, who likely didn't have any presence in Galilee at the time, let alone in the cornfields on the Sabbath):

The second question asks "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" That suggests that at the time Mark was writing his community was competing not only with the Judaism of the time ("the disciples of the Pharisees") but the disciples of John the Baptist ("John's disciples"). If the other side had won, we might have ended up with John Christ instead of Jesus Christ.

The answer to the third question shows the kind of repetition I mentioned above: "[a]nd he said to them" (verse 25)/"[t]hen he said to them" (verse 27). Seems likely that the clever, quick answer in 27 was the original response, and the weaker answer in 25 was added later.

Also, the weaker answer includes a mistake. Jesus talks about David entering "the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest." But, according to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the high priest at the time was not Abiathar but his father Ahimelech.* Oops.

More later. This is getting pretty long . . .

* Funny that the high priest's name may include the name of the Canaanite god Moloch (whose name may have meant "king," like the Hebrew word melech, and also may have been known as Ba'al/Hadad), which suggests that the proto-Judaism of the time wasn't entirely monotheistic.

Brief observations:

1. I loves me the wedding metaphors, especially in the context of wine. Maybe it's all just a slick marketing ploy, Ancient Roman style. Still.

2. The bit about sinners... that's one of the bits of Christianity I really like.

I get a sense of "tax-collectors" in this period as being outcasts or collaborators with the occupiers, mainly based on depictions of Paul (Harry Dean Stanton in Last Temptation.

Think that's accurate?

That's more or less what I've gleaned through my earlier bible education.

Reminds me of a scene from some cinematic offering of the Gospels...Jesus calls a tax-collector, Matthew I think, to follow him. Matthew says "there are some that call me Matthew the Tax Collector" and a local wit in the crowd jeers "That's not all we call him".

Matthew supposedly is Levi son of Alphaeus, the tax collector in this chapter of Mark.

As I understand it, tax collectors were disliked for at least three reasons. First, they were collecting taxes for an occupying power, the Romans. (When Quirinius took a tax census in 6-7 C.E. riots broke out, led by a guy named Judas from Galilee. Hmm.) Second, they made their living by adding a surcharge to the taxes they collected, which led to abuses and might have given them a shady reputation. Third, tax collecting generally wasn't very profitable, and was considered low-class.

As for the wine and weddings, the Gospels suggest that Jesus and his followers had a reputation as party animals, especially compared to John the Baptist and his followers. Compare Matthew 11:19: "the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!'"

Hate to post twice in a row -- again -- but I've been reading some interesting discussions of the use of the term "Son of Man."

Some suggest the term "Son of Man" simply was a Semitic idiom meaning "a person," "a human being," "humanity," or simply "I" or "me." Others suggest it was used to refer to a divine, semi-divine, or messianic figure, as an allusion to a character in the Book of Daniel (7:13): "there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man . . ." (Even though to me this only seems to mean "a supernatural creature that looked human.") And yet others note that in the Gospel of Mark Jesus always uses it in the third person, possibly about a figure yet to come.

So Jesus's use of the term may have one of (at least) four different meanings: (1) to refer to himself as a divine or quasi-divine being, (2) to refer to himself as a human being, (3) to refer to a divine or quasi-divine being yet to come, or (4) to refer to human beings in general.

So consider the two uses of the term we've seen in the Gospel of Mark so far:

"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth" -- he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."

Leaving aside whether Jesus, if he existed, actually said anything of the sort, does this mean "I, as a divine figure, have authority to forgive sins on earth," or "I, as a human being, have authority to forgive sins on earth," or "I, as a proxy for a divine figure yet to come, have authority to forgive sins on earth," or "Human beings have authority to forgive sins on earth"?

Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."

Does this mean "I, as a divine figure, am lord even of the sabbath," or "I, as a human being, am lord even of the sabbath," or "I, as a proxy for a divine figure yet to come, am lord even of the sabbath," or "Human beings are lords even of the sabbath"?

I'd put my money on "human beings are lords..." but I can't launch the argument I'd like right now. That's definitely where I'd expect things to go, though.

I also recall a sons-of-man vs. sons-of-angels/daughters-of-man thing in Enoch. There were sons of other-than-man in the early days, and they weren't looked on kindly by the Bible.

There's a sons of gods/daughters of men thing in the canonical Bible, in Genesis 6:1-4. They're literally called "the sons of gods" -- bene elohim.

Just as "Son of Man" may mean "a man" or "humanity," it seems likely that bene elohim -- "sons of gods" -- originally meant "gods." (Despite millennia of apologetics to the contrary.)

I read somewhere that the phrase bene elohim is a feminine form. If you look at the greek grigori that also suggests some relevance to the the word egregore.

Neither Hebrew word is feminine or in a feminine form. (It would be odd if the word "sons" were feminine.)

MacGregor Mathers made this mistake in The Kabbalah Unveiled (claiming Elohim is the masculine plural of a feminine singular noun), and some occultists have been screwing it up ever since.

Apophatic Anarchos:I read somewhere that the phrase bene elohim is a feminine form. If you look at the greek grigori that also suggests some relevance to the the word egregore.

We can very plainly see that "grigori" is the direct predecessor to the word "egregore." The original Greek word is "egregoroi" (transliterated from the original) and is used in several Greek translations of the bible to indicate a group of angels who were appointed to watch over humankind, and eventually produced monstrous children by intermarriage, one of the more prominent interpretations of the "sons of God." The earliest appearance of "egregore" in the esoteric literature that I know of is in Eliphas Levi, who describes them as being the fathers of the nephilim. The Golden Dawn developed the modern definition. There's a definite relevance, but it's not exactly a telling one, except from an etymological stand point.

Thanks for that Evan and Joey.

Evan:
Some suggest the term "Son of Man" simply was a Semitic idiom meaning "a person," "a human being," "humanity," or simply "I" or "me." Others suggest it was used to refer to a divine, semi-divine, or messianic figure, as an allusion to a character in the Book of Daniel (7:13): "there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man . . ." (Even though to me this only seems to mean "a supernatural creature that looked human.") And yet others note that in the Gospel of Mark Jesus always uses it in the third person, possibly about a figure yet to come.

So Jesus's use of the term may have one of (at least) four different meanings: (1) to refer to himself as a divine or quasi-divine being, (2) to refer to himself as a human being, (3) to refer to a divine or quasi-divine being yet to come, or (4) to refer to human beings in general.

The phrase 'Son of Man' appears with great frequency in Ezekiel, used by the Lord GOD when addressing Ezekiel:

e.g. 6:2 "Son of man, set your face toward the mountains of Israel; prophesy against them",
and numerous other instances

Clearly, in this case, it refers to an individual (Ezekiel) and not to humanity as a whole. I had tended to think of the phrase as referring to a supernatural being, but I take Evan's point that in Daniel's vision he is seeing a human who appeared to be a supernatural being. Perhaps, then, in Ezekiel, the phrase is used to emphasize the fact Ezekiel is an ordinary mortal who serves as the instrument of the Lord GOD?

The phrase 'Son of Man' appears with great frequency in Ezekiel, used by the Lord GOD when addressing Ezekiel:

e.g. 6:2 "Son of man, set your face toward the mountains of Israel; prophesy against them"

The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation translates Ezekiel 6:2 as "O mortal, turn your face toward the mountains of Israel . . ."

I take Evan's point that in Daniel's vision he is seeing a human who appeared to be a supernatural being.

Other way around: a supernatural being that appears to look like a human.

Here's the JPS translation of Daniel 7:13: "As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a human being . . ."

Of course, the Book of Daniel is simply a coded diatribe (an apocalypse, no less) against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his erection of an altar to Zeus (or himself) in the Temple in Jerusalem. When you criticize a powerful leader, it's best not to be too straightforward.