Are all the "son of man" occurrences translations of the same phrase? What language was Mark originally written in, again? (I'd assume Greek, but maybe there are traces of earlier non-Greek texts or something.)

The Gospel of Mark originally was written in colloquial Greek.

Its author(s) and most early Christians probably read (and borrowed from) the Hebrew Scriptures in their Greek Septuagint translation.

Are all the prior occurrences of "Son of Man" in Hebrew texts? Prior to Mark, I mean.



By the way, the NAB has two footnotes I find interesting. One, on the role of tax collectors:

Customs post: such tax collectors paid a fixed sum for the right to collect customs duties within their districts. Since whatever they could collect above this amount constituted their profit, the abuse of extortion was widespread among them. Hence, Jewish customs officials were regarded as sinners (Mark 2:16), outcasts of society, and disgraced along with their families.

The other, more pertinent, takes "Son of Man" as a Messianic figure... but glosses it as something Mark (or the authors of Mark) has added to the story as a message to early Christians. We kind of covered this before, but it's interesting that the phrase "Son of Man" is one of the clues:

[10] But that you may know that the Son of Man . . . on earth: although Mark 2:8-9 are addressed to the scribes, the sudden interruption of thought and structure in Mark 2:10 seems not addressed to them nor to the paralytic. Moreover, the early public use of the designation "Son of Man" to unbelieving scribes is most unlikely. The most probable explanation is that Mark's insertion of Mark 2:10 is a commentary addressed to Christians for whom he recalls this miracle and who already accept in faith that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God.

So, more "conflict stories" in Chapter 3, then? There's a note that I'm taking as a warning that things are going to get a little repetitive, describing the simple formula for the conflict story: 1. statement of fact, 2. question of protest, and 3. Jesus replies.

grant:Are all the prior occurrences of "Son of Man" in Hebrew texts? Prior to Mark, I mean.

Mentions of "Son of Man" in ancient languages, early Semitic literature, and the Hebrew Scriptures. If you can trust Wikipedia, that is.

So, more "conflict stories" in Chapter 3, then? There's a note that I'm taking as a warning that things are going to get a little repetitive, describing the simple formula for the conflict story: 1. statement of fact, 2. question of protest, and 3. Jesus replies.

Yep, more hostile, historically-suspect caricatures of Jewish religious beliefs and practices. But that's the New Testament for you.

But I see three interesting bits of Chapter 3: the naming of the twelve apostles (without my favorite, Judas not Iscariot), the unforgivable "sin against the Holy Ghost," and the dispute with Jesus's family. Do people want to skip to any or all of them?

Actually, I'd love a little insight on the unforgivable sin thing. I'd bring it up at Church and people would assure me that I probably was going to be okay even though I'd done it. They often didn't meet my eyes as they said it. A bit of insight on what this is about would be relevant to my interests.

Mark 3:28-30:

28 "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter;
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" —
30 for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

This takes place right after "scribes who came down from Jerusalem" said Jesus had exorcised demons by using the power of Satan.

Over the years this has come to be described as the "sin against the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)." Some Christians consider it to be completely unforgivable (by confession, penance, etc.) -- do it and you're damned to hell forever.

Which eventually, almost two millennia later, has led to quite a bit of fun on YouTube. (I especially like this one.)

But from the context of the story it simply seems to be attributing to Satan works properly attributable to the Holy Spirit.

According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, "to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine." Essentially, it can manifest through six different sins, "despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another's spiritual welfare."

However, it is "unforgivable" only if the sinner remains unrepentant until death.

Other denominations differ on the interpretation. But even Pat Robertson says that "If you want to obey God but are concerned that you may have committed the unpardonable sin, you have not committed it."

It seems important that the unforgivable sin happens in the context of the conflicts with the Pharisees/Jewish authorities. In Mark, at least, the big crime that Jesus is going down for is blasphemy. Any kind of commentaries on what blasphemy really is would be central to underlining Christ's innocence of blasphemy and his accusers' misunderstanding of the true nature of crimes against God.

Interesting, too, that despair is a sin.

Looking over that "Son of Man" material, I'm intrigued by a pattern there - in most early mentions, the phrase is part of a series - God, who is not Man, and is not the Son of Man. Interesting that Elijah cuts out the Man portion, as does Mark, drawing a line directly from God to the holy human, born of humans.

There's another thing I find interesting in Mark 3, and that's that Jesus retreats from the crowds by going to the sea, ordering the apostles to have a boat ready.

There seems to be a history in the Bible of people going to sea and confusing things happening to them. Jonah tried to escape from God's commands by fleeing on a boat. Didn't work.

Other things I like:

14 He appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) that they might be with him and he might send them forth to preach
15 and to have authority to drive out demons:

Apostle Job Description: 1. Hang out with JC. 2. Preach. 3. Drive out demons.

The pope is supposed to be doing that - that's why he's part of the apostolic succession. Hmph.

And...

20 He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat.
21 When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

...

31 His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
32 A crowd seated around him told him, "Your mother and your brothers (and your sisters) are outside asking for you."
33 But he said to them in reply, "Who are my mother and (my) brothers?"

One of the famous mentions of "brothers". The footnotes are surprisingly generous for a Catholic translation, saying that "in Semitic languages" it's common to use the same word to mean cousins and nieces, but pointing out that Mark might have meant it literally, and that it wouldn't be an issue were it not for Church doctrine about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

There's an interesting argument that the Gospel of Mark invented divisions between Jesus and his family (as in the excerpt above) in an attempt to discredit the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who supposedly were led by Jesus's brother James, and who may have had a view of Christianity very different from the pro-Gentile views of Paul and Mark.

Later in the Gospel we'll see even more bashing of James and Peter, who also supposedly was one of the Pillars in Jerusalem.

Yeah, there's another footnote for 3 saying the list of places from which the crowds came (Jerusalem, Idumea, etc.) was setting up the idea of a "new Israel" - a gentile religion.

Does it in any way suggest that he needed the 12 to drive out demons, it could be read that way, that he needs the 12 to have the authority. Interesting if you look at that astrologically with him being the sun. An approach to exorcism is to find the correct time to perform such an act through the use of astrology.

If you're wondering where the number 12 comes from, it's likely a reference to the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Almost all of them have disappeared. (Damn those Cylons!)

The 12 in middle eastern belief finds its roots in the earliest astrological cultures and continues to be incorporated by those cultures that continue to disseminate that knowledge, cosmological, theological, even in government for example ancient sumeria, but this is getting off the topic.

Well, yeah -- many cultures consider 12 to be a magic number. Among other reasons, because it's divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and itself. Makes for nice divisions of hours, months, the heavens, etc.

But why 12 apostles rather than another nice magic number like 3, 4, 5, or 10?

Matthew 19:28: "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

and Luke 22:29-30: "I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

(Interestingly, this suggests a throne for Judas Iscariot, which is why some people think his betrayal of Jesus was a later addition to the Gospels.)

Yes the sun is measured in 12 phases in many different cultures and some would look at the 12 tribes and apostles as reflecting those measurements, as personifications of a variety of aspects of the sun, I think both explanations stand, you are more than likely right that originally it referred to the 12 tribes of Israel, which perhaps (Big perhaps as i cannot provide written or physical evidence for that but researched speculation only) had roots in the various elements that came together to form Judaism. I think early Babylonian astrology *could* be an influencing factor as it is perhaps in the reference to Jesus being annointed in a similar tradition to the annointing of Tammuz, Babylonian culture and its many manifestations spread and are kept alive by many of the tradtional cultures in the middle east to this day.(Much of that referenced in negative terms rather than positive)

Um...I'm pretty sure the twelve tribes of Israel come from Jacob (whose name was changed, after wrestling with god ((who cheated, the cheating cheater)) to "Israel", which means "Struggles with God", which is about as apt a name as one could imagine for the nation of Israel and its people) and his twelve sons.

Apophatic Anarchos:I think early Babylonian astrology *could* be an influencing factor as it is perhaps in the reference to Jesus being annointed in a similar tradition to the annointing of Tammuz, Babylonian culture and its many manifestations spread and are kept alive by many of the tradtional cultures in the middle east to this day.(Much of that referenced in negative terms rather than positive)

I can't really make sense of this sentence. If english isn't your first language, let me apologize and ask that you elaborate.

Heh, yes english is my first language allegedly (Your first language is never the cultural dialect you speak IMO, but this is neither the time or place for that conversation, the answer being in your question, you make *sense* before you make a sentence.)

Well from what i can see and have read you can see an awful lot of Sumerian culture and stories in Judaism and Christianity and several other cultures from the middle east, these traditions keep a lot of the prior dead civilisation of Sumeria/Babylonia alive in them in bits and pieces, i would not say they are inheritors because they are markedly different enough not to be but they do contain various threads of a tapestry, pieces of a puzzle that others have found quite enticing to put back together.

I can only comment on what i have read really, i am not a scholar, it offers in some way a little more thought to the appropriation thread, the act of the appropriation of cultures that may well be dying out is another way for a culture to keep that knowledge and those traditions alive all be it in an altered form. If you look at history you can see this happening all over the place, the two main sources being IMO war and trade.

Tuna Ghost:Um...I'm pretty sure the twelve tribes of Israel come from Jacob (whose name was changed, after wrestling with god ((who cheated, the cheating cheater)) to "Israel", which means "Struggles with God", which is about as apt a name as one could imagine for the nation of Israel and its people) and his twelve sons.

Although the Jacob story almost certainly is an etiological myth intended to unify the various clans/tribes of ancient Israel by describing them as brothers descended from the same father (Jacob/Israel).

In fact, the names of the tribes (and hence the sons of Jacob) probably came from a variety of sources: for example, homeland (Ephraim - Mt. Ephrath, Benjamin - sons of the south (ben-yemen)), occupation (Issachar - burden bearers), or traditional totems or gods (Zebulon, Asher, Gad).

AA I think the primary point here is that the 12 Apostles mapping to the 12 Tribes is a reference to the immediate Jewish tradition, which means your explanations need to apply to the Jewish tradition going back much further than Jesus's time. For the Sumerian and Babylonian influence to be a significant effect, it would have to have influenced the Jewish perception of how many tribes there should be (a couple thousand years earlier roughly?).

Which is not to say there couldn't be such connections, only that the pertinent point of application would have to be back when the Tribes were defined as 12, rather than when Jesus referred to them later.

--Ember--

Okay, but you will have to take into consideration that i favour an astrological bias, see Here -
Hebrew calendar

Quote from the above -

"During the Babylonian exile, which started in 586 BCE, Jews adopted Babylonian names for the months, which are still in use. The Babylonian calendar also used a lunisolar calendar, derived from the Sumerian calendar." (in particular see the picture next to the months category also see the table below)

I am making a leap here, a big one, that the cosmological structure of the 12 tribes sits in relationship to the cosmology of the ritual year, that the social structure reflects the mythological make up of the people.

Evan:
Although the Jacob story almost certainly is an etiological myth intended to unify the various clans/tribes of ancient Israel by describing them as brothers descended from the same father (Jacob/Israel).

In fact, the names of the tribes (and hence the sons of Jacob) probably came from a variety of sources: for example, homeland (Ephraim - Mt. Ephrath, Benjamin - sons of the south (ben-yemen)), occupation (Issachar - burden bearers), or traditional totems or gods (Zebulon, Asher, Gad).

Huh! Never once did I put together "Benjamin" with "ben-yemen". Seems obvious now.

Ready for Mark 4?

It starts in what feels like an important location, halfway between the sea and the land. (I always dream of beaches, and there's the whole Genesis thing about bringing land out of the waters.) Christ preaches on a boat (or at least on the beach), but prays alone in the mountains.

And then this chapter introduces the first parable of the New Testament, yes? I always wonder how literalists get around so much of Christ's teachings being in the form of metaphors and allegories.

Fun footnote for that:

The use of parables is typical of Jesus' enigmatic method of teaching the crowds as compared with the interpretation of the parables he gives to his disciples, to each group according to its capacity to understand.

Ready!

But Mark 4:10-12 actually says that Jesus uses parables so the crowds WON'T understand his teachings.

Yeah, I know! That's the thing - it's not *meant* to be understood easily!!

He was messin' with y'all!!

There's also something esoteric about the mustard seed story, too - not just that Jesus admits to speaking in coded secrets, but the introduction here of the "kingdom of God."

That hasn't popped up in Mark yet, has it? It's a big thing in the Gospel of Thomas, and seems like something that's been set aside in most contemporary mainstream Christianity - the hidden kingdom.

The Kingdom of God (what some translate as "God's imperial rule") shows up as early as Mark 1:15.

Lots of interpretations of what that meant (or might mean).

Oh, right!

Funny, this translation:

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

Supports my impression more than does this one:

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!"

The idea of proximity is the one that I find interesting - the idea of a parallel world to ours, very near, but divided by some kind of barrier.

The mustard seed could go either way (something approaching us in time, or something near at hand that we cannot perceive).

Is it too late for me to join in this thread? And if I may opine on 12 tribes/12 disciples - and also upon whats with the christian fish thing as I find the two related? If this would be too disruptive it won't hurt my feelings.

It's never too late to join a thread -- that's what they're here for.

In the meantime, I'll offer a few thoughts on Mark 4.

First, as Burton Mack has noted, although Mark shuffles a few of the elements most of the chapter is one literary unit with a clear structure -- an elaboration. It consists of an introduction (4:1-2), a statement of the thesis (4:2-9), the rationale for the thesis (4:10-20), testing the thesis by exploring the converse (4:21-23), offering an authoritative pronouncement (4:24-25), giving an example (4:26-29), providing an analogy (4:30-32), and summing up in a conclusion (4:33-34). Someone was paying attention in rhetoric class.

Second, there's a lot of talk of seeds in the chapter. This was a standard image used by the Greeks and other Hellenistic teachers of the time to describe moral and philosophical instruction. For example: "Words should be scattered like seed; no matter how small the seed may be, if it once has found favorable ground, it unfolds its strength and from an insignificant thing spreads to its greatest growth." (Seneca, Epistles 38:2) Or "If you wish to argue that the mind requires cultivation, you would use a comparison drawn from the soil, which if neglected produced thorns and thickets, but if cultivated will bear fruit." (Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 5.11.24). Sound familiar?

Third, the parables seem to be addressed more to the teachings and travails of early Christians than to Jews of the Second Temple period. They answer questions like "why isn't anyone accepting our teachings about Jesus?" with answers like "if they don't, it's because they're evil or weak or materialistic. But don't worry -- stand fast and you'll be rewarded. And we'll be greater than all of them one day." Classic assurances for the members of a small cult, two thousand years ago or today.

Thanks Evan,

A couple posts back there was a discussion and a link between the 12 apostles and 12 tribes. There are other interesting ideas to be plumbed here, I believe. If Jesus were surrounded by the 12 apostles and the 12 apostle-12 tribe link is accepted there can be a parallel drawn to the ark of the covenant and it's being surrounded by the twelve tribes. Parallels and/or 'forerunner' symbols like this are a common tool of theologians called a "type". The ark being a 'type' of the greater covenant in "Christ". I find this interesting, however what I find even more interesting is what I see as Biblical texts being laden with astrological symbolism.

If we do go with the 12 apostle - 12 tribe hypothesis Jesus becomes a symbol of the sun OR if one is inclined in the other direction the sun a symbol of Jesus. Here's how. The twelve tribes camped around the Ark/Tabernacle in the wilderness and each tribe had attached to it a symbol (sometimes more than one, the textual quotes of which can be provided however right now I don't feel like getting up and getting a Bible and concordance). And these symbols were emblazoned upon standards/flags of each tribe. The main four at the Cardinal points being a Lion, a Bull, a Man, and Serpent, symbols which are at times linked to Leo, Taurus, Aquarius, and Scorpio. A snake may be a bit of a stretch into scorpio symbolism, however I question the snake symbol since actually Dan is coupled with an adders 'sting'. Snakes don't sting, they bite...scorpions on the other hand do sting. Interesting to note that an accepted earlier symbol for Scorpio was actually an Eagle which lines up neatly with "the four beasts surrounding the 'throne of God'" in Revelation. Which is a nice segue into the Christian/fish thing.

There is a phenomenon in astronomy and astrology called the 'precession of the equinox'. (wiki has a nice entry about it. Too long to include an explanation here) The precession of the equinox, among other things, provides an interesting measure known as an age. The ages correspond with this precession around the zodiac Age of Taurus followed by Age of Aries, Age of Pisces, Age of Aquarius etc. If the ages are rounded off (for ease of math which isn't an uncommon practice) an age lasts roughly 2150 years (give or take since the constellations aren't so neatly chopped into equal parts in reality).

An interesting thing occurs when this information is overlaid like a transparency upon the Bible text. During the Age of Taurus, represented by a bull, many peoples likened their gods to a bull. 'El' was a common root name for the Hebrew god, El literally can mean an ox or bull. Along comes Moses and introduces sacrificial code not the least of which includes, rams, lambs and goats. Symbolizing, for some, a relationship between God and Israel with the centerpiece being sheep/rams. The ram is a symbol of Aries, next in the precession of equinox/ages. --Interestingly some "rejected" this transition represented by the people making a 'golden calf' symbolizing, again for some, a clinging to old ideas of god and rejecting any new ideas about god.

Then comes Jesus roughly 2000 years ago which was roughly the last transition of the age. He is seen as a 'sacrificial lamb' and his worship often symbolized by a fish. Symbolizing, for some, the transition from a ram/sheep- Age of Aries into the fish-Age of Pisces. And again many rejected this teacher and a change of thoughts about how people relate to god in a new way("rejecting the savior" for some) and clung to their old way of relating to god, nominally Jews today. We are roughly at another transition.

This transition will be, everybody knows, from Fish/Pisces to Man/Water-bearer/Aquarius. (And if I were a betting man I'll bet that many 'followers of god' will again reject a new way of seeing deity and cling to old dogma just as many in every age before.) This interpretation becomes more interesting when coupled with the argument that the disciples asking Jesus, "When is the end of the world" is more properly translated "When will be the end of the AGE"?
These are just my two cents and some things I've uncovered over many years of study that made me at least raise an eyebrow. It is I realize interpretation but isn't everything when studying any religious or mythologic texts that are purposely intended to at once reveal AND conceal there meaning?

Sorry it's so long but I like to lay foundations rather than just say...the fish/christian has for some an astrologic meaning...without any reference or reason for the statement.

Thanks for enduring me guys.

-Being

Huh - that *is* interesting.

I'll have to look more into the precession of the equinoxes. I wonder how the gospel writers would have interfaced with astrological knowledge.

Being:Parallels and/or 'forerunner' symbols like this are a common tool of theologians called a "type". The ark being a 'type' of the greater covenant in "Christ".

More particularly, typology is a tool used by Christian theologians to try to harmonize Jewish scriptures with Christian scriptures.

We actually see something roughly analogous in Mark 4:10-12, when the author has Jesus quote Isaiah 6:9:

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables.
And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables;
in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'"

According to the author, both Isaiah and Jesus had their divine messages misunderstood or ignored by those around them.

By the way, a bit of Googling shows that MacGregor Mathers tried to match the 12 Tribes of Israel to the 12 astrological signs in an essay called "Twelve Signs and Twelve Tribes." It's on page 40 of R.A. Gilbert's book The Sorcerer and His Apprentice.

Being:The main four at the Cardinal points being a Lion, a Bull, a Man, and Serpent, symbols which are at times linked to Leo, Taurus, Aquarius, and Scorpio. A snake may be a bit of a stretch into scorpio symbolism, however I question the snake symbol since actually Dan is coupled with an adders 'sting'. Snakes don't sting, they bite...scorpions on the other hand do sting. Interesting to note that an accepted earlier symbol for Scorpio was actually an Eagle which lines up neatly with "the four beasts surrounding the 'throne of God'" in Revelation. Which is a nice segue into the Christian/fish thing.

Slight tangents:

I'm so used to seeing the World card and the Wheel card with the four symbols being the Lion, Bull, Man, and Raptor, and those being equated to the Archangels of the Four Directions. That does indeed still map to Scorpio, according to my understanding, though I must admit, I've never actually stopped to ponder that connection. Now I'll have to think about it some more...

I've been told for years that the three symbols for Scorpio are the Scorpion, the Eagle, and the lizard - Do you know if there a connection or equivalence between Lizard and Serpent in this context, or is that something else entirely?

--Ember--

EmberLeo:
I'm so used to seeing the World card and the Wheel card with the four symbols being the Lion, Bull, Man, and Raptor, and those being equated to the Archangels of the Four Directions.

...and, just in case you're unfamiliar, with the Four Evangelists, too.

Luke's the Bull, John is the Eagle, Matthew's the Man and Mark is the Lion. I'd always kinda thought it was for the Lion of Judah, being the book that's most concerned with conflict with the Jewish authorities, but Wikipedia on the symbols says it's for John the Baptist "roaring like a lion" at the beginning of this book. And because lions sleep with their eyes open (?!) just like Jesus in the tomb. And I get the impression that it's also because this is the scariest of the gospels.

So -- the first of the parables:

1 Again he began to teach beside the lake.
Such a very large crowd gathered around him that he got into a boat on the lake and sat there, while the whole crowd was beside the lake on the land.
2 He began to teach them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them:
3 "Listen! A sower went out to sow.
4 And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up.
5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil.
6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away.
7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain.
8 Other seed fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold."
9 And he said, "Let anyone with ears to hear listen!"

10 When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables.
11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables;
12 in order that
"they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'"

13 And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?
14 The sower sows the word.
15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.
16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy.
17 But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.
18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word,
19 but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing.
20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold."

Jesus teaches the crowd in a parable, then explains to his disciples that he taught in the form of a parable so the crowd WOULDN'T understand, then explains the meaning of the parable to his disciples. So why did he bother to teach the crowd in the first place?

Then consider the explanation of his parable: he'll teach "the word," some people will not follow because of Satan's influence, or because they're not strong enough to withstand persecution, or because they're distracted by other desires, but those who do follow will be rewarded a hundredfold. But what IS the word, or his teaching? And how can he expect people to follow it if he's teaching it in a way that's deliberately designed NOT to be understood by the masses?

I think it's clear from Mark 4:11, 26, and 30 that (at least according to Mark) Jesus is teaching what he said in Mark 1: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news." But if Jesus said it, what would he have meant by it? Was it an apocalyptic prediction, that God would directly rule earth in the very near future, and make people obey God's laws, so people had better repent of their sins right away? If so, is Jesus's message about the Kingdom of God in some way weakened by the fact that such an apocalypse DIDN'T happen in Jesus's lifetime, or the lifetimes of his contemporaries, or the lifetimes of the people who wrote the Gospel of Mark? (Which led to a bit of rewriting and reinterpretation in later Christian scriptures.)

And, getting back to the parable, if this was transmitted from Jesus or early Christian communities to the authors of Mark, would it have been transmitted as a unit, explanation and all? Or did the parable itself circulate for a while and the explanation only come later? And is the explanation provided in the Gospel of Mark really the originally-intended explanation?

Assuming it went back to Jesus, is it likely that he would have been that self-conscious about his mission and its eventual success? Or are both the story and its explanation really about the early Christian movement, its relative lack of success, and its hopes for the future?

Here's how one scholar (Theodore Weeden) thought the parable originally went:

A sower went out to sow, and while sowing it happened:
Some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and devoured it.
Other seed fell on rocky ground, and when the sun rose it was scorched.
Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it.
Other seed fell into good earth, and it gave fruit and yielded thirtyfold, sixtyfold, one hundredfold.

Much neater, nice parallelism, and it obeys the law of threes. And the 30, 60, 100 procession has a nice surprise kicker.

I think it's clear from Mark 4:11, 26, and 30 that (at least according to Mark) Jesus is teaching what he said in Mark 1: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news." But if Jesus said it, what would he have meant by it? Was it an apocalyptic prediction, that God would directly rule earth in the very near future, and make people obey God's laws, so people had better repent of their sins right away? If so, is Jesus's message about the Kingdom of God in some way weakened by the fact that such an apocalypse DIDN'T happen in Jesus's lifetime, or the lifetimes of his contemporaries, or the lifetimes of the people who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

I wonder what definition we are using for apocalypse here? One might easily conclude that the very revealing of the parables to the disciples WAS an apocalypse. I understand this flies in the face of 'church' interpretation of their big "A" Apocalypse. I think largely the parables come into question not because they didn't come to pass, rather because they are read with preconceptions created by 'the church'. I personally gain more by reading parables as being an apocalypse of 'spiritual' law and a map of inner or self realization rather than prophecy.

Well, my current understanding of Jesus and the kingdom is that he's talking about... well, something like a parallel universe formed by a radically new subjective perception. In other words, he's talking about an enlightenment process that "unlocks the gates" to a mysterious new world that fills the old world with fire (or brilliant light). It's imminent, around us all the time, yet not worldly - not a kingdom that can be pointed to. That's why Christ's particular, peculiar fulfillment of the promise of the Messiah isn't the one that was expected - not a physical leader, but a spiritual teacher (which is not to say that an enlightenment experience like this couldn't be tied to some pretty radical politics).

So that's what I think is going on with the parable-as-personal-revelation thing. It's pointing the way toward a process of... "metaphorizing," maybe... everyday reality. Which would definitely fit with the term "apocalypse."

The Catholic footnotes to the "for those outside" verse says that the parables were Christ's way of teaching without directly engaging authorities - speaking in code to avoid obviously violating the law or ticking off the authorities. Reminds me of the coded messages in gospel songs slaves used to communicate when the overseers were listening.

I'm not sure that's all that was going on, though.

The tricky thing (or at least one tricky thing) is that Kingdom of God (which, again, seems to be better translated as "God's imperial rule") might have meant entirely different things to Jesus, Paul, various different groups of very early Christians, the authors of the Gospel of Mark, the authors of the other Gospels who were borrowing from the Gospel of Mark, the Church fathers, various Christian scholars and mystics over the centuries, and people today. What now might seem like metaphor once might have been meant very literally.

"Metaphorizing" might be the wrong word. I'm thinking more in terms of... well, that strain of gnosticism that I guess is Hellenic-mystery-religion-based. The idea that there's a real world that we're not perceiving properly because it's veiled. (Thus, apocalypse - removing the veil.) More that the phenomenal world in which we exist is a metaphor for another world that we have to decipher our way into... and any literal (or, maybe, "literal") changes here are effects of greater changes going on at a higher level.

By the way, does the word "rule" in that translation - "God's imperial rule" - does it have all the meanings the English word "rule" does? Ideas of straightness, regulation, and list of behaviors (as in Rule of St. Benedict) as well as to govern? I like the idea of "domain" that your link mentions even better, or even "foundation."

grant:...and, just in case you're unfamiliar, with the Four Evangelists, too.

Heh, I'm pretty familiar with them, actually, thanks. I admit, my familiarity was recently brushed up and improved by last quarter's Historical Jesus course, otherwise I'd have had almost nothing of interest to say in this thread at all. Not that I've kept up all that well...

--Ember--

Bit of poetry in Mark 4: 21-23:

21
He said to them, "Is a lamp brought in to be placed under a bushel basket or under a bed, and not to be placed on a lampstand?
22
For there is nothing hidden except to be made visible; nothing is secret except to come to light.
23
Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear."

Followed by a scary eschatological bit:

26
He said,"This is how it is with the kingdom of God; it is as if a man were to scatter seed on the land
27
and would sleep and rise night and day and the seed would sprout and grow, he knows not how.
28
Of its own accord the land yields fruit, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.
29
And when the grain is ripe, he wields the sickle at once, for the harvest has come."

Oddly, the footnote to this explicitly says this image is a figure of the Final Judgement - it seems a bit literal-minded for a Catholic translation (who see Revelation as a metaphorical, internal process).

(Thanks to verses like Mark 4: 34....)

34
Without parables he did not speak to them, but to his own disciples he explained everything in private.

26 - 29 sounds like an apt description of Saturn, also reminds me of the Saturn return in astrology.

34 - I think i have seen used in reference to Gnostic teachings and apocryphal texts. (Secret gospel of Mark perhaps)

21 - 23 reminds me of the Hermit card.

21 through 23 remind me somewhat of what we were talking about today in my Mysticism in Catholicism class (first day - I'm so excited!). Apparently, and I'm only just getting to learn this, a major theme in Helenic (and thus applicable Pre-Christian) Mystery Religion is the concept of The Hidden God, and what Mystics classically wrestle with is how that God may be revealed, and how much of what is hidden is hidden because of our base bodies.

Of course, I also can't help but hear the Godspell version of the line: "If that light is under a bushel, it's lost something kind of crucial! - You have to stay bright to be the light of the world!"

--Ember--

Man, I'd love to be taking that class.

Jesus still is offering the same lesson as in the rest of Chapter 4.

His teachings about the Kingdom of God previously were described as seeds, which sometimes will be fruitful and sometimes won't. With the lamp metaphor, he compares those same teachings to a light that, even if presently hidden, was intended to illuminate and eventually will fulfill its purpose. Then he moves back to the seeds metaphor, contrasting the present, when the Kingdom of God is hidden, to the future, when the seeds will have born fruit, the Kingdom of God will have become manifest, and it will be harvest time.

Then he caps it off with the mustard seed story:

30 He also said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it?

31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth;

32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."

While his teachings (and Christianity in general) may have a small beginning, they will have a great destiny.

As I said above, that sounds like a classic apocalyptic assurance to members of a small cult like the Mark community -- "no matter what's happening now, God will ensure that we'll prevail in the end."

Two other things about the mustard seed story:

First, it's a joke. The House of Israel often was compared to the cedar of Lebanon, with birds or beasts taking shelter in or under its branches (for example, Ezekiel 17:22-24 and 31:3-6 and Daniel 4:7-12). In what might be a bit of wry self-deprecation, Jesus substitutes an unruly weed.

Second, if you consider it as a factual statement it's simply wrong -- the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed, and it doesn't grow into the largest shrub. Doesn't really matter to most people, but that gives some Biblical fundamentalists conniptions.

Parables to miracles! End of Ch. 4, we get that demon wind being rebuked (OK, it's not actually a demon, but it's rebuked just like the demon in Ch. 1 was). The scene actually reminds me a little of Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu) and the sage who doesn't see distinctions between things - Jesus' followers have to wake him up to let him know the boat's being swamped and hey, we're all going to drown. Because he hadn't noticed that he's on a small boat in a storm.

Mark 4:37-41
37
A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up.
38
Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. They woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?"
39
He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Quiet! Be still!" The wind ceased and there was great calm.
40
Then he asked them, "Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?"
41
They were filled with great awe and said to one another, "Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?"

And then Chapter 5 has a fellow coming out of the tombs bearing the famous "unclean spirit" named Legion, a fellow so strong chains can't hold him down:

5
Night and day among the tombs and on the hillsides he was always crying out and bruising himself with stones.
6
Catching sight of Jesus from a distance, he ran up and prostrated himself before him,
7
crying out in a loud voice, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!"
8
(He had been saying to him, "Unclean spirit, come out of the man!")
9
4 He asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "Legion is my name. There are many of us."
10
And he pleaded earnestly with him not to drive them away from that territory.
11
Now a large herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside.
12
And they pleaded with him, "Send us into the swine. Let us enter them."
13
And he let them, and the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine. The herd of about two thousand rushed down a steep bank into the sea, where they were drowned.

You might not want the bacon. It's not too fresh.

Why were people raising pigs in this area anyway? They were pagans from... well, different gospels say different places, all with similar names. (See note #21 here.)

Oh, it's the Geresene Demoniac! Wow, there's a lot on that guy. For one thing, the description of the pigs running into the sea? Betrays the story. If it's set where they say it's supposed to be set, it's definitely NOT right by the seaside, or so said my Professor in the Historical Jesus course.

Hmm, I still have at least one document saved to my hard drive that focuses specifically on the Geresene Demoniac... I should go dig it out.

--Ember--

Well, just from reading the footnotes, it seems like there's substantial confusion as to where they actually are.

But they did just get off a boat, so the sea thing didn't bug me.

Unless the location problem is that it's *tombs* by a seaside?

The problem is that Gerasa (5:1) -- which was changed to Gedara in Matthew (8:28) -- is nowhere near the water. Neither is Gedara.

It looks like the author of Mark didn't know the local geography.

The pigs and the use of the name "Legion" might be a not-too-thinly-veiled slap at Rome.

Here's a similar exorcism by another first-century miracle worker:

And when he [Apollonius] told them to have handles on the cup and to pour over the handles -- this being a purer part of the cup since no one's mouth touched that part -- a young boy began laughing raucously, scattering his discourse to the winds. Apollonius stopped and, looking up at him, said, "It is not you that does this arrogant thing, but the demon who drives you unwittingly," for, unknown to everyone, the youth was actually possessed by a demon, for he used to laugh at things no one else did and would fall to weeping for no reason and would talk and sing to himself. Most people thought it was the jumpiness of youth that brought him to do such things, and at this point he seemed carried away by drunkenness, but it was really a demon which spoke through him. Thus, when Apollonius began staring at it, the phantom in the boy let out horrible cries of fear and rage, sounding like someone being burned alive or stretched on the rack, and he began to promise that he would leave the young boy and never again possess anyone else among men. But Apollonius spoke to him angrily such as a master might to a cunning and shameless slave, and he commanded him to come out of him, giving definite proof of it. "I will knock down that statue there," it said, pointing to one of those about the Porch of the King. And when the statue tottered and then fell over, who can describe the shout of amazement that went up and how everyone clapped their hands in astonishment!

(Philostratus, the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, IV:XX)