Irenaeus on the Gospels

Although a fourfold Gospel canon probably preceded the great late second century heresiologist Irenaeus of Lyons, he was one of the first to explicitly rise to its defense.  Here are the traditions he provides on the evangelists.  Again, thinking back to Papias, how does Irenaeus understand that Matthew wrote among the Hebrews in “their own dialect” and, when he refers to Mark handing down Peter’s preaching in writing after the exodos of Peter and Paul, does he mean their “departure” from Rome or a euphemism for “death”?  Further, where might Irenaeus get the idea that Luke was a companion of Paul (see Adv. Haer. 3.14.1 on combining the “we” of Acts with 2 Timothy 4:11 and Colossians 4:14) and the idea that John the disciple (= Apostle?) leaned on the Lord’s breast (see John 13:23) and resided in Ephesus (see Eusebius, Ecc.Hist. 3.39 on the confusion over whether there were one or two famous Christian leaders named John with memorials in Ephesus)?

Ita Mattheus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua scrip­turam edidit Evan­gelii cum Petrus et Paulus Romae evange­lizarent et fun­da­rent Eccle­siam. Post vero ex­cessum Mar­cus disci­pulus et inter­pres Petri et ipse quae a Petro annun­tiata erant per scripta nobis tradidit, et Lucas autem secta­tor Pauli quod ab illo prae­dica­batur Evangelium in libro condidit. Postea et Johannes disci­pulus Domini qui et supra pectus ejus recum­bebat et ipse edidit Evangelium Ephesi Asiae com­morans. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haeresis 3.1.1)

ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγέ­λιου τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελι­ζομένων καὶ θεμε­λιούντων τὴν ἐκ­κλη­σίαν· μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδεν Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμη­νευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσό­μενα ἐγ­γράφως ἡμῖν παρα­δέδωκεν· καὶ Λουκᾶς δέ, ὁ ἀκόλο­υθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ’ ἐκείνου κηρυσσό­μενον εὐαγγέ­λιον ἐν βίβλῳ κατ­έθετο. ἔπειτα Ἰωάννης, ὁ μα­θητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀνα­πεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ­έδωκεν τὸ εὐαγγέ­λιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων. (Greek text quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2-4)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Alexander Roberts, William Rambaut)

Indeed Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, also bore forth a writing of the gospel, Peter and Paul evangelizing in Rome and founding the church.  But after the exodus of these men Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also delivered to us in writing the things preached by Peter, and Luke also, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by that man.  Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, himself also published the gospel, passing his time in Ephesus of Asia. (Ben C. Smith)

So Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, brought forth a writing of the gospel when Peter and Paul in Rome were evan­geli­zing and founding the church; but after their depar­ture Mark, the disciple and inter­preter of Peter, he too handed what was preached by Peter down to us in writing, and Luke, the fol­lower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was preached by him.  Then John, the disciple of the Lord and also the one who leaned against his chest, also pub­lished the gospel when re­siding in Ephesus of Asia. (Stephen Carlson)

Papias of Hierapolis Part II

The next important quote of Papias on Mark (and Matthew) is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16.  Again, it is interesting to look at the interpretive decisions of the translators and in what they insert in brackets:  who is the one doing the remembering (Peter or Mark), did Peter adapt his teaching according to the needs of his audiences or in a certain literary form (chreiai or anecdotes), what does it mean that Mark did not write in order(taxis - literary arrangement, chronology, completeness) or only wrote down some things as he (Mark or Peter?) remembered them, what does it mean that Matthew put the sayings/logia/oracles into a Hebrew dialect (the Hebrew or Aramaic language or style?) and that each (who?) interpreted them as were able?

καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὐπὸ τοῦ κυρίου η λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. ἐνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.  ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’ εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.

“And the Elder said this also: ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles.  So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.’  Such then is the account given by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made (by him):  ‘So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.’” (JB Lightfoot and JR Harmer, Fragment II)

“And the elder was saying this:  ‘On the one hand, Mark, becoming Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately as many things as he remembered.  On the other hand, [he did] not [write] in order the things either said or done by the Lord.  For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him.  But later, as I said, [he had followed] Peter, who was teaching in accord with the anecdotes yet not as it were arranging the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong by writing some things as he related [them] from memory.  For he was thinking one thing beforehand of one thing, [i.e.] to omit not a single one of the things that he had heard or to falsify anything in them.’  Therefore, on the one hand, these things are related by Papias [or 'to Papias' as the one who heard the tradition]  concerning Mark.  Concerning Matthew, on the other hand, these things were said:  ‘On the one hand, therefore, Matthew did arrange the oracles in Hebrew ‘dialect.’  On the other hand, each one interpreted them as he was able.’” (Robert Gundry, “The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,” page 49-50)

“And this is what the elder used to say, ‘when Mark was the interpreter [or translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order.  For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings.  And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them.  For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he had heard or to include any falsehood among them…  And this is what he says about Matthew:  And Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.’” (Bart Ehrman, Loeb, pg. 103)

“The Elder used to say: ‘Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he [Peter?] recalled from memory – though not in an ordered form – of the things said or done by the Lord. For he [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, [he heard and accompanied] Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement [suntaxin] of the logia of the Lord.  Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some things just as he [Peter?] related them from memory.  For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.  This, then, is the account given by Papias about Mark.  But about Matthew the following was said:  ‘Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement [sunetaxato] in the Hebrew language [hebraidi dialectō], but each person interpreted them as best he could’” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses, pg. 203)

“And the presbyter would say this:  ‘Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter [hermēneutēs],  accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which  was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord’s reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.’  Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, ‘Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could.’” (Stephen Carlson)

Papias of Hierapolis Part I

Our first major authority on Mark is Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, whose writings only survive in fragments quoted by other patristic authorities (see all the fragments or alleged fragments here).  If one asks where Papias received his information, the church historian Eusebius quotes the relevant passage in Papias in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.3-4.  Since every act of translation is also an interpretation, I have provided different translations below for the reader to see some of the interpretive decisions of different renderings of the Greek (also notice what is inserted in square brackets) regarding whether Papias meant to identify the “elders” with the disciples or to distinguish them, whether John in the first list of 7 disciples is to be identified with the elder John mentioned alongside Aristion or distinguished from him (cf. Irenaeus seems to follow the former interpretation and Eusebius the latter) and what Papias means by his preference for the ”living & abiding word” over “books.”

Οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα συγκατατάξαι ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις, διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν.  οὐ γὰρ τοῖς τὰ πολλὰ λέγουσιν ἔχαιρον ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τἀληθῆ διδάσκουσιν, οὐδὲ τοῖς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνηνεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδομένας καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς παραγιγνομένας τῆς ἀληθείας· εἰ δέ που καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους, τί Ἀνδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἴπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμᾶς ἢ Ἰάκωβος ἢ τί Ἰωάννης ἢ Ματθαῖος ἢ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν ἅ τε Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταί, λέγουσιν. οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης.

But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing its truth.  For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign commandments, but in those (who record) such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the truth itself.  And again, on any occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the Elders – what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Ariston and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say.  For I did not think I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice. (J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, Fragment II)

“To confirm the correctness of my interpretations, I shall not fail to link up with them for you, first, all the sayings which I ever learnt carefully from the Elders [Disciples] and carefully drew from my memory. For, unlike the majority, I did not delight in those who have many clever things to say, but in those who teach what is true; not in those who recall the teachings of another [Paul ?] but in those who repeat the teachings given to the Faith by the Lord and springing from the Truth itself.  And, again, if anyone came who had consorted with the Elders [Disciples] I used to ask him about the sayings of the Elders [Disciples]—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas, or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s followers.  And thirdly (I shall link up with my interpretations) things which Aristion and John the Elder [Disciple], followers of the Lord, say. For I have always thought to get more help from a surviving eyewitness than from the Books [i.e. 'The Old Testament'; not 'from books']. (Rupert Annand, “Papias and the Four Gospels” Scottish Journal of Theology 9 (1956): 46.

“I also will not hesitate to draw up for you, along with these expositions, an orderly account of all the things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth.  For unlike most people, I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth, and not those who recalled commandments from strangers, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself.  But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire about their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying.  For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice” (Bart Ehrman, LOEB, page 99)

“I shall not hesitate also to put into properly ordered form for you [singular] everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down well, for the truth of which I vouch.  For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth.  Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself.  And if by chance anyone who has been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders – [that is,] what [according to the elders] Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.  For I did not think the information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, page 15-16)

But I will not hesitate to supplement at any time for you too the interpretations with whatever I learned thoroughly and remembered thoroughly from the presbyters, since I am confident in the truth on their account. For unlike many I was not delighted with those who say many things but with those who teach the truth, or with those who remember not the commandments of others but those given by the Lord to the faith and derived from truth itself.  But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too. For I did not assume that whatever comes from books is as helpful to me as what comes from a living and lasting voice. (Stephen Carlson)

External References to Mark

A few posts ago I asked the question of whether Mark was among Justin’s Memoirs of the Apostles and what did Justin mean by “memoirs.”  It got me thinking that it might be useful to compile some of the external references to Mark on the blog, so I plan to do that over the next bunch of posts.

Was Mark’s Gospel Among Justin Martyr’s “Memoirs of the Apostles”?

Justin Martyr often calls the Gospels the “memoirs of the apostles” (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων).  In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 106.3, Justin refers to the “memoirs of him” (ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ) which can either be translated “the memoirs about him” (referring to Jesus) or “his memoirs” (referring back to the one whose name was changed – Peter).   Even if one adopts the latter reading, there is a debate about the reference behind “Peter’s memoirs.”  Over at his blog Tim Henderson engages Bart Ehrman’s view that the Gospel of Peter was among Justin’s memoirs and persuasively argues for a reference to Mark instead here, here, here (if interested further, you can check out Tim Henderson’s book The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetic).  As for the term “memoirs,” see other interesting posts from a few months ago by Joel Watts and Mike Bird.  Both think the clearest parallel is to Xenophon’s Memorabilia of Socraties, though Mike also mentions Helmut Koester’s alternative view that Justin was rather echoing Papias’s remarks that Mark “remembered” the preaching of Peter or rival Gnostic claims of the disciples “remembering” the private teachings of Jesus (cf. Ancient Christian Gospels, pp 37-40).  What do you think:  how well known would the Greco-Roman genre of “memoirs” or the distinction between private notes (hypomnēmata) and published memoirs (apomnēmoneumata) have been known to the evangelists composing the Gospels or their earliest commentators (Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement)?  For a brief bibliography for those interested further:

• Abramowski, Luise.  “The memoirs of the apostles in Justin.”  Pages 323-35 in The Gospels and the Gospel.  Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (“Die ‘Erinnerungen der Apostel’ bei Justin” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien.  Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1983).
• Bauckham, Richard.  Jesus and the Eyewitnesses:  The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Foster, Paul.  “The Relationship between the Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter.”  Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
• Heard, Richard.  “APOMNĒMONEUMATA in Papias, Justin and Irenaeus.” New Testament Studies 1 (1954): 122-29.
• Hyldahl, Niels.  ”Hegesipps Hypomnemata.” Studia Theologica 14 (1960): 70-113.
• Kennedy, George.  “Classical and Source Criticism.”  Pages 125-55 in The Relationship among the Gospels: an Interdisciplinary Dialogue .  Edited by William Walker.  Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978.
• Köster, Helmut.  Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development.  London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity International, 1990.
• Pilhofer, Peter.  “Justin und das Petrusevangelium.”  ZNW 81 (1990): 60-78
• Stanton, Graham.  Jesus and Gospel.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Evidence for Mark’s Longer Ending (16:9-20) in Tatian’s Diatessaron

Although a fourfold Gospel canon is defended by the time of Irenaeus on the basis of numerological arguments (e.g., four zones, four principal winds, four pillars, four faces of the cherubim), some other Christian groups privileged one particular Gospel (e.g., the Ebionites use of a Gospel like Matthew or Marcion of one like Luke).  Another option was to harmonize the four into one consistent account as seen in Tatian’s Diatessaron (dia through/by and tessarōn of four).  In an open-access archaeological journal The Heroic Age: A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe 15 (2012), James Snapp, Jr makes a text critical case for knowledge of ”Mark 16:9-20 in Tatian’s Diatessaron.”  This could also be taken as added support for the argument of James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: the Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000, pp 170-176) that Tatian’s teacher, Justin Martyr, was also familiar with the longer ending of Mark.  James Snapp left further resources on the longer ending of Mark in the comments of my “student resources” if anyone is interested further in his own take on the text critical issues (note: my own position, however, would be closer to Kelhoffer’s that the longer ending was an addition by a 2nd century scribe trying to correct Mark’s ending at 16:8 by harmonizing it with other Easter traditions).

My Published Review of “The African Memory of Mark”

Since James Crossley, Jim West and James McGrath have already mentioned the new edition of Relegere, I want to add that my review of The African Memory of Mark is also published in it.  Overall I greatly appreciated how it introduces readers to the fascinating developments about the evangelist “Mark” as the first bishop of Alexandria and martyr, though I lay out my case for why I believe the author could be more critical with the later sources and why I am not persuaded about a historical core behind these traditions.  I am grateful to Relegere and my friend Deane Galbraith for letting me have the opportunity to review such an interesting book, so let me know what you think of the review.

Forsaken by God?

To return to those tricky Markan passages, few passages have caused theologians such difficulty as Jesus’ last dying words in Mark (and Matthew).  For trinitarian Christians, it seems to be beyond paradoxical for God the Father to forsake God the Son on the cross.  Before I look at how exegetes or systematic theologians have dealt with the passage, first I want to look at a few examples of the role it has played in popular Christian worship songs.

Although both songs are surprisingly packed in with a lot of theology when one compares them to much of contemporary popular Christian music, they both read what transpired at the crucifixion through a particular lens.  Specifically, the songs seem to advocate a penal substitution view where Jesus took on the sins of the world upon himself and became the recipient of divine wrath and the Father literally “turned his face away.”  Since my area of expertise is not in systematic theology I welcome the contributions of theologians in the comments section (do you believe this was a literal separation of Father and Son or more how Jesus felt with raw human emotion and, if the former, how does that not affect the unity of the Trinity or slide into tritheism? – Update: for a canonical-systematic theological treatment of the issue check out this book review by Abram K-J).  However, while I believe this later theological reflection is perfectly legitimate, I also think if we want to try to get at how Mark would have been heard by its intended audience we need to be careful to not impose later categories from Nicea when doing exegesis.  So just some notes…

• In Mark 15:34 Jesus cries out “E’lo-i, E’lo-i, lema sabachthani?’ (ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι) which Mark translates “my God, my God why have you forsaken me.”  The mocking bystanders mishear this as a cry for Elijah, assuming Jesus was invoking the eschatological coming of Elijah (cf. Mal 4:5) to deliver him.  Those without ears to hear sets up another scene of Markan irony,  for Elijah had already come (John the Baptist) and they mistakenly believe that if Jesus really was special he would be divinely rescued from the cross.
• Matthew 27:46 changes Jesus address from Aramaic to Hebrew (ηλι ηλι) (eli, eli), perhaps to make it easier to see the confusion about Elijah (?), but retains the translation that Jesus cries out about being forsaken by God.  Yet Luke omits the line and puts in its place a much more trusting sentiment as Jesus commits his spirit to God (Lk 23:46).  John may or may not know Mark but he also does not have the words, opting instead for Jesus to announce that it has been accomplished (John 19:30).  The Akhmim fragment (Gos Peter?), which again is widely debated if it is dependent on the Synoptics Passion Narrative or develops shared oral/written traditions in its own way, has Jesus cry “my power, you have forsaken me” (5:19).  This may be seen as docetic (i.e. Jesus only “seemed” human) (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.12.1-6 on bishop Serapion’s later judgment on it) or fits in with the complaints of some heresiologists about groups who divide the spiritual Christ from the human Jesus, yet ”power” may also just be a circumlocution for “God.”
• This leads to the last question.  Do you think in Mark this should be interpreted as another cry of an innocent victim facing the horrors of crucifixion and lamenting about how God has abandoned him to this fate?  Or do you think this should be interpreted with reference to the Psalm as a whole, where Mark intends Jesus to have fulfilled the entire pattern of the Psalm of the innocent righteous one who will be vindicated in the end?

No One Knows… Not Even the Son

In another post, I argued that Mark does not exactly predict the cosmic return of the Son of Man in a generation but that all the preliminary signs that immediately precede his coming would be fulfilled in a generation (Mark 13:30).  Otherwise, it is difficult to reconcile with Mark 13:32 that concerning that eschatological day or hour no one knows (οὐδεὶς οἶδεν), not even the angels in heaven (οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ) nor the Son (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός) but the Father alone (εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ).  While this may seem to alleviate some theological concerns about why the end did not come exactly within his generation (but see my post addressing the problem of a 2000 year delay of the parousia!), it raises other problems for later systematic theologians on the nature of the Trinity.  Checking out Wieland Wilker’s Textual Commentary on Mark, if you scroll down to Mark 13:32 one can see that a few Markan manuscripts and a lot more manuscripts of Matthew 24:36 omit the offending words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός.  I also found online an interesting article Francis Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance:  Four Patristic Solutions” Trinity Journal 28 (2007): 205-13.  Again, since Mark’s christology was not as developed as John I dont think the evangelist was too worried about this issue (rather it may serve a positive function in discouraging overly enthusiastic setting an exact date for the end) and I do not think it has to be a problem for those Incarnational theologians who accept Jesus’ full humanity, but if theology is your interest I want to ask how you deal with the passage?

Does Mark Deny Jesus Was Good?

To begin with a personal anecdote:  when I graduated high school and embarked on a degree in Religion & Theology, my goal in part was to be an apologist.  Among the popular apologetics I had readily consumed was Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) (my attitude to apologetics has since changed quite a bit as it seems to me more about reinforcing the worldview of insiders than an effective mode of persuasion for outsiders and I tend to think the best apologetic is how a tradition impacts one’s daily life and how one treats other people).  Moving away from that personal tangent, Strobel’s chapter “The Profile Evidence: Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God” interviews D.A. Carson and has the following conversation:

For example, in Mark 10 someone addresses Jesus as “good teacher,” promoting him to reply, “Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone.”  “Wasn’t he denying his divinity by saying this?” I [Strobel] asked.  “No, I think he was trying to get the fellow to stop and think about what he was saying,” Carson explained. “The parallel passage in Matthew is a little more expansive and does not find Jesus downplaying his deity at all. “I think all he’s saying is, ‘Wait a minute; why are you calling me good? Is this just a polite thing, like you say, “Good day”?  What do you mean by good? You call me good master-is this because you’re trying to honey up to me?’  In a fundamental sense there’s only one who is good, and that’s God. But Jesus is not implicitly saying, ‘So don’t call me that.’  He’s saying Do you really understand what you’re saying when you say that? Are you really ascribing to me what should only be ascribed to God?’ That could be teased out to mean, ‘I really am what you say; you speak better than you know’ or ‘Don’t you dare call me that; next time call me “sinner Jesus” like everybody else does.’ In terms of all that Jesus says and does elsewhere, which way does it make sense to take it?”  With so many verses that call Jesus “sinless,” “holy,” “righteous,” “innocent,” “undefiled,” and “separate from sinners,” the answer was pretty obvious (162)

It is hard to deny Mk 10:17-18 (cf. Luke 18:18-19) creates issues for Christology, so much that the parallel in Matthew 19:16-17a ”good” is no longer an adjective describing the teacher (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ) but ”what good thing I must do” (τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω) and ”why do you call me good?  No one is good except one, God” (τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) becomes “why do you ask me concerning the good?  One is good” (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός).  Yet Carson’s view of Mark as actually implicitly pointing to Jesus’ divinity is a traditional reading (cf. Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Halls, Mark for Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series) and I came across online an extensive case that at the level of the evangelist (regardless of what the historical Jesus or the rich man thought) the intent was for the perceptive reader to reach this deeper understanding in Brian Han Gregg, “Why Do You Call Me Good:  A Markan Riddle” Scripture and Interpretation 3:1 (2009): 68-78.  Gregg’s case seems to hinge on whether one accepts that the words/deeds of the Markan Jesus go beyond the Jewish concept of agency (e.g., could the conflict in Mk 2:7f be about the source of Jesus’ authority, see the interpretive comment in Matt 9:8?) and whether the call to sell all & follow me supersedes Torah (might the man’s attachment to possessions be seen as breaking the first commandment which prevents him from Torah obedience as interpreted in the Jesus movement?).  On the contrary, I don’t think Mark intended to discredit Jesus’ deity or goodness because I am not sure it is yet an issue in this particular gospel but was merely trying to make a point against flattery that should be reserved for God; however from a canonical or sytematic theological perspective I am not opposed to a Christian who wants to make the equation Jesus = good = equal with God even if not convinced that was how the first readers (or auditors) of Mark heard it.  What do you think?