On Your Mark
As usual, I don't have time for a 'real' blog entry; then again, almost none of my blog entries are 'real.'
I have begun Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, and am again struck by his intellectual talent. Incidentally, I read Mark's gospel since my last post, and am once again struck by the force of that document. I do have trouble with the demon possessions, though I know demons were considered the cause of many illnesses by Jews of that period. But when the demons talk to Jesus? Fact is, I haven't seen or heard a demon.
This does not mean they're not real, however. There are also other possible explanations for the demon-component in these healings (besides the 'Mark is pure fiction' stance): the two demons who do talk (other times a person is delivered with no dialogue) could be embellishment (on Mark's part or, perhaps more likely, before he received the tradition) meant to show Jesus' true nature and his power over all other powers, including those of Satan; it is possible the demoniacs belived they themselves were demon-possessed (when in fact they had other mental/physical illnesses) and spoke accordingly, maybe not precisely what we have in Mark but close enough to provide an oral record; it's also possible demons are real spoke through these individuals, though I admit my 'modern' mind cringes at that last one. Stories of supernatural evil are common in less developed cultures (say, the Fillipines) but I have to admit because I don't see this phenomenon in America doesn't mean demons aren't real! If Satan is a genuine being (and I don't know) he's doing fine in the West with the whole materialism thing. Why show his hand? A clearly genuine demon possession, with some kind of supernatural manifestation, caught on television, would pack churches in one week.
What must be remembered is that in each case the man is left in his right mind, at peace and well, sometimes to the shock of others. And each demonic healing where the demon speaks is quite public. Once in a synagogue, once in the presence of the disciples and an unknown number of gentiles.
I have other questions. The footnotes in my Oxford note that the two miraculous feelings end with symbolic numbers of basket-leftovers. Twelve when the feeding of the multitude occurs in Israel proper; seven when the feeding occurs outside Israel (seven is supposed to represent the surrounding nations, though it didn't say why). Again, it doesn't mean it didn't happen (and I don't see these as mere repetitions of Elijah's tradition) but it's an interesting point.
Is Mark so creative that we have no real history? That is the great question, of course. Wright is devoting his book to it I believe. Even if Mark contains exaggerations, the question still remains why a crucified leader, religious or political or philosophical, would inspire such narrative so closely after his own death. A narrative using the sacred book of a nation where the dead leader is elevated to divine status and seen as the fulfillment of centuries of tradition. I know Ehrman and Borg's answer. So far, I'm not buying it. I am far from admitting Mark is creative non-history, or midrash, or wish fulfillment, at this time.
The thing I want to end by saying, again, is that I was stunned by the force of the narrative, especially the passion narrative. Mark seems to have drawn on different sources, I don't know, but the final half of the book is even more remarkable than the first. Once again, I knew I was in the presence of Something Different. Mark's own genuine faith is blindingly clear.
***
On another note, I talked to someone who knows the 'end' of the Estella story. I've only gotten so far in my series on my ex-wife, and haven't written anything in months, but it's time to do another post. I'm not ready, yet, though. Frankly, I'm hurting. Depressed. But working through it well enough. Even after a dozen years and more, the self-blame and pain are very real. More to come.
I have begun Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, and am again struck by his intellectual talent. Incidentally, I read Mark's gospel since my last post, and am once again struck by the force of that document. I do have trouble with the demon possessions, though I know demons were considered the cause of many illnesses by Jews of that period. But when the demons talk to Jesus? Fact is, I haven't seen or heard a demon.
This does not mean they're not real, however. There are also other possible explanations for the demon-component in these healings (besides the 'Mark is pure fiction' stance): the two demons who do talk (other times a person is delivered with no dialogue) could be embellishment (on Mark's part or, perhaps more likely, before he received the tradition) meant to show Jesus' true nature and his power over all other powers, including those of Satan; it is possible the demoniacs belived they themselves were demon-possessed (when in fact they had other mental/physical illnesses) and spoke accordingly, maybe not precisely what we have in Mark but close enough to provide an oral record; it's also possible demons are real spoke through these individuals, though I admit my 'modern' mind cringes at that last one. Stories of supernatural evil are common in less developed cultures (say, the Fillipines) but I have to admit because I don't see this phenomenon in America doesn't mean demons aren't real! If Satan is a genuine being (and I don't know) he's doing fine in the West with the whole materialism thing. Why show his hand? A clearly genuine demon possession, with some kind of supernatural manifestation, caught on television, would pack churches in one week.
What must be remembered is that in each case the man is left in his right mind, at peace and well, sometimes to the shock of others. And each demonic healing where the demon speaks is quite public. Once in a synagogue, once in the presence of the disciples and an unknown number of gentiles.
I have other questions. The footnotes in my Oxford note that the two miraculous feelings end with symbolic numbers of basket-leftovers. Twelve when the feeding of the multitude occurs in Israel proper; seven when the feeding occurs outside Israel (seven is supposed to represent the surrounding nations, though it didn't say why). Again, it doesn't mean it didn't happen (and I don't see these as mere repetitions of Elijah's tradition) but it's an interesting point.
Is Mark so creative that we have no real history? That is the great question, of course. Wright is devoting his book to it I believe. Even if Mark contains exaggerations, the question still remains why a crucified leader, religious or political or philosophical, would inspire such narrative so closely after his own death. A narrative using the sacred book of a nation where the dead leader is elevated to divine status and seen as the fulfillment of centuries of tradition. I know Ehrman and Borg's answer. So far, I'm not buying it. I am far from admitting Mark is creative non-history, or midrash, or wish fulfillment, at this time.
The thing I want to end by saying, again, is that I was stunned by the force of the narrative, especially the passion narrative. Mark seems to have drawn on different sources, I don't know, but the final half of the book is even more remarkable than the first. Once again, I knew I was in the presence of Something Different. Mark's own genuine faith is blindingly clear.
***
On another note, I talked to someone who knows the 'end' of the Estella story. I've only gotten so far in my series on my ex-wife, and haven't written anything in months, but it's time to do another post. I'm not ready, yet, though. Frankly, I'm hurting. Depressed. But working through it well enough. Even after a dozen years and more, the self-blame and pain are very real. More to come.
Comments
I don't think that Ehrman and Borg have the same answer.While Borg does not hold that all of the contents of the Gospels are historical, he certainly doesn't think that they are in no way connected to real history.
To wit: He argues that stories such as the miraculous healings of demon-possessed people point to a historical fact; that Jesus was a great healer. For him the only way to explain such stories is that events like the events described in the Gospels - even if the Gospel accounts are not perfectly historical - actually happened.
Seems like Witherington has loaded you up with some anti-Borg baggage which may not be supported by a close, careful reading of Borg. The only Gospel that he says almost certainly fails to represent the historical Jesus at all is John, which he simultaneously claims is, for his own worship life, the most important Gospel. All far as is view of Mark is concerned - as best as I can tell fromwhat I've read by Borg - most of it points to real history, especially the healing stories. They are central to his understanding of the historical Jesus as a "Spirit person" (someone who has had some special and mystical revelation from God into the nature of God) and a healer.
I knew after I wrote that line I was a bit out of my league.
I was (attempting, unclearly) to refer to the resurrection itself. Ehrman's current interpretation, delivered, it seems, under emotional pressure in his debate with Craig (linked a post or two below) is that the disciples imagined the appearances, made up the stories, etc., to cover the loss of their leader and used the Tanakh prophecies to do so. This position remains problematic for me.
On Marcus Borg, actually, I thought I read someplace in your blog that he denies the resurrection and sees it as wish fulfillment also. Clearly I was wrong. I think what you (may have) said was that Borg argues the disciples came up with the atonement idea to explain/understand the crucifixion. That does not deny the resurrection, actually.
Wright, incidentally, puts Borg in another category from is JS fellows in JVOG.
While I hate other writers to comment on works they haven't written, I've done it myself! I was going very fast and reaching for a name.
Let me restate: I do not at this time see any reason to deny the physical resurrection. I have a lot of research left to go, but those writers (Schweitzer, Ehrman) who deny the miraculous accounts in the gospels out of hand are making an assumption I don't share.
For what it's worth, I've promised (myself) to read every book on your list of sources for the bible class, the list you posted. Borg is on there. I've already begun Pelikan's book.
And yes, though I think Witherington takes some pretty big steps himself with the Bible (calling the voice of an OT prophet 'the voice of God himself') he has poisoned the well on Borg. Not that I won't try to read B with an open mind when I get there (and the old Star Trek fan in me still smiles at the name).
Best.
See, this is why you are in the Academy. I sincerely appreciate the correction.
And if I wasn't having such a tough week, I would have called sooner. I still mean to.
t
He sees the resurrection as "more than literal" - that is, it may or may not have happened as described in the Bible, but in either event if it remains as only literal history, then it is just something which happened to one man at one point in time. In other words, he shifts the ground of the discussion. He has no interest in saying whether or not Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. As a Christ he experiences the resurrection, just as the earliest disciples experienced it. As such, he is more interested in the meaning of that resurrection, whether or not it was bodily.
That position alienates many people. Scholars who respect his academic honesty (as a scholar he can't say that the accounts of the resurrection meet the burden of proof that scholars need to declare it history) shake their heads at his religious devotion. More religious scholars see him as a threat to the certainty with which they mix their faith with their professional work.
But I am strangely drawn to his position. We spend so much time debating what can't be known. Borg shifts the discussion out of the past and into the present. Those of us who make a distinction between faith and belief sometime have a hard time believing some of the contents of their faith. I, for one, can't say with any certainty that the man Jesus of Nazareth was raised bodily from the dead, and I will probably never be able to say that. Neither can I say that he wasn't raised from the dead. I can, however, say with Borg that the story of his resurrection is a powerful and enduring story, the meaning of which can be experienced in the life of faith, a life which promises participation in that resurrection, whatever the nature of that resurrection.
In other words, like Borg, I can't say that Jesus was raised from the dead just because that resurrection is essential to Christianity. Academically speaking, that is a pretty bad reason. But I can say that the power of the resurrection story, and the religious experience of those who follow that story, speaks to a deep and abiding truth, allowing the religion built on that story to be an enduring one.
That allows me to say that, in some way, Jesus was raised from the dead. I don't know what form that resurrection took, or whether or not there ever was a resurrected body walking around Galilee. (And whan I say "I don't know," I mean just that - I am not taking a position on the issue.) But I do know that, like the earliest Christians, I experience the resurrected Jesus in my life.
I can see why that sounds to conservatives very much like what Schweitzer, Ehrman and others say when they say that the resurrection was a product of the disciples imagination. But for Borg, as a practicing Christian, there is a subtle but important difference. The disciples really did experience Jesus raised from the dead - they didn't make it up. We just can't know what form that resurrected Jesus took, since it is reasonable to suppose that they might have used metaphorical language to describe their experience, as it would have been such a unique experience.