Many Biblical scholars regard Mark as having been written before any of the other Canonical Gospels. Although I don't know for certain, it does seem reasonable in the light of its comparative brevity. It would seem more reasonable that the additional content which is found in the other Gospels is supplemental to the Markan material, rather than the notion that the minimalist Markan author ignored material in the other gospels in order to abbreviate the story. Or so it seems to me.
As to the nature of the material, Mark appears to be a fictional drama which portrays the heroics of one who rose from obscurity to overwhelming fame, only to be cut off in the prime of his life due to a traditional technicality. The story may have been written after the complete diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE, in which case the narrative itself is possibly an allegory utilized to describe the rise and the fall of the Jewish independence movement during the first century and third of the common era.
The tale features a small town commoner who is thrust into the limelight after a religious experience at his baptism renders him empowered by the Holy Spirit. The commoner uses his newly realized powers to slay the demonic forces which have plagued the villagers, hence becoming somewhat of a local superhero. His mere presence leaves demons quaking in fear. The villagers are ever so grateful, and in spite of his expressed wishes for anonymity, they publicize his exploits far and near to the extent that he must oftentimes hide in secluded areas.
The local authorities become suspicious of the small town commoner turned hero, and accuse him of being demon possessed himself. They soon grow weary of his popularity, and scheme to entrap him at an opportune time. Since the local hero prefers to speak in parables, the authorities seem uncertain as how to deal with the situation. This changes when the small town hero finally speaks plainly regarding his death, and even makes the bold claim that he will be resurrected from the dead. His band of faithful followers seem unsure themselves what to make of his claims, and so the opportunistic authorities seize the moment.
First they pay one of his closest followers to identify the controversial hero of the tale so they can arrest him. (The notion that such efforts for proper identification would have been unnecessary since the hero of the story had been teaching in their midst and was so well known as to have developed a notable following seems lost to the author of the narrative. As is oftentimes the case in a narrative, the quest for dramatic effect seems to supersede detail.) Subjected to interrogation, the hero of the story finally admits that he actually believes that he is the Son of God, and is subsequently accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death.
The one final hope for the hero of the tale to be spared is the local tradition to free a criminal on a particular cultural holiday. Under pressure from the populace, who have inexplicably turned on the hero, the government unfortunately opts to free one who was a murderer and a seditionist instead. And so at public expense and by public means, the hero of the tale is executed.
The developments being what they were, our hero’s final words expressed frustration at being forsaken by God in such a crucial situation.
And then the hero of the story dies, and is laid to rest.
In the cliffhanger conclusion of the tale, some of the hero’s female entourage visit his tomb on the third day after his execution in order to anoint his body with selected spices, only to find his tomb empty. According to one unidentified individual who was on the scene, our hero was raised from the dead, precisely as he had promised while he was alive. In spite of being directed by the unidentified stranger to go tell his disciples what they had seen, the entourage of females flee the scene in fear, and told no one what they had seen.
And so the story ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment