The Book of Mark Summarized

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Two Conclusions of NT Mark: A Case to Deconstruct the Text

The New Testament book of Mark is the most basic of the known Jesus narratives. Compared to the other Synoptic accounts, the material in the Markan narrative is minimalist and concise.  One perspective is that Mark might be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke.  Then again, Mark may be the earlier of the accounts, in which case the additional material in the others could be due to the development of the Jesus legend over the course of time.  Regardless, I personally find Mark to be the best source to ascertain the basic content of  the Jesus narrative.

The basic narrative thus being the tale of a young Hebrew itinerant preacher, who engaged in exorcisms and healings; and who likewise exerted mystical powers over nature, including the power over death itself. He quickly gained a following, and his popularity was such that at times he could not even find the time to eat when at home, leading him to withdraw to remote areas from time to time. Although popular with the masses, his liberal interpretation and loose application of Jewish teachings and traditions lead to disfavor with the Jewish leaders; who subsequently conspired with the Roman officials to have the hero of the narrative executed by crucifixion. Then, depending upon which of the two conclusions of the tale one chooses to accept; either a) three days after his death his grave was found empty, and one sole eyewitness claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead; or b) Jesus made several appearances to numerous disciples after rising from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion.  As the narrative asserts that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the implications of either documented conclusion have fascinated followers of the Jesus narrative for nigh unto two millenniums.  

It seems to me that the existence of two different endings to the narrative raises certain questions as to the composition of its content which merit serious consideration, separate and apart from the content of the material itself.  For example, why are there two endings?  Was the latter ending (16.9-20) a later rendition than the first ending (16.1-8)? What are implications of the two endings?  And perhaps the question most pressing in my mind relates to the credibility of the concept of an alleged united narrative, in the light of a fragmented finale.  In other words, since there are two different conclusions to this one single narrative, then can we reasonably assume that the narrative itself is a united text?

To my way of thinking, these questions are reasonable and relative to the study of the Markan narrative, in the light of the existence of two Markan conclusions. One popular means of dealing with the dual conclusion issue has been to gloss over the differences between the two accounts by writing them both into the text as a single conclusion.  Yet the end of the first conclusion account states that the women who fled the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen, which would seem to contradict the account of the second conclusion that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The latter can hardly be reconciled with the former as a single conclusion since Mary Magdalene was one of the women who according to the first conclusion fled the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen.  Clearly then, these two conclusions are two different versions of the Jesus narrative.

My conclusion then with regards to the existence of the two conclusions of the biblical book of Mark is that it is therefore not reasonable to assume such to be a single narrative in and of itself, and furthermore that the entire text should be the subject of studious scrutiny as to its construction.  It is thus my personal perspective that there needs to be a reasonable yet critical analysis of the construction of the entire narrative itself, in order to be able to more accurately determine the nature of its composition.

Such an endeavor is for me in fact a work in process.