“Did Mark Bottom Out?” Or “A Titanic Failure”

[neilgodfrey]

Enough of the essay by Holly Carey that Hurtado promotes is available on Google Books to see where H's criticism as gone askew.

For Holly Carey, the Gospel of Mark is said to be a "bleak or even 'black' Gospel" because it is

i.e.. a Gospel which has as its primary focus the suffering and death of Jesus—both Larry and I believed that this was an unfortunately one- dimensional way of reading the story

Carey therefore directs the focus away from the emphasis on the death of Jesus as if that focus alone explains its dark tone:

Instead, this is an attempt to swing the proverbial pendulum back the other way somewhat—from an almost exclusive focus on the cross to a more balanced reading of the narrative that seriously takes into account its more positive elements.

But .... the view of Mark as a "bleak or black" gospel does not rely on its focus on the death of Jesus. Rather, that dark atmosphere is there from the outset in the interactions between Jesus and others -- e.g. his wielding of power in threatening-looking ways and not even attempting to console confused bystanders that he is on their side, his aloofness and aura of dangerous power so that the looming expectation of his own death brings to mind awesome unseen powers that must be at work to bring that about, and its beginning with Jesus being possessed by a strange power driving him into the wilderness to be with wild animals... these are the sorts of elements making it discomforting reading.

As for the term "gospel" itself, it is worth keeping in mind, as per Crossan, that the word comes from Roman imperial propaganda. If the gospel opens with that "news" then it draws to a close with a mock Roman triumphal procession to Golgotha.

Irony and darkness pervade.

-------

Carey, Holly J. “‘Is It as Bad as All That?’: The Misconception of Mark as a Film Noir.” In Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado, edited by Chris Keith and Dieter T. Roth, 3–21. Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VA10BgAAQBAJ.

[mlinssen]

As for the term "gospel" itself, it is worth keeping in mind, as per Crossan, that the word comes from Roman imperial propaganda. If the gospel opens with that "news" then it draws to a close with a mock Roman triumphal procession to Golgotha.

0. these-ones are the(PL) word who/which be-hiding have IS who/which be-living say they and did he write they viz. Didymos Judas Thomas

Thomas doesn't open with 'gospel' - he doesn't have the word inside his logia - but it follows the transcription in the NHL Codex

1 Ἀρχὴ (The beginning) τοῦ (of the) εὐαγγελίου (gospel) Ἰησοῦ (of Jesus) Χριστοῦ (Christ), Υἱοῦ (Son) Θεοῦ (of God).a 2 Καθὼς (As) γέγραπται (it has been written) ἐν (in) τῷ (-) Ἠσαΐᾳ (Isaiah) τῷ (the) προφήτῃ (prophet):

Mark's first word defines the Game to be played: that of priority. The ninth word defines the core of his arguments: written records from the Tanakh - against the words written by Didymos Judas Thomas

14 Καὶ (And) μετὰ (after) τὸ (the) παραδοθῆναι (delivering up) τὸν (-) Ἰωάννην (of John), ἦλθεν (came) ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) Γαλιλαίαν (Galilee), κηρύσσων (proclaiming) τὸ (the) εὐαγγέλιον (gospel) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God) 15 καὶ (and) λέγων (saying) ὅτι (-), “Πεπλήρωται (Has been fulfilled) ὁ (the) καιρὸς (time), καὶ (and) ἤγγικεν (has drawn near) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God); μετανοεῖτε (repent) καὶ (and) πιστεύετε (believe) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) εὐαγγελίῳ (gospel).”

It is almost as if Jesus is actively involved in putting John away - John, that Prophet of Most High, the most wonderful and great Prophet of all times, who not only accurately predicted the coming of a Messiah but even was alive when he did so! What's more, he even met him!!! And all that remains of those incredible events is this insignificantly flimsy role and script of 6 verses, after which he exits. But I digress

"Believe in this gospel!" is what Mark seems to want to say

Crossan, on a side note, is notorious for fantastically missing the mark - remember his "'tilled' soil being a Gnostic admonition" in The Power of Parable?
ⲣϩⲱⲃ, Verb: do-work Logion 20, 65
It's not like the word is very common, really. Nor that it is used in insignificant logia - no, the verb that is translated so Lambdin-like with the adjective 'tilled' in logion 20, yet with the verb 'might work' in logion 65, is the single most important verb of action in all of Thomas

[davidmartin]

It's worth mentioning the portrayal of the disciples as ignorant serves a purpose
in one stroke it would undermine any writing written under the name of such a disciple, in my view this is a cover story simply to diminish opposition
otherwise, why portray them that way? what's the point
so when i read something like "and they didn't understand this but later they would" - this means "and certain groups of Christians didn't teach this at first but after receiving the correct understanding they did"

[neilgodfrey]

It's worth mentioning the portrayal of the disciples as ignorant serves a purpose
in one stroke it would undermine any writing written under the name of such a disciple, in my view this is a cover story simply to diminish opposition
otherwise, why portray them that way? . . . .

That makes a certain sense up to a point. How do we explain, however, that our evidence points to other "gospels" or teachings of comparable kinds appearing under the names of James, Peter, John, Philip, Mary, Thomas after Mark was written. If the intention behind Mark's negative portrayal of the gospels was as you say, it appears to have met with a backlash of a failure. It is after Mark that gospels under the names of Mark's ignorant disciples come into circulation -- or so the record appears to indicate.

Another possibility (so many possibilities -- which is not so good, really!) is that the names of the disciples in Mark were Markan fabrications. Several of the names look very much like puns with theological messages of some sort. Was Mark creating a pool of would-be leaders who were drowning in a dark and ignorant world and unable to comprehend the Jesus who had such power over them (a simple call and they bizarrely dropped all to follow him) -- and who we are to understand did, many of them, emerge into the light after finally catching up with Jesus in Galilee post resurrection? In other words, were they metaphors for converts who were subsequently fleshed out as wise leaders worthy of being the "authors" of gospels of various kinds?

The latter scenario has some slight advantage in helping explain why the main narrative is so "dark" with only a glimmer of hope appearing at the very end (sort of).

(Of course, such a view would mean we'd have to have a rethink of Galatians.)

[mlinssen]

Naturally, Thomas invented the ignorant disciples, and they really are made a mockery from the very beginning until the very end. They're the satyrs / chorus...

Anyone that plagiarised Thomas was stuck with their role and script, just as the gospel writers were stuck with Mark's baptism of Jesus, his rejection of all foods laws, and his very unfortunate attempt in 10:5-9 at "making the two one" that actually demonstrated that man acted against the will of Gawd by marrying and "becoming one flesh" - hence why Matthew commits his blasphemy in 19:4-6

How do we explain, however, that our evidence points to other "gospels" or teachings of comparable kinds appearing under the names of James, Peter, John, Philip, Mary, Thomas after Mark was written

Are you claiming that Thomas was written after Mark?
On which basis do you make that claim?

Have a look at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7705 please, and come up with a reason for that anomaly. You'd be the first!

[davidmartin]

That makes a certain sense up to a point. How do we explain, however, that our evidence points to other "gospels" or teachings of comparable kinds appearing under the names of James, Peter, John, Philip, Mary, Thomas after Mark was written. If the intention behind Mark's negative portrayal of the gospels was as you say, it appears to have met with a backlash of a failure. It is after Mark that gospels under the names of Mark's ignorant disciples come into circulation -- or so the record appears to indicate.

Another possibility (so many possibilities -- which is not so good, really!) is that the names of the disciples in Mark were Markan fabrications. Several of the names look very much like puns with theological messages of some sort. Was Mark creating a pool of would-be leaders who were drowning in a dark and ignorant world and unable to comprehend the Jesus who had such power over them (a simple call and they bizarrely dropped all to follow him) -- and who we are to understand did, many of them, emerge into the light after finally catching up with Jesus in Galilee post resurrection? In other words, were they metaphors for converts who were subsequently fleshed out as wise leaders worthy of being the "authors" of gospels of various kinds?

The latter scenario has some slight advantage in helping explain why the main narrative is so "dark" with only a glimmer of hope appearing at the very end (sort of).

(Of course, such a view would mean we'd have to have a rethink of Galatians.)

interesting point, it's as likely though that other gospels or writings were around at the same time as Mark or earlier (unless Mark started it all)
I think for this to work Mark has to be a generation later, well 'later' could mean 10 or 100 years
i've found it easier to imagine some time passing and the need arising to oppose certain other writings attached to disciple names, Mark sort of does that. But Mark doesn't want to address this directly but within the story.

I wonder if it went down something like this - by the time of Mark there's already the elements of the story around quite possibly not connected to the man Jesus at all by name, and these originated in some earlier period. But Mark needed to tell the story of Jesus following on from Paul's gospel that omitted the story so Mark drew together these pieces and in the process portrayed the disciples negatively. Thus the 'disciples' represent the earlier phase that didn't accept or know about the 'new revelation' of Paul and similar authors

When it comes to Thomas i'd argue it doesn't consistently portray the disciples in a negative light, It's not quite the same. It's not so political more a question and answer learning session. So I think Thomas could come before Mark but I don't think Mark treats the disciples in quite the same way or was forced into it by Thomas, unless the 'trope' of learning has been cranked up into a more serious lack of comprehension