{"id":44,"date":"2018-01-10T09:57:20","date_gmt":"2018-01-10T14:57:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/?post_type=chapter&p=44"},"modified":"2018-01-11T13:21:46","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T18:21:46","slug":"who-do-they-say-that-i-am","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/chapter\/who-do-they-say-that-i-am\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 11: \"Who do they say that I am?\"","rendered":"Chapter 11: “Who do they say that I am?”"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nMark has a marvellous story about Jesus and a fig tree. He tells of a\u00a0time when Jesus and the disciples are walking from Bethany to Jerusalem.\u00a0Jesus feels hungry and \"noticing in the distance a fig-tree in leaf, he went to\u00a0see if he could find anything on it.\" Since it is not the season for figs, there are\u00a0none on the tree. Jesus is angered by the lack of figs and curses the tree: \"`May\u00a0no one ever again eat fruit from you!' And his disciples were listening.\" The\u00a0group proceeds to Jerusalem where Jesus goes into the temple and, still angry,\u00a0drives out the money changers, upsets their tables, turns over the seats of the\u00a0pigeon sellers, and cleans out all commercial activities in the temple. He then\u00a0teaches the crowd about the proper use of the temple. Early the next morning\u00a0Jesus and the disciples are walking back toward Bethany when they pass by the\u00a0fig tree. Peter says, \"Rabbi, look, the fig-tree which you cursed has withered,\"\u00a0and indeed we are told, \"the fig-tree had withered from the roots up.\" Still\u00a0later, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus uses the fig tree in a lesson to his disciples\u00a0about the Endtime that is coming. \"`Learn a lesson from the fig-tree. When\u00a0its tender shoots appear and are breaking into leaf, you know that summer is\u00a0near. In the same way, when you see all this happening, you may know that the\u00a0end is near, at the very door. I tell you this: the present generation will live to\u00a0see it all.'\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nFirst we see the fig tree in leaf. Then we see it withered and dead as a\u00a0result of Jesus' curse. And then it is used by Jesus as an example in a parable\u00a0about the Endtime. A hungry Jesus has killed a fig tree because it had no fruit\u00a0in a season when it could not have fruit. What kind of story is this? What does\u00a0it tell us about this god-man? Here is the entry in The Interpreters'\u00a0Bible:[1]<\/a>\r\n\r\n \r\n
It is well to begin any consideration of this story of the barren fig\r\n\r\ntree with the frank recognition that it is the least attractive\r\n\r\nof all the narratives about Jesus. Luke omits it entirely, possibly\r\n\r\nbecause he already has a parable of a barren fig tree (Luke 13.6-9).\r\n\r\nAt any rate most scholars would applaud his judgment, as shown\r\n\r\nby the omission. There are two main objections to taking the\r\n\r\nstory literally, as an exact record. The first is the unfavorable\r\n\r\nlight in which it seems to put the judgment, or common sense, of\r\n\r\nJesus; he could have had no rational expectation of finding figs out\r\n\r\nof season. The second is that the miracle is quite \"out of character\"<\/em>\r\n\r\nwith Jesus' mind and with other miracles....Mark takes the story as\r\n\r\na proof of Jesus' power, but that \"proof\" was on a level devoid of\r\n\r\nmoral and religious significance.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nFor teaching and preaching the church has taken the story as a\r\n\r\nsymbolic representation of the truth that life without fruit is\r\n\r\nworthless. ...The incident was taken by many in the early church as\r\n\r\nan acted parable of judgment on the religion of Israel because of its\r\n\r\nlack of ethical and spiritual fruit....(emphasis mine).\r\n\r\n <\/blockquote>\r\nThis kind of apology raises several interesting questions. Why should\u00a0we applaud Luke's judgment for omitting a story about Jesus? On the grounds\u00a0that the story casts Jesus in an \"unfavorable light\"? The implication here is that\u00a0any time we run into a story that casts the hero in an \"unfavorable light\" we are\u00a0justified in omitting the story. And just what is an \"unfavorable light\"?\u00a0Unfavorable from whose point of view? If what we are told by Mark is the\u00a0\"least attractive\" of all the stories about Jesus, then how can that fact be\u00a0justification for editing it out? These would be justifications only if we are\u00a0presenting propaganda, or in today's terminology, a media image. A deeper\u00a0epistemological question arises: if the gospels are the source of all that we\u00a0know about Jesus then on what other grounds can we make judgments about\u00a0his attractiveness or lack of it? How can we justifiably pay attention only to\u00a0those stories that match some preconceived idea of what an attractive hero\u00a0looks like? Whose gospel is being proclaimed in a statement like the one about\u00a0the church using the story for symbolic and didactic purposes? I will argue that\u00a0misreading stories about Jesus is an industry. An industry that started with\u00a0Paul. Mark gives us stories about Jesus and the message of Jesus. Paul gives\u00a0us his message about Jesus.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nConsider the fig tree from a literary point of view. Jesus teaches his\u00a0disciples about Endtime: \"`Learn a lesson from the fig-tree. When its tender\u00a0shoots appear and are breaking into leaf, you know that summer is near. In the\u00a0same way, when you see all this [a set of eschatological signs] happening, you\u00a0may know that the end is near, at the very door.'\" Just as leaves signal spring\u00a0and summer, so do the signs of darkened sun and moon, falling stars and\u00a0celestial explosions signal Endtime, when the mighty Son of Man will arrive in\u00a0\"great power and glory\" and \"gather his chosen.\" Jesus goes on to say, \"I tell\u00a0you this: the present generation will live to see it all. (Mark 13.30) Because\u00a0Endtime is imminent he warns his disciples to `Keep Awake.' The specific signs\u00a0that Jesus says will be present right before Endtime also include these:\r\n\r\n \r\n
When you hear the noise of battle near at hand and the news of\r\n\r\nbattles far away, do not be alarmed. Such things are bound to\r\n\r\nhappen; but the end is still to come. For nation will make war upon\r\n\r\nnation, kingdom upon kingdom; there will be earthquakes in many\r\n\r\nplaces; there will be famines. With these things the birth-pangs of\r\n\r\nthe new age begin. (Mark 13.7-9)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nSome of these warnings seem to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem\u00a0in the first century of the common era, while some sound as if they warn of the\u00a0end of history. Mark, of course, writes after the Second Temple destruction\u00a0and would be in a position to know what was going to happen after the time\u00a0period covered in the narrative. Prophesying after the fact is as good a\u00a0\"prediction\" as one can get. In terms of valuable predictors these signs just will\u00a0not do. They are too vague to pick out any particular time just because they\u00a0pick out almost any time. What generation goes by without experiencing\u00a0widespread wars, natural disasters, and famines? Taken as a literal prediction\u00a0these words are just useless. But from a narrative point of view they function to\u00a0warn us as readers of the impending doom of the final conflict in the life of the\u00a0hero, Jesus. Such ominous signs are often found in works of art signalling a\u00a0dramatic change in the fortunes of the hero. Shakespeare has celestial storms\u00a0in Julius Caesar which work to heighten the tension in the play. Modern\u00a0movies use thunder storms or lightening flashes whenever the bad guy is about\u00a0to show up.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"Keep Awake.\" Be prepared. Endtime is approaching. Learn from the\u00a0fig-tree - not only that you can tell what season it is by the growth of the tree,\u00a0but also learn from that specific fig-tree, that one which one day in leaf, was\u00a0the next day dead. One day it was alive; the next day it was dead. The moment\u00a0of death for each one of us also is unknown. We know that we will die but we\u00a0know not the hour or the day.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe anger that Jesus exhibits by withering the fig tree and chasing the\u00a0money lenders out of the temple unites him with Old Testament prophets.\u00a0They too exhibited anger, whether it was Samuel chopping up Agag or Elisha\u00a0killing forty-two boys for ridiculing his bald head. Jesus is cut of the same\u00a0narrative material as Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel. He performs\u00a0miracles: he raises the dead, he casts out devils, he heals, and he feeds mul-\u00a0titudes with very little food. Like Ezekiel he is called the Son of Man. As\u00a0Mark's narrative continues we see the climax of the cluster of images that have\u00a0to do with the fig tree. Anger first exhibited when a fig tree did not have fruit\u00a0on it for the hungry man-god to eat, will now be shown one more time in the\u00a0scene at the place called Gethsemane. There Jesus asks Peter, James, and John\u00a0to wait for him while he, overcome with \"horror and dismay,\" goes on a way up\u00a0the path to pray. \"Stop here, and stay awake\" [emphasis God's], he orders\u00a0his disciples. Jesus goes on ahead and \"threw himself on the ground\" and asks\u00a0for the hour to pass him by. He comes back to find his disciples asleep. In\u00a0anger and disappointment he shouts, \"Were you not able to stay awake for one\u00a0hour?\" And then orders, \"Stay awake, all of you.\"\r\n\r\nYet a second time he goes off to pray and when he returns they are\u00a0asleep again. When asked why they could not stay awake, \"they did not know\u00a0how to answer him.\"\r\n\r\nThe third time we sense a dramatic shift in tone. Upon his return Jesus\u00a0says quietly, \"Still sleeping? Still taking your ease? Enough. The hour has\u00a0come.\" (Mark 14.41)\r\n\r\nAnger and frustration shown in the fig tree story, the temple story, and\u00a0in the Gethsemane story are finally washed away by the prayer and by the act\u00a0of accepting his own death. \"The hour has come.\" There is a quiet resolution in\u00a0that sentence. Acceptance has replaced anger and now Jesus can complete his\u00a0destiny. Until one has accepted one's own mortality, accepted death in a per-\u00a0sonal and lucid sense, one cannot live. Thus Jesus teaches us: there is life in\u00a0death. Death, as the poet Wallace Stevens reminds us, \"is the mother of\u00a0beauty.\"\r\n\r\nMost contemporary scholars agree that the gospels were not written by\u00a0eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. Some would argue that the reason for\u00a0this is that Jesus never existed.[2]<\/a> The internal evidence is confusing and the\u00a0external evidence is sketchy. We simply do not know who wrote them and\u00a0when we speak of \"Matthew,\" \"Mark,\" \"Luke,\" and \"John\" we do so only for\u00a0convenience (and because of tradition); the actual names of the evangelists are\u00a0forever lost to us. The gospels were written in the period between 70 and 100,\u00a0forty years or more after the crucifixion, and we believe that they originally\u00a0circulated anonymously. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are usually\u00a0called the synoptic gospels from the Greek, synoptikos - seeing the\u00a0whole together. The relationship among the synoptic gospels is a\u00a0complex one and 19th century scholars learned much of the pattern of\u00a0inter-relatedness from a careful reading and comparison of the texts. B. F.\u00a0Wescott, for example, calculated the percentages of shared textual material\u00a0and suggested that the narrative material is distributed as follows:\r\n\r\nPeculiar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shared\r\n\r\nMark\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 7%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 93%\r\n\r\nMatthew\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a042%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a058%\r\n\r\nLuke\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a059%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 41%\r\n\r\nJohn\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a092%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 8%\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nComparing the synoptics on the same event can be revealing:\r\n\r\n \r\n
Then Jesus arrived at the Jordan from Galilee, and came to John to\r\n\r\nbe baptized by him. John tried to dissuade him. `Do you come to\r\n\r\nme?' he said; `I need rather to be baptized by you.' Jesus replied,\r\n\r\n`Let it be so for the present; we do well to conform in this way with\r\n\r\nall that god requires.' John then allowed him to come. After\r\n\r\nbaptism Jesus came up out of the water at once, and at that\r\n\r\nmoment heaven opened; he saw the Spirit of God descending like a\r\n\r\ndove to alight upon him; and a voice from heaven was heard saying,\r\n\r\n`This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favour rests.' (Matt.\r\n\r\n3.13-17)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n
It happened at this time that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee\r\n\r\nand was baptized in the Jordan by John. At the moment when he\r\n\r\ncame up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn open and the\r\n\r\nSpirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice spoke from\r\n\r\nheaven: `Thou art my Son, my Beloved; on thee my favour rests.\r\n\r\n(Mark 1.9-11)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n
During a general baptism of the people, when Jesus too had been\r\n\r\nbaptized and was praying, heaven opened and the Holy Spirit\r\n\r\ndescended on him in bodily form like a dove; and there came a\r\n\r\nvoice from heaven, `Thou art my Son, my beloved, on thee my\r\n\r\nfavour rests.' (Luke 3. 21-22)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nLooking at these passages closely we see that Matthew and Mark can\u00a0agree against Luke, and Mark and Luke can agree against Matthew, but\u00a0Matthew and Luke do not agree against Mark. In Matthew and Mark Jesus\u00a0came from Galilee, but this is not mentioned in Luke. The voice from heaven\u00a0says, `Thou art my Son, my beloved, on thee my favour rests' in Mark and\u00a0Luke, but `This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favour rests' in Matthew.\u00a0As far as the order of events in the narrative is concerned Matthew and Mark\u00a0can agree against Luke and Luke and Mark against Matthew, but Matthew\u00a0and Luke never agree against Mark. This pattern is observable throughout the\u00a0gospels and leads to the hypothesis that the gospel of Mark was written first\u00a0and that Matthew and Luke have both used it as a source. In addition sections\u00a0of Matthew and Luke are so close verbally that they must be using a common\u00a0source, but that source cannot be Mark since he does not have these sections.\u00a0Compare for example:\r\n\r\n \r\n
When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for\r\n\r\nbaptism he said to them: `You vipers' brood! Who warned you to\r\n\r\nescape from the coming retribution? Then prove your repentance\r\n\r\nby the fruit it bears; and do not presume to say to yourselves, \"We\r\n\r\nhave Abraham for our father.\" I tell you that God can make\r\n\r\nchildren for Abraham out of these stones here. Already the axe is\r\n\r\nlaid to the roots of the trees; and every tree that fails to produce\r\n\r\ngood fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire. (Matt. 3.7-10)\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nCrowds of people came out to be baptized by him, and he said to\r\n\r\nthem: `You vipers' brood! Who warned you to escape from the\r\n\r\ncoming retribution? Then prove your repentance by the fruit it\r\n\r\nbears; and do not begin saying to yourselves, \"We have Abraham\r\n\r\nfor our father.\" I tell you that God can make children for Abraham\r\n\r\nout of these stones here. Already the axe is laid to the roots of the\r\n\r\ntrees; and every tree that fails to produce good fruit is cut down\r\n\r\nand thrown on the fire.' (Luke 3.7-9)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nThis common material is almost always \"teaching material.\" The\u00a0constant appearance of parallel passages in Matthew and Luke has led to the\u00a0conclusion that they have a source in common in addition to the gospel of\u00a0Mark, a source consisting of mostly \"sayings\" material. In addition they each\u00a0have special material unique to each writer. The common sources for Matthew\u00a0and Luke are thus believed to be Mark and some unknown manuscript called\u00a0simply \"Q\".[3]<\/a> Each of Matthew and Luke have special material that is unique to\u00a0it. In addition each writer can make a unique contribution by the way he\u00a0chooses to tell the story. One branch of biblical criticism (redaction criticism)\u00a0suggests that we should emphasize the contribution made by the final writer.\u00a0Look again at Mark 1.9-11 and Luke 3.21-22. In Luke's version all the emphasis is on the descent of the spirit on Jesus. His baptism has become one of the\u00a0three circumstances (a general baptism, his baptism, the fact that he was\u00a0praying) that set the stage for the descent of the spirit, whereas in Mark the\u00a0baptism and the descent of the spirit are equally significant.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nOr, again, notice that Mark and Matthew mention the thieves who were\u00a0crucified with Jesus, but say nothing of one of them being saved and one being\u00a0damned. Luke, however, tells us that one of the thieves asserts his belief at the\u00a0final moment and is saved. This has become the story most of us remember.\u00a0Luke's editorial emphasis has significantly changed the material presented in\u00a0Mark and repeated in Matthew.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe Old Testament takes the Hebrews through the Red Sea into the\u00a0wilderness and finally to the promised land, while the New Testament takes\u00a0the individual from baptism into the wilderness to the resurrection. The New\u00a0Testament attempts through its stories to universalize the nature of God while\u00a0at the same time making the necessary covenant sign of baptism an individual\u00a0and not a societal agreement. For the Old Testament Hebrews there was the\u00a0wilderness and the promised land of milk and honey. For Paul and the first\u00a0Christians there were hell and heaven as the two conditions promised for those\u00a0not chosen and those chosen. The four gospels proclaim the constitutive rules\u00a0of the new religion, each with a different emphasis, but all asserting the basic\u00a0proposition of a man-god, crucifixion, and redemption, in some form or\u00a0another. John provides us with a mystical interpretation of the new religion\u00a0and emphasizes the fulfillment of the prophesies in the Old Testament by\u00a0using or alluding to some twenty-five quotations from the early books. Mark is\u00a0the most apocalyptic in his presentation of the last days insisting more than the\u00a0others that all will occur within his generation. Matthew emphasizes the church\u00a0as the living institution through which God is calling the peoples of the world\u00a0to repentance and faith. For him Jesus is the final agent of mediation between\u00a0the divine and the vulgar. Luke and Matthew provide us with birth narratives\u00a0for Jesus while Mark has none. A committee probably wrote John.\u00a0Luke is a compilation of material from many sources but probably written by\u00a0one writer. Luke opens with the Zechariah and Elizabeth story, which no one\u00a0else reports. It is a parallel to the Elkanah and Hannah story that we read in\u00a0Samuel. John will play Samuel to Jesus's Saul in the story told by Luke. The\u00a0cleansing of the Temple which is the last straw for the leaders of Jerusalem and\u00a0the next to last angry act of Jesus in Mark's story is placed at the beginning of\u00a0Jesus's career in John. John's work comes out of a Hellenistic world view and\u00a0unlike Mark John offers a reading which says that the judgment is not\u00a0something that has already fallen, nor is it something that will come in the last\u00a0days, but it is what occurs to an individual in the moment that individual makes\u00a0the decision of faith in Jesus the Son of God. For John history has been\u00a0internalized and judgment has been transformed to the present moment of\u00a0\"decision\" of faith. John's Jesus says \"I am the resurrection and I am life,\" and\u00a0\"I am the good shepherd,\" and \"I am what I am.\" Mark's \"who am I?\" has be-\u00a0come \"I am...\". John's Jesus is not really a historical figure at all, but \"lives\" in a\u00a0context of eternity, while Mark's story is of a man on this earth. John's Jesus\u00a0says \"Now my soul is in turmoil, and what am I to say? `Father, save me from\u00a0this hour.' No, it was for this that I came to this hour. Father, glorify thy\u00a0name.\" Mark's Jesus says, \"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; take\u00a0this cup away from me.\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMatthew presents the story especially addressed to the Jews in an effort\u00a0to prove that Jesus was the Messiah whom they had expected while Luke aims\u00a0his text primarily at the Greeks and Romans, and John argues that Jesus was\u00a0not only the human Messiah expected by the Jews but also the divine Son of\u00a0God, the redeemer not only of the Jewish peoples but also of the fallen world.\u00a0His doctrine of the Logos or Word is established in his prologue. John's\u00a0reinterpretation and rearrangement of the events in the other stories is aimed\u00a0at showing that the Word in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the Jesus as\u00a0redeemer myth. He uses \"scripture is fulfilled\", \"scripture says\", and \"in order\u00a0that it might be fulfilled\" as introductory phrases time after time.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nOne good reason to read Mark first is that there are good reasons to\u00a0believe that Mark's gospel was written several years before Luke and Matthew\u00a0wrote. Another good reason to read Mark first is that he creates a new literary\u00a0form: the gospel. Like other new genres, the gospel both builds on existing\u00a0forms and strikes out in new directions. Mark is obviously influenced by the\u00a0apocalyptic writings of the first century B.C.E., writings which describe in\u00a0symbolic language the coming of divine power to cleanse the earth of\u00a0corruption and to restore the \"kingdom\" to the chosen people who had been\u00a0faithful to the covenant. Mark makes it clear in several places that the\u00a0imminent power of the divine is about to explode into history. In fact, it is hard\u00a0to see how Christianity could have survived the generation for which Mark\u00a0wrote without the interpretive work done by Paul and published in his letters.\u00a0Mark's Jesus says clearly that all will come to pass within a short time. As Kee\u00a0puts it, \"the reality of Jesus Christ was to be sought in the church's preaching,\u00a0not in the historian's reconstruction of who he was.\"[4]<\/a> In other words,\u00a0Christianity has from the beginning depended upon an interpretation of\u00a0a story, a reading of a life.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMark's story may be, as Kee says, \"a propaganda writing produced by\u00a0and for a community that made no cultural claims for itself and offered its\u00a0writings as a direct appeal for adherents rather than as a way of attracting the\u00a0attention of intellectuals or literati of the day.\"[5]<\/a> But it is also a sophisticated\u00a0and well-crafted work. Although it does not present argument for its proclamations it does present the proclamations with the authority and credibility\u00a0that comes from the literary devices employed. Mark's story sounds true.\u00a0Read it aloud; you cannot miss the\"back to the wall\" truth-telling tone. It is\u00a0there in the first line, \"Here begins the gospel of Jesus....\" It is there in the\u00a0transitions: \"It happened at this time\", \"After John had been arrested...\", \"Very\u00a0early next morning...\", \"that evening after sunset...\", \"When after some days he\u00a0returned...\". It is there in the \"facts\": \"John was dressed in a rough coat of\u00a0camel's hair...and he fed on locusts and wild honey.\" \"So they opened up the\u00a0roof over the place where Jesus was, and when they had broken through they\u00a0lowered the bed on which the paralyzed man was lying.\" The first gives us\u00a0particulars that identify John and fix him forever in our literary history. The\u00a0second draws upon an intimate knowledge of the beds and houses of that time\u00a0and place. Mark also tells us that Jesus's sanity was questioned, that he was\u00a0misunderstood, dismissed, and ridiculed. What better way to convince readers\u00a0of his overall veracity than to be specific and concrete with his examples? If this\u00a0is propaganda let it be understood as first rate propaganda. Mark is an artist.\u00a0Look at the beginning and ending of his story: the first image is one of flocks\u00a0of people coming to John at the Jordan to be baptized, and the last image is\u00a0the empty tomb. He opens with hundreds of people looking to be \"saved,\"\u00a0searching for some meaning in their lives. And he ends with the promise\u00a0signalled by the empty tomb. Could this image have within it the answer to the\u00a0needs expressed by the flocks of people at the beginning? Mark gives us the\u00a0hint, the mystery, and the fear: \"They said nothing to anybody, for they were\u00a0afraid.\" The perfect ending for his story. But, of course, someone has added\u00a0verses 9-20, the resurrection stories, to ruin the artistry of Mark with the\u00a0didacticism of the official line.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe struggle between Saul and Samuel, which was the struggle between\u00a0king and prophet, is repeated in the suggested struggle between John and\u00a0Jesus, but is resolved in the figure of the character Jesus. He is a merging of\u00a0the kingly figure and the priestly figure. Jesus has the authority and charisma\u00a0of David, the super natural powers of Samuel (who also returns from the\u00a0dead), and the mission and focus of Elisha. He, like Moses, is a composite\u00a0character who embodies the virtues of the leaders from priestly and monarchic\u00a0traditions. Add to that the frustrations and anticipations of a people once\u00a0more under the power of conquerors with different gods and the time for\u00a0Endtime is ripe. The story is familiar to us: a people is under the oppressive\u00a0power of a rich and powerful nation; their god is challenged by another divine\u00a0figure who has earthly power, they desperately need a leader to take them out\u00a0of their slavery, to deliver them from evil. But now it is the Romans, not the\u00a0Egyptians, who have brought their god into Palestine n the form of Caesar.\u00a0The Hebrews anxiously await the next chapter in the covenant story.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMark's Jesus arrives as one of the multitude of people seeking baptism\u00a0from John. The Red Sea, which separated the Hebrews from the Egyptians, is\u00a0replaced by the River Jordan, and baptism becomes the sign of the new\u00a0covenant. Water, to wash away the sins of the past, is the perfect image for\u00a0conversion with its cleansing, life-sustaining, and purifying powers. While Saul\u00a0was picked out of the crowd by being a head taller than everyone else, Jesus is\u00a0picked out as special because he is ordinary. John recognizes him as special in\u00a0the story, and the specialness is shown by the image of the descending dove\u00a0and the voice which speaks to Jesus in a private word from the heavens: \"Thou\u00a0art my Son, my Beloved; on thee my favour rests.\" These signs serve the same\u00a0narrative function as did the burning bush in the Moses story, the ladder in\u00a0Jacob's dream, the fire in the Samson story, or the small still voice that Ezekiel\u00a0hears: they identify and empower the hero. Known only to the prophet (and\u00a0the reader) these signs indicate to the individual a connection with the Other\u00a0and the beginning of a special quest. These private signs (the call) will now be-\u00a0come public in the narrative form of miracles which are the authenticating\u00a0images of the authority given to the hero. The result will be shown in the\u00a0response of the immediate audience which serves as witness to the events, and\u00a0who will attest, \"Never before have we seen the like.\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nWhat is unique about this hero's story? He shares much with earlier\u00a0heroes. He performs healing miracles, but so did Elisha. He can control natural\u00a0forces, but so did Moses. He can change water to wine, but Elisha could\u00a0change putrid water to potable water. Jesus feeds multitudes, but others have\u00a0done that also. He comes back from the dead, but Samuel was called up from\u00a0the dead earlier. He teaches in parables, but Nathan did that too. Jesus walks\u00a0on water; Elisha made an iron axe float on water. The miracles performed by\u00a0Jesus are of a kind with those performed by other prophets. He is the word\u00a0incarnate, but so was Ezekiel. He will be raised to heaven, but so was Elijah.\u00a0He is thought to be out of his mind, but Samuel was often in a state of rapture.\u00a0What then is unique about Jesus? Mark tells us nothing of his birth, does not\u00a0mention anything about a supernatural birth at all; and though Matthew and\u00a0Luke do provide birth narratives, these too are familiar to us from the birth of\u00a0Isaac to the birth of Samuel. Two of the most dramatic healing miracles in\u00a0Mark are found in the giving of sight to the blind man from Bethsaida and\u00a0later to blind Bartimaeus. In both cases these stories come at a time when\u00a0Jesus has been trying to explain something to his obtuse disciples. He asks\u00a0them to recognize the truth in a story he tells them, to read his sayings as he\u00a0intends them, and they fail miserably as readers. But how does one read the\u00a0intention of the gods? That is the story of these stories. Jesus asks his disciples\u00a0to recognize truth in his stories and they fail. After each failure a blind man is\u00a0suddenly given sight and can see. \"Do you still not understand? Are your\u00a0minds closed? You have eyes; can you not see?\" are questions Jesus asks his\u00a0disciples in frustration when they are unable to understand what his mission is,\u00a0what knowledge he has that they cannot recognize. One's sympathy is with\u00a0the students here. The lesson is not all that clear.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIs the \"lesson\" not clear because Jesus is not a good teacher? No, he is\u00a0usually patient and repetitive, only rarely chastising his students with the lash\u00a0of rhetorical questions: `Are your minds closed?' `Can you not see?' What\u00a0teacher has not used these very questions of frustration? Shortly after\u00a0restoring the sight of the blind man at Bethsaida Jesus asks his disciples \"Who\u00a0do men say that I am?\" and after getting several answers - John the Baptist,\u00a0Elijah, one of the prophets - he asks Peter, \"Who do you say that I am?\" Peter\u00a0replies: \"You are the Messiah.\" Peter's eyes are opened. He can see. The\u00a0narrative reveals in its form a \"truth\" that it wants to proclaim: the true identity\u00a0of the hero, who in most hero narratives is of humble birth, a king hidden as a\u00a0commoner. All of the ocular imagery in the story functions to serve the idea of\u00a0seeing the \"truth\" which is hidden behind or under some appearance or other\u00a0and must be pierced by sight or in-sight in order to be understood. The hero\u00a0must be recognized. Secrecy, one of Mark's main themes, must be pierced at\u00a0some point in the story and the hero recognized for who he really is - the\u00a0recognition scene announced by Peter is consummated in the transfiguration\u00a0where Jesus appears on a mountain top with the spirits of Moses and Elijah.\u00a0The voice, private at the river, is now public, \"This is my Son, my Beloved;\u00a0listen to him.\" Peter, James, and John, we are told, are witnesses to this scene\u00a0of the confirmation of the hero by the divine. Those who might think that\u00a0Jesus is Moses are shown to be wrong for there he is with Moses. Those who\u00a0might think he is Elijah are shown to be wrong for there he is with Elijah. In\u00a0typical Markan strategy the truth, hidden in secrecy, is revealed to a small\u00a0audience, and in the telling of that story, revealed to us as readers. This literary\u00a0strategy reveals also a perception about the nature of truth. It says truth is\u00a0hidden behind appearances, sometimes revealed, objective, god-given, magical,\u00a0and beyond unaided humans. Jesus, who like Ezekiel, embodies the Word or\u00a0Logos, is the messenger of God's word, bringing glimpses of another level of\u00a0reality to his disciples. There is a tension in Mark between this supernatural\u00a0messenger and the developing man-character called Jesus. The interesting side\u00a0of Mark's Jesus is his human side: changing, frustrated, seeking, loving, talking,\u00a0teaching, human Jesus. It is here that we find his uniqueness; it is here that we\u00a0\"see\" his lesson.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBut, of course, this reading is not the official line. Believers have\u00a0from the gospels on proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, sent\u00a0to establish a new covenant with the people who will believe and be baptized.\u00a0He is proclaimed to be a god. But that is not unique. Every Caesar was also so\u00a0proclaimed. Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras all died for the\u00a0sins of the people. They also had cults which grew around them which\u00a0included ceremonies like baptism to symbolize rebirth, and communion to\u00a0symbolize unity with the redeemer-god. They also talked of redemption and a\u00a0pain free life in the future. One cult grew up around Attis and Cybele. Its\u00a0followers celebrated a Day of Blood in the month of March each year. At that\u00a0time they hanged Attis in effigy to a tree where he bled to death. Then they\u00a0took his \"body\" into a burial place and for several days mourned his passing. At\u00a0the end of the mourning period the proclamation was made that Attis had\u00a0risen from the dead, and the people rejoiced and celebrated this victory over\u00a0death. Redeemers and saviour-gods were not unique to the time. Jesus is\u00a0unique; Christ is not. Dr. Crane puts it this way:\r\n\r\n \r\n
Jesus taught that we should love our enemies; Christ walked on\r\n\r\nwater. Jesus taught that we should not judge others, should forgive\r\n\r\nthem; Christ turned water into wine. Jesus taught that the kingdom\r\n\r\nof God is within us; Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. Jesus\r\n\r\ntaught that we should not lay up treasures for ourselves on earth;\r\n\r\nChrist fed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. Jesus was a\r\n\r\ncharismatic human being; Christ is a saviour, a messiah - an ancient\r\n\r\nidea. Created by humanity.[6]<\/a><\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nThere is a sense in which Jesus is a model for human beings to follow.\u00a0He was a man of his time who held the assumptions and beliefs of his era. He\u00a0is portrayed as a charismatic man who lived with intense purpose and drive,\u00a0who had an existential thrust to his life, who cared deeply about human beings,\u00a0and who wrestled with profound questions of ethics. The stories that grew up\u00a0around him have affected the world for two thousand years and have touched\u00a0the deepest parts of our humanity with their simplicity of image and their\u00a0promise of \"salvation\".\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSeveral years before the gospel stories were written down another hero\u00a0appears on the scene to spread the gospel and to deal with the many questions\u00a0of meaning asked by the early Christians. This \"first Christian\" is Paul. He\u00a0provides us with the only written documents about Christianity for the period\u00a0between 30 and 70 BCE. His letters provide a reading of the spiritual life and\u00a0teachings of Jesus and are extremely important in establishing the doctrines of\u00a0early Christianity. Like Moses before him, Paul is a hero who comes from the\u00a0inner circle of the \"enemy\". While Moses was raised in Pharaoh's household\u00a0only later to find his call in the desert experience with Yahweh, Paul is a\u00a0Roman Jew who is working with alacrity to wipe out Christianity when he has\u00a0his conversion experience on the road to Damascus.\r\n\r\n \r\n
Meanwhile Saul was still breathing murderous threats against the\r\n\r\ndisciples of the Lord. He went to the High Priest and applied for\r\n\r\nletters to the synagogues at Damascus authorizing him to arrest\r\n\r\nanyone he found, men or women, who followed the new way, and\r\n\r\nbring them to Jerusalem. While he was still on the road and\r\n\r\nnearing Damascus, suddenly a light flashed from the sky all around\r\n\r\nhim. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying, `Saul, Saul,\r\n\r\nwhy do you persecute me?' `Tell me. Lord,' he said, `who you are.'\r\n\r\nThe voice answered, `I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But\r\n\r\nget up and go into the city, and you will be told what you have to\r\n\r\ndo.' Meanwhile the men who were travelling with him stood\r\n\r\nspeechless; they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up\r\n\r\nfrom the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see; so\r\n\r\nthey led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. He was\r\n\r\nblind for three days, and took no food or drink. (Acts 9.1-9)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nSaul, the persecutor of Christians, will now become the \"chosen\u00a0instrument\" to spread the story of Christianity to the nations and the kings and\u00a0the people of Israel. Saul of Tarsus, converted to the very doctrine he had been\u00a0attempting to stamp out, is now renamed Paul, baptized in the name of Christ,\u00a0and sent out to spread the \"good news\" which he took on that day on the road\u00a0to Damascus. And as we have seen so many times in these stories the change\u00a0of direction in his life is signalled by a change in name. The conversion story is\u00a0an important introduction for this hero and as we might expect it is told more\u00a0than once. A bit later (Acts 22.6-10) Paul tells the story in first person:\r\n\r\n \r\n
I was on the road to Damascus, when suddenly about midday a\r\n\r\ngreat light flashed from the sky all around me, and I fell to the\r\n\r\nground. Then I heard a voice saying to me, \"Saul, Saul, why do you\r\n\r\npersecute me?\" I answered, \"Tell me, Lord, who you are.\" \"I am\r\n\r\nJesus of Nazareth,\" he said, \"whom you are persecuting.\" My\r\n\r\ncompanions saw the light, but did not hear the voice that spoke to\r\n\r\nme. \"What shall I do, Lord?\"\r\n\r\n <\/blockquote>\r\nAs we have seen so often before when reading about heroes in the\u00a0biblical stories, the details in the two versions are different. In one the fellow\u00a0travellers see the light but hear no voice, in the other they see nothing but hear\u00a0the voice. The importance to the story of this experience, however, is clear:\u00a0Paul is authenticated as a hero by a conversion experience with the divine force\u00a0which speaks to him and gives him a task to perform in the midst of great\u00a0danger. It is puzzling why the writer, presumably Luke, did not make the\u00a0necessary changes to the text to provide consistency. One possible explanation\u00a0is to speculate that the first person account was extant in a letter and thus\u00a0could not be changed, while Luke at the same time could see the problem with\u00a0the first person account. That is, in Paul's account if the light blinded him then\u00a0why did it not blind the observers who witnessed the light? But whatever the\u00a0case, part of the resolution of the problem comes from a realization that this is\u00a0a story and that it follows certain patterns and images. Paul is blinded. How\u00a0does that function in the story? He is blinded to the old ways, and after a\u00a0period of time (three days) he is brought back whole, and with a new\u00a0commitment to Christianity. One of the other fascinating \"meanings\" present\u00a0in the conversion of Paul story is the example it establishes: if one who is perse-\u00a0cuting Christians can be converted and saved then clearly anyone can be\u00a0converted and saved. The form of the story carries the content of the doctrine\u00a0of universality.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nPaul is a Jew born in Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, educated under the\u00a0tutelage of Gamaliel, a Pharisee, and a Roman citizen. He died, according to\u00a0tradition, in Rome under Nero in the early 60's. He never read the gospels, did\u00a0not meet Jesus, and never once in his writings refers to Jesus's miraculous\u00a0birth or to his miracles. Paul represents Jesus as the second Adam (Acts\u00a05.12-19), concentrates on the spiritual side of the man-god, and argues for\u00a0three important constitutive rules of the new religion: (1) monotheism, (2)\u00a0universalism, and (3) grace. Paul is perhaps best considered as the first\u00a0Christian missionary, if not the first Christian. He is interested in the spread of\u00a0the new religion from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, Syria, Asia Minor,\u00a0Macedonia, Greece, and finally all the way to Rome. While the Jewish\u00a0Christians continued to believe that Jesus was the long promised Messiah,\u00a0whose ministry, death, and resurrection signalled the beginning of the final age\u00a0of history, Paul concentrated his efforts on converting pagans to the new\u00a0religion. He emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus above all else, and his mes-\u00a0sage is one of the imminence of the new age with the urgency for spreading the\u00a0good news obviously increased by not knowing exactly when the return of the\u00a0Lord will occur. For the Jewish Christian Jesus was a human selected by God\u00a0to be the Messiah, while for Paul Jesus was divine from the beginning.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nPaul's letters give a picture of a dedicated missionary who travels all\u00a0over the middle east to proselytize for the new religion. But he does much\u00a0more than proselytize, he also establishes rules for the religion as the need for\u00a0them arises. Time after time he proclaims and stipulates what the new religion\u00a0will be, often in answer to specific questions or problems raised by a specific\u00a0congregation. He addresses the congregation in Corinth with a letter which\u00a0appeals to them to stop their bickering and squabbling about who is the first\u00a0among the missionaries:\r\n\r\n \r\n
I appeal to you, my brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:\r\n\r\nagree among yourselves, and avoid divisions; be firmly joined in\r\n\r\nunity of mind and thought. I have been told, my brothers, by\r\n\r\nChloe's people that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is\r\n\r\nthis: each of you is saying, `I am Paul's man,' or `I am for Appollos';\r\n\r\n`I follow Cephas', or `I am Christ's.' Surely Christ has not been\r\n\r\ndivided among you! (1 Cor. 1.10-13)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nThe human propensity for quarreling is manifest here. One man fights\u00a0with another over which person baptized him, or over the ranking of the\u00a0officials within the church. The residue of thousands of years of belief in the\u00a0divisive doctrine of \"chosenness\" is impossible to erase. Although Paul is\u00a0certainly a monotheistic universalist himself, the proclamation that all shall be\u00a0welcome into the new religion is met with opposition and concern by the\u00a0newly converted. The strong belief that one's tribe has been chosen by the\u00a0\"true\" god for some manifest destiny rings out across the centuries, and it often\u00a0rings out from a killing field where the proclamation is tested, where the gods\u00a0of one's fathers must meet in combat to determine who is chosen. (Any so-\u00a0lution to the deep conflicts in the Middle East today seems highly unlikely as\u00a0long as the religious claims of all participants are based on the strongly held\u00a0belief that each is the chosen representative of the only true god.) Paul's first\u00a0letter, \"The First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians\" allows us to draw certain\u00a0conclusions about the problems that were arising in the congregations some\u00a0twenty years after the ministry of Jesus. A big puzzle for all was what was to\u00a0happen to Christians who die before the return of the Lord. How were they to\u00a0become apart of the new covenant, the new order? It was a problem, one\u00a0imagines, because the second-coming was not on schedule, was not as quick as\u00a0expected. Paul assures the congregation in the letter that the Christian dead\u00a0will rise and join the other Christians \"up in the clouds.\" As we have seen in\u00a0Mark there is a strong belief in the impending return of Jesus as divine ruler of\u00a0the new kingdom. Another set of problems faced by Paul also have the\u00a0second-coming as their source: if Jesus as Messiah\/Redeemer is returning to\u00a0the earth to redress injustice and bring about the new order, and if this\u00a0occurrence is imminent, then why should anyone continue to pay attention to\u00a0the matters of the world? Why, indeed, should one work or plan for the future\u00a0in any way at all? Paul is uncertain about the time of the Parousia[7]<\/a> saying only \"the Day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.\" But he is certain\u00a0about how one must conduct oneself while waiting for the second coming.\u00a0\"You must abstain from fornication,\" he says, and \"you must learn to gain\u00a0mastery over your body.\" In a second letter to the Thessalonians[8]<\/a> Paul orders\u00a0that \"the man who will not work shall not eat,\" an injunction which suggests\u00a0that many were not working but \"idling their time away\" while waiting for\u00a0Godot.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Romans<\/em>, as the headnote in the New English Bible says, \"contains the fullest and most balanced statement of his [Paul's] theology.\" And\u00a0what is the centre of this theology? In a word grace<\/strong>. It is by means of God's\u00a0grace, Paul argues, that righteousness and eternal life enter in to the sinful\u00a0world. \"God's act of grace,\" he writes, \"is out of all proportion to Adam's\u00a0wrongdoing.\" The wrongdoing of Adam brought sin and death, but the grace\u00a0of God brought Jesus the Messiah who brings acquittal to all of humankind.\u00a0Believe and you will be saved. Paul emphasizes the importance of love in the\u00a0life of the Christian, and insists upon the doctrine of grace. He attempts to\u00a0upset the idea of a chosen people, not by arguing, as I would, that its consequences are disastrous, but by proclaiming a different point of view as true.\u00a0\"For God has no favourites,\" he writes, \"so my gospel states.\" No circumcision\u00a0is required; no special dietary rules are proscribed in this new religion. These\u00a0are external marks and the true circumcision, Paul proclaims, \"is of the heart.\"\u00a0His new religion will embrace those Jews who will be baptized and will also\u00a0reach out beyond the tribes to all the peoples who will listen and believe. Paul's\u00a0story is one of a man driven by a religious call to spread the news to all of the\u00a0peoples of the region in order to assure that they will be aware of the new\u00a0dispensation from God. But Paul, like Mark, seems to believe that the\u00a0Endtime is right around the corner, and that the return of the Lord to rule the\u00a0world is imminent. That belief in the imminence of the second coming is the\u00a0constant throughout Christian history. How Christianity continued to flourish\u00a0past the first century CE is a puzzle to non-believers and a testimony to the\u00a0power of the institution called the church and the irrationality of human beings\u00a0as soon as they enter the arena of religion.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe Jesus of the synoptic gospels is comprised largely of \"snapshots.\"\u00a0We see him through the lenses of three different artists, each with his own set\u00a0of intentions and his own sense of audience. We see him during about one\u00a0hundred days of his life, performing miracles, healing, and teaching. We know\u00a0almost nothing of him outside of the New Testament stories; we cannot say\u00a0with any certainty that he even existed outside of those stories. What we read\u00a0of him in the gospels is quite different from what Paul tells us through his\u00a0letters. In a sense the Jesus of the church or churches is a Pauline fabrication:\u00a0the living, feeling, shouting man of Mark's stories, who can destroy a fig tree,\u00a0clean out a temple, and throw himself to the ground in despair, has become a\u00a0spiritual and conceptual isolate in Paul's theological discourse. The Old\u00a0Testament begins with \"In the beginning...\" and the New Testament ends with\u00a0\"Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!\" as a hopeful reply to the last voice in the narrative,\u00a0that of the character, Jesus, who speaks \"Yes, I am coming soon!\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nFrom beginning to end we have lingered in these stories for some time;\u00a0their power will continue to serve them, and you, well, in the ongoing human\u00a0story.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\n[1]<\/a> The Interpreters\u2019 Bible<\/em> Abingdon Press, New York, Volume 7, page 828.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[2]<\/a> See, e.g., the excellent debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? \u2013 The Resurrection Debate<\/em>, edited by Terry L Miethe, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1987.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[3]<\/a> \u201cQ\u201d probably comes from \u201cquelle\u201d the German word for \u201csource.\u201d\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[4]<\/a> Kee, page 33.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[5]<\/a> Kee, page 138.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[6]<\/a> \u201cThe Limitations of Christ,\u201d John Crane, from Reflections on theNature of Things, <\/em>Volume IV, Number 9, Jefferson Unitarian Church, Golden, Colorado.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[7]<\/a> The future coming of Christ.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[8]<\/a>[8] There is some debate about whether Paul actually wrote 2 Thessalonians. The theme and style do not strike all scholars as similar enough to be genuine Pauline writing.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n

Mark has a marvellous story about Jesus and a fig tree. He tells of a\u00a0time when Jesus and the disciples are walking from Bethany to Jerusalem.\u00a0Jesus feels hungry and “noticing in the distance a fig-tree in leaf, he went to\u00a0see if he could find anything on it.” Since it is not the season for figs, there are\u00a0none on the tree. Jesus is angered by the lack of figs and curses the tree: “`May\u00a0no one ever again eat fruit from you!’ And his disciples were listening.” The\u00a0group proceeds to Jerusalem where Jesus goes into the temple and, still angry,\u00a0drives out the money changers, upsets their tables, turns over the seats of the\u00a0pigeon sellers, and cleans out all commercial activities in the temple. He then\u00a0teaches the crowd about the proper use of the temple. Early the next morning\u00a0Jesus and the disciples are walking back toward Bethany when they pass by the\u00a0fig tree. Peter says, “Rabbi, look, the fig-tree which you cursed has withered,”\u00a0and indeed we are told, “the fig-tree had withered from the roots up.” Still\u00a0later, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus uses the fig tree in a lesson to his disciples\u00a0about the Endtime that is coming. “`Learn a lesson from the fig-tree. When\u00a0its tender shoots appear and are breaking into leaf, you know that summer is\u00a0near. In the same way, when you see all this happening, you may know that the\u00a0end is near, at the very door. I tell you this: the present generation will live to\u00a0see it all.'”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

First we see the fig tree in leaf. Then we see it withered and dead as a\u00a0result of Jesus’ curse. And then it is used by Jesus as an example in a parable\u00a0about the Endtime. A hungry Jesus has killed a fig tree because it had no fruit\u00a0in a season when it could not have fruit. What kind of story is this? What does\u00a0it tell us about this god-man? Here is the entry in The Interpreters’\u00a0Bible:[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is well to begin any consideration of this story of the barren fig<\/p>\n

tree with the frank recognition that it is the least attractive<\/p>\n

of all the narratives about Jesus. Luke omits it entirely, possibly<\/p>\n

because he already has a parable of a barren fig tree (Luke 13.6-9).<\/p>\n

At any rate most scholars would applaud his judgment, as shown<\/p>\n

by the omission. There are two main objections to taking the<\/p>\n

story literally, as an exact record. The first is the unfavorable<\/p>\n

light in which it seems to put the judgment, or common sense, of<\/p>\n

Jesus; he could have had no rational expectation of finding figs out<\/p>\n

of season. The second is that the miracle is quite “out of character”<\/em><\/p>\n

with Jesus’ mind and with other miracles….Mark takes the story as<\/p>\n

a proof of Jesus’ power, but that “proof” was on a level devoid of<\/p>\n

moral and religious significance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For teaching and preaching the church has taken the story as a<\/p>\n

symbolic representation of the truth that life without fruit is<\/p>\n

worthless. …The incident was taken by many in the early church as<\/p>\n

an acted parable of judgment on the religion of Israel because of its<\/p>\n

lack of ethical and spiritual fruit….(emphasis mine).<\/p>\n

 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This kind of apology raises several interesting questions. Why should\u00a0we applaud Luke’s judgment for omitting a story about Jesus? On the grounds\u00a0that the story casts Jesus in an “unfavorable light”? The implication here is that\u00a0any time we run into a story that casts the hero in an “unfavorable light” we are\u00a0justified in omitting the story. And just what is an “unfavorable light”?\u00a0Unfavorable from whose point of view? If what we are told by Mark is the\u00a0“least attractive” of all the stories about Jesus, then how can that fact be\u00a0justification for editing it out? These would be justifications only if we are\u00a0presenting propaganda, or in today’s terminology, a media image. A deeper\u00a0epistemological question arises: if the gospels are the source of all that we\u00a0know about Jesus then on what other grounds can we make judgments about\u00a0his attractiveness or lack of it? How can we justifiably pay attention only to\u00a0those stories that match some preconceived idea of what an attractive hero\u00a0looks like? Whose gospel is being proclaimed in a statement like the one about\u00a0the church using the story for symbolic and didactic purposes? I will argue that\u00a0misreading stories about Jesus is an industry. An industry that started with\u00a0Paul. Mark gives us stories about Jesus and the message of Jesus. Paul gives\u00a0us his message about Jesus.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Consider the fig tree from a literary point of view. Jesus teaches his\u00a0disciples about Endtime: “`Learn a lesson from the fig-tree. When its tender\u00a0shoots appear and are breaking into leaf, you know that summer is near. In the\u00a0same way, when you see all this [a set of eschatological signs] happening, you\u00a0may know that the end is near, at the very door.'” Just as leaves signal spring\u00a0and summer, so do the signs of darkened sun and moon, falling stars and\u00a0celestial explosions signal Endtime, when the mighty Son of Man will arrive in\u00a0“great power and glory” and “gather his chosen.” Jesus goes on to say, “I tell\u00a0you this: the present generation will live to see it all. (Mark 13.30) Because\u00a0Endtime is imminent he warns his disciples to `Keep Awake.’ The specific signs\u00a0that Jesus says will be present right before Endtime also include these:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When you hear the noise of battle near at hand and the news of<\/p>\n

battles far away, do not be alarmed. Such things are bound to<\/p>\n

happen; but the end is still to come. For nation will make war upon<\/p>\n

nation, kingdom upon kingdom; there will be earthquakes in many<\/p>\n

places; there will be famines. With these things the birth-pangs of<\/p>\n

the new age begin. (Mark 13.7-9)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some of these warnings seem to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem\u00a0in the first century of the common era, while some sound as if they warn of the\u00a0end of history. Mark, of course, writes after the Second Temple destruction\u00a0and would be in a position to know what was going to happen after the time\u00a0period covered in the narrative. Prophesying after the fact is as good a\u00a0“prediction” as one can get. In terms of valuable predictors these signs just will\u00a0not do. They are too vague to pick out any particular time just because they\u00a0pick out almost any time. What generation goes by without experiencing\u00a0widespread wars, natural disasters, and famines? Taken as a literal prediction\u00a0these words are just useless. But from a narrative point of view they function to\u00a0warn us as readers of the impending doom of the final conflict in the life of the\u00a0hero, Jesus. Such ominous signs are often found in works of art signalling a\u00a0dramatic change in the fortunes of the hero. Shakespeare has celestial storms\u00a0in Julius Caesar which work to heighten the tension in the play. Modern\u00a0movies use thunder storms or lightening flashes whenever the bad guy is about\u00a0to show up.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“Keep Awake.” Be prepared. Endtime is approaching. Learn from the\u00a0fig-tree – not only that you can tell what season it is by the growth of the tree,\u00a0but also learn from that specific fig-tree, that one which one day in leaf, was\u00a0the next day dead. One day it was alive; the next day it was dead. The moment\u00a0of death for each one of us also is unknown. We know that we will die but we\u00a0know not the hour or the day.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The anger that Jesus exhibits by withering the fig tree and chasing the\u00a0money lenders out of the temple unites him with Old Testament prophets.\u00a0They too exhibited anger, whether it was Samuel chopping up Agag or Elisha\u00a0killing forty-two boys for ridiculing his bald head. Jesus is cut of the same\u00a0narrative material as Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel. He performs\u00a0miracles: he raises the dead, he casts out devils, he heals, and he feeds mul-\u00a0titudes with very little food. Like Ezekiel he is called the Son of Man. As\u00a0Mark’s narrative continues we see the climax of the cluster of images that have\u00a0to do with the fig tree. Anger first exhibited when a fig tree did not have fruit\u00a0on it for the hungry man-god to eat, will now be shown one more time in the\u00a0scene at the place called Gethsemane. There Jesus asks Peter, James, and John\u00a0to wait for him while he, overcome with “horror and dismay,” goes on a way up\u00a0the path to pray. “Stop here, and stay awake” [emphasis God’s], he orders\u00a0his disciples. Jesus goes on ahead and “threw himself on the ground” and asks\u00a0for the hour to pass him by. He comes back to find his disciples asleep. In\u00a0anger and disappointment he shouts, “Were you not able to stay awake for one\u00a0hour?” And then orders, “Stay awake, all of you.”<\/p>\n

Yet a second time he goes off to pray and when he returns they are\u00a0asleep again. When asked why they could not stay awake, “they did not know\u00a0how to answer him.”<\/p>\n

The third time we sense a dramatic shift in tone. Upon his return Jesus\u00a0says quietly, “Still sleeping? Still taking your ease? Enough. The hour has\u00a0come.” (Mark 14.41)<\/p>\n

Anger and frustration shown in the fig tree story, the temple story, and\u00a0in the Gethsemane story are finally washed away by the prayer and by the act\u00a0of accepting his own death. “The hour has come.” There is a quiet resolution in\u00a0that sentence. Acceptance has replaced anger and now Jesus can complete his\u00a0destiny. Until one has accepted one’s own mortality, accepted death in a per-\u00a0sonal and lucid sense, one cannot live. Thus Jesus teaches us: there is life in\u00a0death. Death, as the poet Wallace Stevens reminds us, “is the mother of\u00a0beauty.”<\/p>\n

Most contemporary scholars agree that the gospels were not written by\u00a0eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. Some would argue that the reason for\u00a0this is that Jesus never existed.[2]<\/a> The internal evidence is confusing and the\u00a0external evidence is sketchy. We simply do not know who wrote them and\u00a0when we speak of “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John” we do so only for\u00a0convenience (and because of tradition); the actual names of the evangelists are\u00a0forever lost to us. The gospels were written in the period between 70 and 100,\u00a0forty years or more after the crucifixion, and we believe that they originally\u00a0circulated anonymously. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are usually\u00a0called the synoptic gospels from the Greek, synoptikos – seeing the\u00a0whole together. The relationship among the synoptic gospels is a\u00a0complex one and 19th century scholars learned much of the pattern of\u00a0inter-relatedness from a careful reading and comparison of the texts. B. F.\u00a0Wescott, for example, calculated the percentages of shared textual material\u00a0and suggested that the narrative material is distributed as follows:<\/p>\n

Peculiar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shared<\/p>\n

Mark\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 7%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 93%<\/p>\n

Matthew\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a042%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a058%<\/p>\n

Luke\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a059%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 41%<\/p>\n

John\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a092%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 8%<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Comparing the synoptics on the same event can be revealing:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Then Jesus arrived at the Jordan from Galilee, and came to John to<\/p>\n

be baptized by him. John tried to dissuade him. `Do you come to<\/p>\n

me?’ he said; `I need rather to be baptized by you.’ Jesus replied,<\/p>\n

`Let it be so for the present; we do well to conform in this way with<\/p>\n

all that god requires.’ John then allowed him to come. After<\/p>\n

baptism Jesus came up out of the water at once, and at that<\/p>\n

moment heaven opened; he saw the Spirit of God descending like a<\/p>\n

dove to alight upon him; and a voice from heaven was heard saying,<\/p>\n

`This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favour rests.’ (Matt.<\/p>\n

3.13-17)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

It happened at this time that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee<\/p>\n

and was baptized in the Jordan by John. At the moment when he<\/p>\n

came up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn open and the<\/p>\n

Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice spoke from<\/p>\n

heaven: `Thou art my Son, my Beloved; on thee my favour rests.<\/p>\n

(Mark 1.9-11)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

During a general baptism of the people, when Jesus too had been<\/p>\n

baptized and was praying, heaven opened and the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n

descended on him in bodily form like a dove; and there came a<\/p>\n

voice from heaven, `Thou art my Son, my beloved, on thee my<\/p>\n

favour rests.’ (Luke 3. 21-22)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Looking at these passages closely we see that Matthew and Mark can\u00a0agree against Luke, and Mark and Luke can agree against Matthew, but\u00a0Matthew and Luke do not agree against Mark. In Matthew and Mark Jesus\u00a0came from Galilee, but this is not mentioned in Luke. The voice from heaven\u00a0says, `Thou art my Son, my beloved, on thee my favour rests’ in Mark and\u00a0Luke, but `This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favour rests’ in Matthew.\u00a0As far as the order of events in the narrative is concerned Matthew and Mark\u00a0can agree against Luke and Luke and Mark against Matthew, but Matthew\u00a0and Luke never agree against Mark. This pattern is observable throughout the\u00a0gospels and leads to the hypothesis that the gospel of Mark was written first\u00a0and that Matthew and Luke have both used it as a source. In addition sections\u00a0of Matthew and Luke are so close verbally that they must be using a common\u00a0source, but that source cannot be Mark since he does not have these sections.\u00a0Compare for example:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for<\/p>\n

baptism he said to them: `You vipers’ brood! Who warned you to<\/p>\n

escape from the coming retribution? Then prove your repentance<\/p>\n

by the fruit it bears; and do not presume to say to yourselves, “We<\/p>\n

have Abraham for our father.” I tell you that God can make<\/p>\n

children for Abraham out of these stones here. Already the axe is<\/p>\n

laid to the roots of the trees; and every tree that fails to produce<\/p>\n

good fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire. (Matt. 3.7-10)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Crowds of people came out to be baptized by him, and he said to<\/p>\n

them: `You vipers’ brood! Who warned you to escape from the<\/p>\n

coming retribution? Then prove your repentance by the fruit it<\/p>\n

bears; and do not begin saying to yourselves, “We have Abraham<\/p>\n

for our father.” I tell you that God can make children for Abraham<\/p>\n

out of these stones here. Already the axe is laid to the roots of the<\/p>\n

trees; and every tree that fails to produce good fruit is cut down<\/p>\n

and thrown on the fire.’ (Luke 3.7-9)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

This common material is almost always “teaching material.” The\u00a0constant appearance of parallel passages in Matthew and Luke has led to the\u00a0conclusion that they have a source in common in addition to the gospel of\u00a0Mark, a source consisting of mostly “sayings” material. In addition they each\u00a0have special material unique to each writer. The common sources for Matthew\u00a0and Luke are thus believed to be Mark and some unknown manuscript called\u00a0simply “Q”.[3]<\/a> Each of Matthew and Luke have special material that is unique to\u00a0it. In addition each writer can make a unique contribution by the way he\u00a0chooses to tell the story. One branch of biblical criticism (redaction criticism)\u00a0suggests that we should emphasize the contribution made by the final writer.\u00a0Look again at Mark 1.9-11 and Luke 3.21-22. In Luke’s version all the emphasis is on the descent of the spirit on Jesus. His baptism has become one of the\u00a0three circumstances (a general baptism, his baptism, the fact that he was\u00a0praying) that set the stage for the descent of the spirit, whereas in Mark the\u00a0baptism and the descent of the spirit are equally significant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Or, again, notice that Mark and Matthew mention the thieves who were\u00a0crucified with Jesus, but say nothing of one of them being saved and one being\u00a0damned. Luke, however, tells us that one of the thieves asserts his belief at the\u00a0final moment and is saved. This has become the story most of us remember.\u00a0Luke’s editorial emphasis has significantly changed the material presented in\u00a0Mark and repeated in Matthew.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Old Testament takes the Hebrews through the Red Sea into the\u00a0wilderness and finally to the promised land, while the New Testament takes\u00a0the individual from baptism into the wilderness to the resurrection. The New\u00a0Testament attempts through its stories to universalize the nature of God while\u00a0at the same time making the necessary covenant sign of baptism an individual\u00a0and not a societal agreement. For the Old Testament Hebrews there was the\u00a0wilderness and the promised land of milk and honey. For Paul and the first\u00a0Christians there were hell and heaven as the two conditions promised for those\u00a0not chosen and those chosen. The four gospels proclaim the constitutive rules\u00a0of the new religion, each with a different emphasis, but all asserting the basic\u00a0proposition of a man-god, crucifixion, and redemption, in some form or\u00a0another. John provides us with a mystical interpretation of the new religion\u00a0and emphasizes the fulfillment of the prophesies in the Old Testament by\u00a0using or alluding to some twenty-five quotations from the early books. Mark is\u00a0the most apocalyptic in his presentation of the last days insisting more than the\u00a0others that all will occur within his generation. Matthew emphasizes the church\u00a0as the living institution through which God is calling the peoples of the world\u00a0to repentance and faith. For him Jesus is the final agent of mediation between\u00a0the divine and the vulgar. Luke and Matthew provide us with birth narratives\u00a0for Jesus while Mark has none. A committee probably wrote John.\u00a0Luke is a compilation of material from many sources but probably written by\u00a0one writer. Luke opens with the Zechariah and Elizabeth story, which no one\u00a0else reports. It is a parallel to the Elkanah and Hannah story that we read in\u00a0Samuel. John will play Samuel to Jesus’s Saul in the story told by Luke. The\u00a0cleansing of the Temple which is the last straw for the leaders of Jerusalem and\u00a0the next to last angry act of Jesus in Mark’s story is placed at the beginning of\u00a0Jesus’s career in John. John’s work comes out of a Hellenistic world view and\u00a0unlike Mark John offers a reading which says that the judgment is not\u00a0something that has already fallen, nor is it something that will come in the last\u00a0days, but it is what occurs to an individual in the moment that individual makes\u00a0the decision of faith in Jesus the Son of God. For John history has been\u00a0internalized and judgment has been transformed to the present moment of\u00a0“decision” of faith. John’s Jesus says “I am the resurrection and I am life,” and\u00a0“I am the good shepherd,” and “I am what I am.” Mark’s “who am I?” has be-\u00a0come “I am…”. John’s Jesus is not really a historical figure at all, but “lives” in a\u00a0context of eternity, while Mark’s story is of a man on this earth. John’s Jesus\u00a0says “Now my soul is in turmoil, and what am I to say? `Father, save me from\u00a0this hour.’ No, it was for this that I came to this hour. Father, glorify thy\u00a0name.” Mark’s Jesus says, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; take\u00a0this cup away from me.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Matthew presents the story especially addressed to the Jews in an effort\u00a0to prove that Jesus was the Messiah whom they had expected while Luke aims\u00a0his text primarily at the Greeks and Romans, and John argues that Jesus was\u00a0not only the human Messiah expected by the Jews but also the divine Son of\u00a0God, the redeemer not only of the Jewish peoples but also of the fallen world.\u00a0His doctrine of the Logos or Word is established in his prologue. John’s\u00a0reinterpretation and rearrangement of the events in the other stories is aimed\u00a0at showing that the Word in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the Jesus as\u00a0redeemer myth. He uses “scripture is fulfilled”, “scripture says”, and “in order\u00a0that it might be fulfilled” as introductory phrases time after time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One good reason to read Mark first is that there are good reasons to\u00a0believe that Mark’s gospel was written several years before Luke and Matthew\u00a0wrote. Another good reason to read Mark first is that he creates a new literary\u00a0form: the gospel. Like other new genres, the gospel both builds on existing\u00a0forms and strikes out in new directions. Mark is obviously influenced by the\u00a0apocalyptic writings of the first century B.C.E., writings which describe in\u00a0symbolic language the coming of divine power to cleanse the earth of\u00a0corruption and to restore the “kingdom” to the chosen people who had been\u00a0faithful to the covenant. Mark makes it clear in several places that the\u00a0imminent power of the divine is about to explode into history. In fact, it is hard\u00a0to see how Christianity could have survived the generation for which Mark\u00a0wrote without the interpretive work done by Paul and published in his letters.\u00a0Mark’s Jesus says clearly that all will come to pass within a short time. As Kee\u00a0puts it, “the reality of Jesus Christ was to be sought in the church’s preaching,\u00a0not in the historian’s reconstruction of who he was.”[4]<\/a> In other words,\u00a0Christianity has from the beginning depended upon an interpretation of\u00a0a story, a reading of a life.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mark’s story may be, as Kee says, “a propaganda writing produced by\u00a0and for a community that made no cultural claims for itself and offered its\u00a0writings as a direct appeal for adherents rather than as a way of attracting the\u00a0attention of intellectuals or literati of the day.”[5]<\/a> But it is also a sophisticated\u00a0and well-crafted work. Although it does not present argument for its proclamations it does present the proclamations with the authority and credibility\u00a0that comes from the literary devices employed. Mark’s story sounds true.\u00a0Read it aloud; you cannot miss the”back to the wall” truth-telling tone. It is\u00a0there in the first line, “Here begins the gospel of Jesus….” It is there in the\u00a0transitions: “It happened at this time”, “After John had been arrested…”, “Very\u00a0early next morning…”, “that evening after sunset…”, “When after some days he\u00a0returned…”. It is there in the “facts”: “John was dressed in a rough coat of\u00a0camel’s hair…and he fed on locusts and wild honey.” “So they opened up the\u00a0roof over the place where Jesus was, and when they had broken through they\u00a0lowered the bed on which the paralyzed man was lying.” The first gives us\u00a0particulars that identify John and fix him forever in our literary history. The\u00a0second draws upon an intimate knowledge of the beds and houses of that time\u00a0and place. Mark also tells us that Jesus’s sanity was questioned, that he was\u00a0misunderstood, dismissed, and ridiculed. What better way to convince readers\u00a0of his overall veracity than to be specific and concrete with his examples? If this\u00a0is propaganda let it be understood as first rate propaganda. Mark is an artist.\u00a0Look at the beginning and ending of his story: the first image is one of flocks\u00a0of people coming to John at the Jordan to be baptized, and the last image is\u00a0the empty tomb. He opens with hundreds of people looking to be “saved,”\u00a0searching for some meaning in their lives. And he ends with the promise\u00a0signalled by the empty tomb. Could this image have within it the answer to the\u00a0needs expressed by the flocks of people at the beginning? Mark gives us the\u00a0hint, the mystery, and the fear: “They said nothing to anybody, for they were\u00a0afraid.” The perfect ending for his story. But, of course, someone has added\u00a0verses 9-20, the resurrection stories, to ruin the artistry of Mark with the\u00a0didacticism of the official line.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The struggle between Saul and Samuel, which was the struggle between\u00a0king and prophet, is repeated in the suggested struggle between John and\u00a0Jesus, but is resolved in the figure of the character Jesus. He is a merging of\u00a0the kingly figure and the priestly figure. Jesus has the authority and charisma\u00a0of David, the super natural powers of Samuel (who also returns from the\u00a0dead), and the mission and focus of Elisha. He, like Moses, is a composite\u00a0character who embodies the virtues of the leaders from priestly and monarchic\u00a0traditions. Add to that the frustrations and anticipations of a people once\u00a0more under the power of conquerors with different gods and the time for\u00a0Endtime is ripe. The story is familiar to us: a people is under the oppressive\u00a0power of a rich and powerful nation; their god is challenged by another divine\u00a0figure who has earthly power, they desperately need a leader to take them out\u00a0of their slavery, to deliver them from evil. But now it is the Romans, not the\u00a0Egyptians, who have brought their god into Palestine n the form of Caesar.\u00a0The Hebrews anxiously await the next chapter in the covenant story.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mark’s Jesus arrives as one of the multitude of people seeking baptism\u00a0from John. The Red Sea, which separated the Hebrews from the Egyptians, is\u00a0replaced by the River Jordan, and baptism becomes the sign of the new\u00a0covenant. Water, to wash away the sins of the past, is the perfect image for\u00a0conversion with its cleansing, life-sustaining, and purifying powers. While Saul\u00a0was picked out of the crowd by being a head taller than everyone else, Jesus is\u00a0picked out as special because he is ordinary. John recognizes him as special in\u00a0the story, and the specialness is shown by the image of the descending dove\u00a0and the voice which speaks to Jesus in a private word from the heavens: “Thou\u00a0art my Son, my Beloved; on thee my favour rests.” These signs serve the same\u00a0narrative function as did the burning bush in the Moses story, the ladder in\u00a0Jacob’s dream, the fire in the Samson story, or the small still voice that Ezekiel\u00a0hears: they identify and empower the hero. Known only to the prophet (and\u00a0the reader) these signs indicate to the individual a connection with the Other\u00a0and the beginning of a special quest. These private signs (the call) will now be-\u00a0come public in the narrative form of miracles which are the authenticating\u00a0images of the authority given to the hero. The result will be shown in the\u00a0response of the immediate audience which serves as witness to the events, and\u00a0who will attest, “Never before have we seen the like.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What is unique about this hero’s story? He shares much with earlier\u00a0heroes. He performs healing miracles, but so did Elisha. He can control natural\u00a0forces, but so did Moses. He can change water to wine, but Elisha could\u00a0change putrid water to potable water. Jesus feeds multitudes, but others have\u00a0done that also. He comes back from the dead, but Samuel was called up from\u00a0the dead earlier. He teaches in parables, but Nathan did that too. Jesus walks\u00a0on water; Elisha made an iron axe float on water. The miracles performed by\u00a0Jesus are of a kind with those performed by other prophets. He is the word\u00a0incarnate, but so was Ezekiel. He will be raised to heaven, but so was Elijah.\u00a0He is thought to be out of his mind, but Samuel was often in a state of rapture.\u00a0What then is unique about Jesus? Mark tells us nothing of his birth, does not\u00a0mention anything about a supernatural birth at all; and though Matthew and\u00a0Luke do provide birth narratives, these too are familiar to us from the birth of\u00a0Isaac to the birth of Samuel. Two of the most dramatic healing miracles in\u00a0Mark are found in the giving of sight to the blind man from Bethsaida and\u00a0later to blind Bartimaeus. In both cases these stories come at a time when\u00a0Jesus has been trying to explain something to his obtuse disciples. He asks\u00a0them to recognize the truth in a story he tells them, to read his sayings as he\u00a0intends them, and they fail miserably as readers. But how does one read the\u00a0intention of the gods? That is the story of these stories. Jesus asks his disciples\u00a0to recognize truth in his stories and they fail. After each failure a blind man is\u00a0suddenly given sight and can see. “Do you still not understand? Are your\u00a0minds closed? You have eyes; can you not see?” are questions Jesus asks his\u00a0disciples in frustration when they are unable to understand what his mission is,\u00a0what knowledge he has that they cannot recognize. One’s sympathy is with\u00a0the students here. The lesson is not all that clear.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Is the “lesson” not clear because Jesus is not a good teacher? No, he is\u00a0usually patient and repetitive, only rarely chastising his students with the lash\u00a0of rhetorical questions: `Are your minds closed?’ `Can you not see?’ What\u00a0teacher has not used these very questions of frustration? Shortly after\u00a0restoring the sight of the blind man at Bethsaida Jesus asks his disciples “Who\u00a0do men say that I am?” and after getting several answers – John the Baptist,\u00a0Elijah, one of the prophets – he asks Peter, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter\u00a0replies: “You are the Messiah.” Peter’s eyes are opened. He can see. The\u00a0narrative reveals in its form a “truth” that it wants to proclaim: the true identity\u00a0of the hero, who in most hero narratives is of humble birth, a king hidden as a\u00a0commoner. All of the ocular imagery in the story functions to serve the idea of\u00a0seeing the “truth” which is hidden behind or under some appearance or other\u00a0and must be pierced by sight or in-sight in order to be understood. The hero\u00a0must be recognized. Secrecy, one of Mark’s main themes, must be pierced at\u00a0some point in the story and the hero recognized for who he really is – the\u00a0recognition scene announced by Peter is consummated in the transfiguration\u00a0where Jesus appears on a mountain top with the spirits of Moses and Elijah.\u00a0The voice, private at the river, is now public, “This is my Son, my Beloved;\u00a0listen to him.” Peter, James, and John, we are told, are witnesses to this scene\u00a0of the confirmation of the hero by the divine. Those who might think that\u00a0Jesus is Moses are shown to be wrong for there he is with Moses. Those who\u00a0might think he is Elijah are shown to be wrong for there he is with Elijah. In\u00a0typical Markan strategy the truth, hidden in secrecy, is revealed to a small\u00a0audience, and in the telling of that story, revealed to us as readers. This literary\u00a0strategy reveals also a perception about the nature of truth. It says truth is\u00a0hidden behind appearances, sometimes revealed, objective, god-given, magical,\u00a0and beyond unaided humans. Jesus, who like Ezekiel, embodies the Word or\u00a0Logos, is the messenger of God’s word, bringing glimpses of another level of\u00a0reality to his disciples. There is a tension in Mark between this supernatural\u00a0messenger and the developing man-character called Jesus. The interesting side\u00a0of Mark’s Jesus is his human side: changing, frustrated, seeking, loving, talking,\u00a0teaching, human Jesus. It is here that we find his uniqueness; it is here that we\u00a0“see” his lesson.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But, of course, this reading is not the official line. Believers have\u00a0from the gospels on proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, sent\u00a0to establish a new covenant with the people who will believe and be baptized.\u00a0He is proclaimed to be a god. But that is not unique. Every Caesar was also so\u00a0proclaimed. Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras all died for the\u00a0sins of the people. They also had cults which grew around them which\u00a0included ceremonies like baptism to symbolize rebirth, and communion to\u00a0symbolize unity with the redeemer-god. They also talked of redemption and a\u00a0pain free life in the future. One cult grew up around Attis and Cybele. Its\u00a0followers celebrated a Day of Blood in the month of March each year. At that\u00a0time they hanged Attis in effigy to a tree where he bled to death. Then they\u00a0took his “body” into a burial place and for several days mourned his passing. At\u00a0the end of the mourning period the proclamation was made that Attis had\u00a0risen from the dead, and the people rejoiced and celebrated this victory over\u00a0death. Redeemers and saviour-gods were not unique to the time. Jesus is\u00a0unique; Christ is not. Dr. Crane puts it this way:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jesus taught that we should love our enemies; Christ walked on<\/p>\n

water. Jesus taught that we should not judge others, should forgive<\/p>\n

them; Christ turned water into wine. Jesus taught that the kingdom<\/p>\n

of God is within us; Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. Jesus<\/p>\n

taught that we should not lay up treasures for ourselves on earth;<\/p>\n

Christ fed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. Jesus was a<\/p>\n

charismatic human being; Christ is a saviour, a messiah – an ancient<\/p>\n

idea. Created by humanity.[6]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is a sense in which Jesus is a model for human beings to follow.\u00a0He was a man of his time who held the assumptions and beliefs of his era. He\u00a0is portrayed as a charismatic man who lived with intense purpose and drive,\u00a0who had an existential thrust to his life, who cared deeply about human beings,\u00a0and who wrestled with profound questions of ethics. The stories that grew up\u00a0around him have affected the world for two thousand years and have touched\u00a0the deepest parts of our humanity with their simplicity of image and their\u00a0promise of “salvation”.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Several years before the gospel stories were written down another hero\u00a0appears on the scene to spread the gospel and to deal with the many questions\u00a0of meaning asked by the early Christians. This “first Christian” is Paul. He\u00a0provides us with the only written documents about Christianity for the period\u00a0between 30 and 70 BCE. His letters provide a reading of the spiritual life and\u00a0teachings of Jesus and are extremely important in establishing the doctrines of\u00a0early Christianity. Like Moses before him, Paul is a hero who comes from the\u00a0inner circle of the “enemy”. While Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s household\u00a0only later to find his call in the desert experience with Yahweh, Paul is a\u00a0Roman Jew who is working with alacrity to wipe out Christianity when he has\u00a0his conversion experience on the road to Damascus.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Meanwhile Saul was still breathing murderous threats against the<\/p>\n

disciples of the Lord. He went to the High Priest and applied for<\/p>\n

letters to the synagogues at Damascus authorizing him to arrest<\/p>\n

anyone he found, men or women, who followed the new way, and<\/p>\n

bring them to Jerusalem. While he was still on the road and<\/p>\n

nearing Damascus, suddenly a light flashed from the sky all around<\/p>\n

him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying, `Saul, Saul,<\/p>\n

why do you persecute me?’ `Tell me. Lord,’ he said, `who you are.’<\/p>\n

The voice answered, `I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But<\/p>\n

get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you have to<\/p>\n

do.’ Meanwhile the men who were travelling with him stood<\/p>\n

speechless; they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up<\/p>\n

from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see; so<\/p>\n

they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. He was<\/p>\n

blind for three days, and took no food or drink. (Acts 9.1-9)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Saul, the persecutor of Christians, will now become the “chosen\u00a0instrument” to spread the story of Christianity to the nations and the kings and\u00a0the people of Israel. Saul of Tarsus, converted to the very doctrine he had been\u00a0attempting to stamp out, is now renamed Paul, baptized in the name of Christ,\u00a0and sent out to spread the “good news” which he took on that day on the road\u00a0to Damascus. And as we have seen so many times in these stories the change\u00a0of direction in his life is signalled by a change in name. The conversion story is\u00a0an important introduction for this hero and as we might expect it is told more\u00a0than once. A bit later (Acts 22.6-10) Paul tells the story in first person:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I was on the road to Damascus, when suddenly about midday a<\/p>\n

great light flashed from the sky all around me, and I fell to the<\/p>\n

ground. Then I heard a voice saying to me, “Saul, Saul, why do you<\/p>\n

persecute me?” I answered, “Tell me, Lord, who you are.” “I am<\/p>\n

Jesus of Nazareth,” he said, “whom you are persecuting.” My<\/p>\n

companions saw the light, but did not hear the voice that spoke to<\/p>\n

me. “What shall I do, Lord?”<\/p>\n

 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As we have seen so often before when reading about heroes in the\u00a0biblical stories, the details in the two versions are different. In one the fellow\u00a0travellers see the light but hear no voice, in the other they see nothing but hear\u00a0the voice. The importance to the story of this experience, however, is clear:\u00a0Paul is authenticated as a hero by a conversion experience with the divine force\u00a0which speaks to him and gives him a task to perform in the midst of great\u00a0danger. It is puzzling why the writer, presumably Luke, did not make the\u00a0necessary changes to the text to provide consistency. One possible explanation\u00a0is to speculate that the first person account was extant in a letter and thus\u00a0could not be changed, while Luke at the same time could see the problem with\u00a0the first person account. That is, in Paul’s account if the light blinded him then\u00a0why did it not blind the observers who witnessed the light? But whatever the\u00a0case, part of the resolution of the problem comes from a realization that this is\u00a0a story and that it follows certain patterns and images. Paul is blinded. How\u00a0does that function in the story? He is blinded to the old ways, and after a\u00a0period of time (three days) he is brought back whole, and with a new\u00a0commitment to Christianity. One of the other fascinating “meanings” present\u00a0in the conversion of Paul story is the example it establishes: if one who is perse-\u00a0cuting Christians can be converted and saved then clearly anyone can be\u00a0converted and saved. The form of the story carries the content of the doctrine\u00a0of universality.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Paul is a Jew born in Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, educated under the\u00a0tutelage of Gamaliel, a Pharisee, and a Roman citizen. He died, according to\u00a0tradition, in Rome under Nero in the early 60’s. He never read the gospels, did\u00a0not meet Jesus, and never once in his writings refers to Jesus’s miraculous\u00a0birth or to his miracles. Paul represents Jesus as the second Adam (Acts\u00a05.12-19), concentrates on the spiritual side of the man-god, and argues for\u00a0three important constitutive rules of the new religion: (1) monotheism, (2)\u00a0universalism, and (3) grace. Paul is perhaps best considered as the first\u00a0Christian missionary, if not the first Christian. He is interested in the spread of\u00a0the new religion from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, Syria, Asia Minor,\u00a0Macedonia, Greece, and finally all the way to Rome. While the Jewish\u00a0Christians continued to believe that Jesus was the long promised Messiah,\u00a0whose ministry, death, and resurrection signalled the beginning of the final age\u00a0of history, Paul concentrated his efforts on converting pagans to the new\u00a0religion. He emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus above all else, and his mes-\u00a0sage is one of the imminence of the new age with the urgency for spreading the\u00a0good news obviously increased by not knowing exactly when the return of the\u00a0Lord will occur. For the Jewish Christian Jesus was a human selected by God\u00a0to be the Messiah, while for Paul Jesus was divine from the beginning.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Paul’s letters give a picture of a dedicated missionary who travels all\u00a0over the middle east to proselytize for the new religion. But he does much\u00a0more than proselytize, he also establishes rules for the religion as the need for\u00a0them arises. Time after time he proclaims and stipulates what the new religion\u00a0will be, often in answer to specific questions or problems raised by a specific\u00a0congregation. He addresses the congregation in Corinth with a letter which\u00a0appeals to them to stop their bickering and squabbling about who is the first\u00a0among the missionaries:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I appeal to you, my brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:<\/p>\n

agree among yourselves, and avoid divisions; be firmly joined in<\/p>\n

unity of mind and thought. I have been told, my brothers, by<\/p>\n

Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is<\/p>\n

this: each of you is saying, `I am Paul’s man,’ or `I am for Appollos’;<\/p>\n

`I follow Cephas’, or `I am Christ’s.’ Surely Christ has not been<\/p>\n

divided among you! (1 Cor. 1.10-13)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The human propensity for quarreling is manifest here. One man fights\u00a0with another over which person baptized him, or over the ranking of the\u00a0officials within the church. The residue of thousands of years of belief in the\u00a0divisive doctrine of “chosenness” is impossible to erase. Although Paul is\u00a0certainly a monotheistic universalist himself, the proclamation that all shall be\u00a0welcome into the new religion is met with opposition and concern by the\u00a0newly converted. The strong belief that one’s tribe has been chosen by the\u00a0“true” god for some manifest destiny rings out across the centuries, and it often\u00a0rings out from a killing field where the proclamation is tested, where the gods\u00a0of one’s fathers must meet in combat to determine who is chosen. (Any so-\u00a0lution to the deep conflicts in the Middle East today seems highly unlikely as\u00a0long as the religious claims of all participants are based on the strongly held\u00a0belief that each is the chosen representative of the only true god.) Paul’s first\u00a0letter, “The First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians” allows us to draw certain\u00a0conclusions about the problems that were arising in the congregations some\u00a0twenty years after the ministry of Jesus. A big puzzle for all was what was to\u00a0happen to Christians who die before the return of the Lord. How were they to\u00a0become apart of the new covenant, the new order? It was a problem, one\u00a0imagines, because the second-coming was not on schedule, was not as quick as\u00a0expected. Paul assures the congregation in the letter that the Christian dead\u00a0will rise and join the other Christians “up in the clouds.” As we have seen in\u00a0Mark there is a strong belief in the impending return of Jesus as divine ruler of\u00a0the new kingdom. Another set of problems faced by Paul also have the\u00a0second-coming as their source: if Jesus as Messiah\/Redeemer is returning to\u00a0the earth to redress injustice and bring about the new order, and if this\u00a0occurrence is imminent, then why should anyone continue to pay attention to\u00a0the matters of the world? Why, indeed, should one work or plan for the future\u00a0in any way at all? Paul is uncertain about the time of the Parousia[7]<\/a> saying only “the Day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.” But he is certain\u00a0about how one must conduct oneself while waiting for the second coming.\u00a0“You must abstain from fornication,” he says, and “you must learn to gain\u00a0mastery over your body.” In a second letter to the Thessalonians[8]<\/a> Paul orders\u00a0that “the man who will not work shall not eat,” an injunction which suggests\u00a0that many were not working but “idling their time away” while waiting for\u00a0Godot.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Romans<\/em>, as the headnote in the New English Bible says, “contains the fullest and most balanced statement of his [Paul’s] theology.” And\u00a0what is the centre of this theology? In a word grace<\/strong>. It is by means of God’s\u00a0grace, Paul argues, that righteousness and eternal life enter in to the sinful\u00a0world. “God’s act of grace,” he writes, “is out of all proportion to Adam’s\u00a0wrongdoing.” The wrongdoing of Adam brought sin and death, but the grace\u00a0of God brought Jesus the Messiah who brings acquittal to all of humankind.\u00a0Believe and you will be saved. Paul emphasizes the importance of love in the\u00a0life of the Christian, and insists upon the doctrine of grace. He attempts to\u00a0upset the idea of a chosen people, not by arguing, as I would, that its consequences are disastrous, but by proclaiming a different point of view as true.\u00a0“For God has no favourites,” he writes, “so my gospel states.” No circumcision\u00a0is required; no special dietary rules are proscribed in this new religion. These\u00a0are external marks and the true circumcision, Paul proclaims, “is of the heart.”\u00a0His new religion will embrace those Jews who will be baptized and will also\u00a0reach out beyond the tribes to all the peoples who will listen and believe. Paul’s\u00a0story is one of a man driven by a religious call to spread the news to all of the\u00a0peoples of the region in order to assure that they will be aware of the new\u00a0dispensation from God. But Paul, like Mark, seems to believe that the\u00a0Endtime is right around the corner, and that the return of the Lord to rule the\u00a0world is imminent. That belief in the imminence of the second coming is the\u00a0constant throughout Christian history. How Christianity continued to flourish\u00a0past the first century CE is a puzzle to non-believers and a testimony to the\u00a0power of the institution called the church and the irrationality of human beings\u00a0as soon as they enter the arena of religion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Jesus of the synoptic gospels is comprised largely of “snapshots.”\u00a0We see him through the lenses of three different artists, each with his own set\u00a0of intentions and his own sense of audience. We see him during about one\u00a0hundred days of his life, performing miracles, healing, and teaching. We know\u00a0almost nothing of him outside of the New Testament stories; we cannot say\u00a0with any certainty that he even existed outside of those stories. What we read\u00a0of him in the gospels is quite different from what Paul tells us through his\u00a0letters. In a sense the Jesus of the church or churches is a Pauline fabrication:\u00a0the living, feeling, shouting man of Mark’s stories, who can destroy a fig tree,\u00a0clean out a temple, and throw himself to the ground in despair, has become a\u00a0spiritual and conceptual isolate in Paul’s theological discourse. The Old\u00a0Testament begins with “In the beginning…” and the New Testament ends with\u00a0“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” as a hopeful reply to the last voice in the narrative,\u00a0that of the character, Jesus, who speaks “Yes, I am coming soon!”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

From beginning to end we have lingered in these stories for some time;\u00a0their power will continue to serve them, and you, well, in the ongoing human\u00a0story.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

[1]<\/a> The Interpreters\u2019 Bible<\/em> Abingdon Press, New York, Volume 7, page 828.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> See, e.g., the excellent debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? \u2013 The Resurrection Debate<\/em>, edited by Terry L Miethe, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1987.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> \u201cQ\u201d probably comes from \u201cquelle\u201d the German word for \u201csource.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> Kee, page 33.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> Kee, page 138.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> \u201cThe Limitations of Christ,\u201d John Crane, from Reflections on theNature of Things, <\/em>Volume IV, Number 9, Jefferson Unitarian Church, Golden, Colorado.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> The future coming of Christ.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/a>[8] There is some debate about whether Paul actually wrote 2 Thessalonians. The theme and style do not strike all scholars as similar enough to be genuine Pauline writing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":276,"menu_order":11,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-44","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/44","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/276"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/44\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/44\/revisions\/63"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/44\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=44"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=44"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=44"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}