quote:

---

THE SICKNESS OF RELIGION AND ITS CURE.
by John S. Romanides


Preface

The basic difference between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the one hand and that of the Gospel of John on the other hand [ "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review 4 (1958) ] is due to the two stages of the Old and New Testament's cure of the sickness at the second center of the human personality in the heart which circulates blood, the other center being the brain or the intellect which is part of the spinal cord system which circulates spinal fluid. It is the heart which needs cure by its purification and illumination to be consummated in the glorification of the whole person. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, accompanied by texts of the Old Testaments, especially those of the Psalms, were used as part of the process of the purification and the illumination of the hearts of the catechumens which was consummated by the celebration of the passion and crucifixion of the Lord of Glory into which they were being baptized on Holy Saturday. These baptisms were followed by the celebration of the resurrection of Christ followed by the Easter Eucharist at which time the Gospel of John began to be read and interpreted up to Pentecost Sunday within this period of fifty days. During this period of Johannine instruction one was expected to progress from one's state of the purification of one's spirit in the heart to it's illumination by unceasing prayers and psalms as contrasted from prayers and psalms by the intellect at given times. At this point one knew that was becoming a member of the Body of Christ as the prayer in the heart was taking hold and remaining ever present without ceasing. That one had this prayer and lost it and had thus become satisfied that he had had it means that he in danger of permanent loss since "Let us not think that we have become members of the Body once and for all". [ John Chrysostom ]

Pentecost is the event by which the Old and Testament Church became the Body of Christ which now includes also all the forefathers who had been illumined and glorified before Yahweh's incarnation. As in the Old Testament, those who persevered in the illumination of their heart would go on to their glorification which was their ordination to prophethood. This is why John the Baptist, already glorified and ordained to prophethood, again was glorified and this time experienced the strange reality that he was Baptizing Yaweh Himself Incarnate. Six days after saying that "...some standing here...will not taste death until they see the reign of God come in power," Christ again revealed Himself as Yaweh Incarnate to Peter, James and John". [ Mk 9, 1-8, Mt 16. 28; 17.1-8, Lk 9.27-36 ]

. . . . . . . .

It was expected that during this Johannine time of instruction the newly baptized would have entered into the stage of illumination of the heart with unceasing prayer and psalms as explained by St. Paul, especially in 1Cor. 12-15.12. This will be the pivotal point of this study since it is here that we have a an esoteric outline of the inner reality of the worshipping primitive Church headed by apostles, prophets and teachers whose authority was their own glorification mutually accepted.

---

quote:

---

1) PAUL certainly was THE APOSTLE of the Gospel, as the others abandoned the Gospel that was delivered to Paul.

---

2
The Beginnings

The Preaching of John the Baptist (3:1-20)

As in Mark, the proclamation of the gospel begins with John the
Baptist. However, Luke expands on Mark's story, and his
changes strengthen the impression one gets from Mark that the
Baptist is presented as a symbol of Paul.1 Verse 1 sets the time of
John's appearance by reference to Roman rulers, thus placing the
gospel in the context of the entire Roman world rather than situat-
ing it narrowly inJudea; this reflects the breadth of Paul's travels to
spread the gospel far beyond the limits of Palestine. In addition we
have here the phrase "the word of God came to..." (egeneto rhema
theou epi) that occurs only in Jeremiah 1:1 in the LXX prophetic
books; this reflects Paul's view of his own calling as similar to Jere-
miah's.2 A special focus on Jeremiah is understandable for both
Paul and Luke: Jeremiah is the prophet who speaks most resolutely
of God's rejection of Jerusalem and its temple as the definitive
place of his abode and authoritative source for learning his will; this
is precisely what Paul does in Galatians,3 and it is one of the major
themes in Luke-Acts.

Nevertheless, the opening direct quotation from the Old Testa-
ment comes from Isaiah. This is the same text cited in Mark, but
here it is extended to include the expression "and all flesh shall see

1 See ATO 133-38.
2 Gal 42-46, my comments on Gal 1:15.
3 4:21-27.
4 Is 40:3-5. Actually, the phrase rhema theou (word of God) itself builds a bridge to this quotation since the ending of that passage (not quoted here) contains the same phrase: "the word of our God (to rhema tou theou) will stand forever" (Is 40:8 LXX).


the salvation of God.55 The additions importance lies in its mention
of Gods "salvation" (soteriori), which Luke brings up earlier in 2:30
and again only at the conclusion of Acts. In all three instances the
intent is to speak of a salvation as Paul preached it: one and the
same for Gentiles and Jews. In Luke 2:32 both Gentiles and Jews
were explicitly named; here in 3:6 we have "all flesh55 (pasa sarx) re-
ferring to all human beings; and in Acts 28:28 Gods salvation (to
soterion ton theou) is found in the gospel offered to—but refused
by—the Jews, and now offered to the Gentiles.

That pattern—the gospel is offered to the Jews, they reject it,
and it is then offered to the Gentiles, who accept it—is the theme
of Romans, and echoes of Romans can be heard throughout the
Baptists preaching. In Romans Gods righteousness is revealed
first under the aspect of divine wrath, which is depicted first as
being directed against the Gentiles and then as equally extending
to the Jews. Likewise, John warns first the "crowds55 (pkhloi in
w.7-14, representing the Gentiles) and then the "people55 {laos in
w.l 5-18, representing the Jews). In both Romans and here in
Luke, Gentiles are to understand that they are under God's wrath
not because they are outside the Jewish community but because
they do not behave according to God's will. And the Jews them-
selves are in the same predicament because having the Law is no
advantage; doing what it demands is what matters. Conse-
quently, being a child of Abraham assures no one of a free ride
into the kingdom (v.7); only bearing fruits worthy of repentance,
that is, truly changing one's mind and showing this in ones ac-
tions,12 will be taken into account in God's judgment (v.9).

5 See also my comments on Mk 1:4-5 in NTH 136-37.
6 Rom 1:17-18.
7 Rom 1:18-32.
8 Rom 2:1-3:8.
9 See NTH 147-48.
10 Rom 1:28-32.
11 Rom 2.
12 Which is the meaning of the Greek metanoia.



Luke's rendering of the Baptist's preaching is taken from Paul's
own words. Paul preceded John in using the image of a tree about
be cut down to represent Abrahams progeny and their fate if
they do not repent. He also preceded John in using the verb
"raise up55 (egeiro, v.8) in a context containing a reference to
Abraham's progeny (Rom 4). There, it is Jesus whom God 1
"raises up" from the dead, but the purpose of that action is the
same as its parallel for "stones55 in the Baptist's preaching: to
make sons of Abraham out of those who were not biologically
his sons, since one can now attain that status through faith in

the resurrected Jesus.

Other words spoken by John call to mind the epistle to the
Galatians. The phrase "bearing good fruit" (poioun karpon kalon^
Lk 3:9) brings to mind Galatians 5:16-26, where Gentile ethical
license is presented as "works of the flesh" and contrasted with the
"fruit" (karpos) of the Spirit. Paul states that the former must be
rejected and the latter must be evidenced in order for one to avoid
being struck by God's wrath and instead inherit his kingdom.
Galatians 6:1-10 continues by describing the product of the Spirit
using imagery of harvest, which parallels that of fruit. The passage
ends by exhorting the faithful to "not grow weary in well-doing
(to kalon poiountes)." That Luke is directly borrowing from Paul is
evidenced in his rephrasing of Mark's statement: while Mark
freely adapts Paul's words to the parable of the sower ("brought
forth grain" in 4:8), Luke uses Paul's very words ("bear good
fruit"). Also reminiscent of Galatians are the Baptist's three an-
swers to the questions about the character of "good fruit" (Lk 13 Rom 11 likens the Jews to branches of the patriarchal tree in a context speaking of God's judgment (11:16-24). Both texts use the same verb ekkopto (cut off/down; Lk 3:9 and Rom 11:22, 24).

14 Rom 4:24-25; notice how, at the argument's last end, Jesus' resurrection is said to be "for our justification" (v.25b), i.e., rendering us righteous as Abraham was.
15 Rom 4:16-17.
16 The verb "give" {didomi) in Mark replaces Paul's "do/create" {poio, translated "bear"), and Mark drops "good."



3:10-14): all speak of love for the neighbor which is precisely the
fruit of the Spirit in Galatians.

The Jews must accept this message in spite of the fact that if
"scandalizes" them. The notion of scandal or stumbling block is
mirrored in the phrase "questioned in their hearts" (v.l5-
dialogizomenon en tais kardiais auton). This dilemma will not be
solved until Christs coming. However, the people do not have the
option of simply waiting for Jesus in order to decide for or against
John's preaching, since when Jesus comes he will come to judge
them and they will not be ready. Once again, the parallel between
John and Paul is clear: the Jews of Lukes day must accept Paul as
the messenger of the risen and coming Christ, and they cannot
simply choose to wait until the messiahs coming. Moreover, they
cannot simply choose among alternate opinions about this Christ.
The only true Christ is the one of whom John is the forerunner,
again meaning the one whom Paul has preached about. The Jews of
Lukes day did indeed face competing presentations of what Jesus
expected of them, and Luke is saying here that only one is the right
one, only one will save them from Gods wrath. Pauls gospel is the
one the Jews must accept, even though it came to them after it
was offered to, and accepted by, the Gentiles. But the Jews as a
group did not accept Pauls gospel or even his last plea to them in

Romans; and in the same way the Jews, in the person of their leader
Herod, reject John the Baptist s message.

17 See Gal 5:13-26 and Gal 297.
18 See 1 Cor 1:23; also Gal 6:11 and Rom 9:33.
19 Encountered earlier in Lk 2:35 as well as Rom 2:15 and Mk 2:6.
20 Notice the use ofeuengelizeto ton laon (he was evangelizing the people) in v.l8.
21 Rom 11.
22 See NTH 173 on Herod being representative of the Judean Jews in Mark

quote:

---

Gal. 2 shows Peter in Jerusalem. Notice the "false bretheran" who had snuck out to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. And notice what Peter does when some come from James. And notice the heresy of breaking fellowship with those who are in Christ.

---

quote:

---

PoW: And notice the heresy of breaking fellowship with those who are in Christ.
Hilston: What do you mean by "break fellowship"?

---

quote:

---

46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.

---

Mark: An Introduction
from Paul Nadim Tarazi,
The New Testament: Introduction. Volume 1: Paul and Mark
(Crestwood: SVS Press, 1999 (also in Arabic)

This chapter (the whole chapter--not just this first half) is available at:
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Paul-Nadim-Tarazi/Extracts/Introduction-to-Mark.html

------------------------------------------------------
The Old Testament as Scripture for the Gentile Churches

The consensus among scholars is that Mark is the earliest of the four canonical gospels and was not written until after 65 AD . This means the first communities of believers began and grew throughout their first three decades without a written "gospel." The only writings reflecting faith in Jesus as the Messiah and originating from this period are the letters Paul sent to the Gentile churches he had founded . In these epistles the word "gospel" refers not to a written document but to Paul's teaching about the Messiahship (divine Sonship) of Jesus and its significance for both Gentiles and Jews. "The gospel" in this context is essentially a synonym for "the faith," as is most obvious in Galatians . The agreement reached among Christian leaders at Jerusalem and described in this letter (2:1-10) bears witness to the fact that the lack of interest in a written gospel evident in Paul's epistles is not unique to him: no one during this early period spoke of "a gospel" or "the gospel" as a written document and thus as a part of scripture. There was in fact no "New Testament" as we now know it, and more importantly, there was no discernible sense that something was amiss because of that lack. Indeed, our term "Old Testament" presumes there is a "New" counterpart, but such was not the case at this time. The Old Testament as scripture was considered complete and sufficient throughout those first 30 years.

This was no less true among Gentile believers than it was among Jewish ones; the scripture consisting solely of the Old Testament was considered applicable equally and directly to all believers, Jew and Gentile alike (though Paul's opponents interpreted certain portions of it differently than he did). That even Paul's Gentile converts had to adopt the Old Testament as their own no less than Jews did is clear from the way Paul's epistles assume his Gentile readers have thoroughly assimilated its contents. And the Old Testament's authority extended even to practical issues in Gentile communities, as can be seen in 1 Corinthians: even when Paul addresses matters peculiar to the Gentile nature of those communities -- matters which would not have been issues at all among Jews -- he consistently appeals to the Old Testament writings as a final authority containing solutions to "Gentile" problems no less than strictly "Jewish" ones.

----------------------------------------------------

The Gospel and the Person of Paul

"The gospel" itself remained an oral proclamation, something outside of written scripture, and we find no evidence in Paul's epistles that oral preaching ever came to be considered inadequate as a vehicle to convey the content of this gospel. Nowhere in Paul's epistles does he hint at any sense of discomfort about the absence of a comprehensive or systematic written version of the content of his preaching. For Paul, the gospel was in its essence brief, and it always pointed back to the scriptures of the Old Testament, as can be seen from his summary of the Thessalonians' response to his preaching: they "turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus" (1 Thess 1:9b-10).

So long as Paul was alive, his teaching was itself "the gospel" and was not replaced or supplemented by any written works that could be called "a gospel" or "gospels." Paul did offer defenses and explanations of his gospel in written form within his epistles, but there was no attempt at a systematic literary exposition, no attempt to create a writing that could itself be called a gospel.

Thus, for the Pauline Gentile churches all was well so long as Paul was alive. The shining hope of their faith was the "new Jerusalem," a vision of hope in the eschatological future that Paul himself created for them. While he lived, he alone stood as their tangible and secure link with that hope and that goal. The Old Testament books of Ezekiel and Isaiah had centuries earlier spoken of a "new Jerusalem," and those texts at that time had in a similar manner created that concept as a new and concrete reality in the minds of the readers and hearers of scripture. Likewise, Paul's eschatological "new Jerusalem" became a reality for those who accepted his gospel, and it became that because his hearers trusted his authority just as their predecessors trusted the authority of Ezekiel and Isaiah.

"The Jerusalem above" (Gal 4:26) is embedded in Paul's gospel, having been preached first to the communities he established, and preserved for us in written form in his letters. It was only through Paul that his converts learned about this "Jerusalem above" as their "free mother" , but he drew it directly from the words of Isaiah (4:27) ; he was simply proclaiming "God's gospel, promised beforehand" by God himself in the book of "his prophet" Isaiah [6]. In simpler terms, Paul was telling the Gentiles that Isaiah's promises had been fulfilled, and he was explaining how they had been fulfilled [7]. For Jews the prophetic texts themselves would already be familiar, but this interpretation of their intent and fulfillment would not, and it was precisely this interpretation that was the essence of Paul's gospel. Thus, whatever Paul said to the Gentiles applied equally to the Jews since his gospel was the one and only true gospel and was addressed to both . Nevertheless many or most Jews who accepted the Messiahship of Jesus rejected Paul's interpretation of the significance of that Messiahship, and while he lived Paul was constantly forced to defend his gospel against those who preached "another gospel" (Gal 1:6).

Consequently, throughout Paul's lifetime his gospel stood firmly on the basis of Paul's own personal authority, and only on that basis. After Paul's death his Gentile followers were left without root or anchor. Granted, both Jewish and Gentile believers still had their one common body of scripture, a collection of texts that served as the authoritative source for Paul himself when he preached his gospel. But the texts could be interpreted in many different ways, and the essence of Paul's gospel was his own interpretation of these texts, an interpretation which he claimed to be the sole correct one [9]. And only Paul's interpretation effectively secured the full membership of the believing Gentiles as equals alongside their Jewish counterparts in the one church of the one God. But who among the authoritative apostles dared to say so unequivocally besides Paul? None, to our knowledge. For the others, a Gentile would always be somehow secondary until and unless he would fully become a Jew by following the dictates of Jewish Law.

Thus, beginning with the break at Antioch between Paul and emissaries of the Jerusalemite Jewish Christian leadership (Gal 2:11-14), Paul realized that his Gentile churches would always be hounded by the camp of James and Barnabas. And, as early as that break and starting with 1 Thessalonians, he decided to seal his teaching in writing by sending letters to those churches, knowing that some day he would die and leave them orphaned, at the mercy of his opponents, who would tell them that they as Gentiles were still "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). But a situation that could have ended in disaster for them was salvaged precisely because of the way Paul had always presented his gospel as a word (logos). It was in effect Paul's gospel word -- rather than Paul himself -- that had proclaimed to them the new reality of their new faith and assured them of its truth. Throughout his mission to the Gentiles Paul had drilled into his converts' minds that what was of import was not his person, but rather his gospel teaching; he was merely passing on to others what the Lord had conveyed to him. Numerous texts testify to this view of himself as merely a servant and of the gospel he serves as not merely "his" but "the gospel," something with independent existence and a life of its own:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. ... For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son ... But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God ... Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith -- to the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! (Rom 1:1, 9; 15:15-16; 16:25-27)
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. ... If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. ... I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor 4:15; 9:11-12, 23)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God. ... Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others ... For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you; we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ. ... For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough ... Did I commit a sin in abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel without cost to you? (2 Cor 4:3-4; 9:13; 10:14; 11:4, 7)

I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now ... It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. ... I want you to know, brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel ... The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel ... Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel ... But Timothy's worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel. ... And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Phil 1:3-5, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3)

... for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. ... For you yourselves know, brethren, that our visit to you was not in vain; but though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the face of great opposition. For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts. ... So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. For you remember our labor and toil, brethren; we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you, while we preached to you the gospel of God. ... we sent Timothy, our brother and God's servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you (1 Thess 1:5; 2:1-4, 8-9; 3:2).

I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel (Philem 13).

-----------------------------------------

The Pauline Corpus as Scripture

The emphasis on the gospel is so strong as to overshadow any image one might gain of Paul's person; it is as though he rendered himself transparent so that his readers and hearers would see in him only the gospel itself. As he eloquently stated as early as in 1 Thessalonians (2:8) and as late as in Philippians (1:3-5, 27), the gospel was the only possible bridge of communication between him and them, the only prism through which he and they would view one another. Thus, whenever Paul spoke of himself, it was in regard to his own authority as an apostle of the gospel, and the purpose of such remarks was to aid his defense of the gospel. He trained his flock to view him exclusively as an apostle, and specifically as their apostle (1 Cor 9:2; 2 Cor 3:1-3), and the authority over them that this gave him he used strictly to promote the gospel among them. This authority was particularly useful because it could be exercised from afar as well as while physically present:

For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor 5:3-5)

His ability to exercise authority in this manner rendered his physical presence immaterial since he effectively made himself present through his words; in a sense he sent to his churches an incarnation of himself in words. It was in recognition of this power in Paul's words that his co-workers, under the leadership of Timothy, gathered the letters he wrote to his churches into a corpus that became their authoritative reference for his gospel [10]. This corpus ensured that the ongoing opposition to Paul's gospel could not take advantage of Paul's absence, for in these epistles Paul remained powerfully present even after his death. The act of collecting Paul's epistles for this purpose was the first step toward the creation of a "fourth (and last) scripture" [11] of the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), the birth of what came to be known as the New Testament.

In creating this new body of scripture the Pauline leaders of the emerging Gentile churches were merely following in the footsteps of their predecessors, Ezekiel and the priestly writers of the Old Testament who began to gather the "words" of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah [12]. The same process repeated itself in the first century AD. The Pauline school took the first step by putting together the master's epistles into a corpus, and it augmented that corpus with a series of additional letters composed along the line of his teachings and, as was usual in those times, superscripted with his name out of deference to him (the first of these being Colossians and 2 Thessalonians). Thus, both Paul's disciples and his predecessors the Old Testament prophets created a set of authoritative scriptures that would define the very character and nature of God's Israel.

-------------------------------------------------------

A More Systematic Charter

The second step undertaken by the Pauline school was much more complex. Here one must recall that, besides editing the prophets' words into scrolls as scripture, the school of Ezekiel proceeded to produce its own writings, the Torah (Pentateuch), in order to present a more systematic view of their teaching [13]. The Pentateuch is the story of the origins of God's people revisited in the light of the prophetic teaching that identified and defined the true God for nascent Judaism [14]. The gospel of Mark was produced along similar lines. It revisited whatever stories regarding Jesus were still alive in the memory of the early church leaders, in the light of the Pauline gospel teaching. In Paul's preaching and teaching, Jesus the Messiah and Lord was co-extensive with the gospel taught and preached by the apostle. The gospel of Paul to the Gentiles carried Jesus for them; the only Jesus they knew, beginning with Timothy and Mark who had never personally seen him, was the reality engraved on their minds and hearts by Paul's apostolic words [15]. They -- probably leaders such as Timothy and Mark -- must have decided that Paul's written legacy was inadequate, even supplemented as it was by works such as Colossians. They concluded that a more systematic view of Christ, the subject and content of Paul's preaching, had finally become necessary. But why? What would have triggered in their minds the idea of embarking on such a monumental project? What was the purpose? Whom would it benefit? And was it absolutely necessary or merely beneficial, a nice-to-have extra?

The event that led to the decision to write a gospel book was Paul's death. This left the Gentile churches in a very precarious position with no apostle supporting them and necessitated finding a different, yet equally authoritative, means of support. Paul's epistles were being collected, and Timothy did provide a new charter (Colossians) based on Paul's apostolic authority, but despite everything said above about the importance of Paul's apostolic word over his person, that written word in these collected epistles still did not carry the same weight as a living apostle. The remaining living apostles were associated with the Jerusalemite leadership, which had openly rejected the believing Gentiles' freedom from circumcision and the Mosaic ordinances. The only hope was to sway one of these leaders into the Pauline camp. James himself (or his following) might be too difficult to persuade, but Peter (or his following) was apparently less adamant on this position than James and seemed a possible convert to Gentile cause. Moreover, he was an apostle, and officially Paul's counterpart among the Jews for that matter (Gal 2:7-8), so he would also have substantial influence with James (v.9) and the rest of the Jerusalem leadership.

--------------------------------

Mark

The Pauline following included among its membership a natural bridge to the Petrine group in the person of Mark. He was part of Paul's entourage during the apostle's last days: "Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers" (Philem 23-24). And later on we find Mark still with Timothy (Col 4:10). What made him uniquely fit for this task, however, was his earlier close connection with Barnabas (Col 4:10; see also Acts 12:25; 15:37) and, more importantly, with Peter: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet 5:13; see also Acts 12:12). For a while, his relation to Barnabas made him suspect in the eyes of Paul's colleagues, to the extent that Timothy had to add an extra note vouching for his trustworthiness: "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions -- if he comes to you, receive him)" (Col 4:10). Thus, Mark was someone who actually shifted allegiance from Barnabas (and Peter) to Paul, i.e., he himself had done what was about to be asked of Peter or his successors.

-----------------------------------------------------

Authorship

The fact that Mark was the bridge to the Petrine following must have sealed the tradition that the gospel was named after him; and he may well have actually been the author. However, the gospel text seems to allude to Mark as part of the gospel story [16]. Another candidate would be the author of Luke-Acts, who shows a mastery of the Greek language essential for anyone contemplating an undertaking of this sort. Moreover, this would explain the liberty Luke took in rewriting the first gospel into his monumental two-volume work, Luke-Acts. At any rate, if Luke was the author, he would have written "Mark" under the scrutinizing eye of both Timothy and Mark, given the delicacy of the matter. Since the appeal to Peter was either written by Mark himself or used Mark as an example, or both, this book is in a sense a "Markan" message to the Petrine following, and since Luke's name brings to mind Luke-Acts, I shall henceforth refer to this gospel and its author as simply "Mark."

-------------------------------------------------

The Written Gospel

Still, one does not embark on an impossible mission. One needs to have some realistic hope of success before investing an immense effort in such a grandiose undertaking. What would have been the sign that the endeavor might succeed? It lay in the situation in and around Jerusalem at that time. A Jewish rebellion against the Roman authorities started in Jerusalem in 66 AD and triggered a war that ended with the siege and the fall of the city to the Roman armies in 70. As is typical of such rebellions, the situation was polarized, and the Judean Jewish believers in particular were in a difficult predicament. As Jews they would be considered traitors if they would not openly side with their fellows by taking up arms to defend Jerusalem. As followers of Jesus, their doing so would constitute betrayal of their faith in him as the Messiah who had already secured for them the kingdom of God and guaranteed them the freedom their Jewish fellows were militantly fighting for. In other words, the Jewish revolt of 66 forced the Jerusalemite church to realize the depth of the chasm between it and contemporary Judaism. The Jews' conception of God's city as the physical, earthly city of Jerusalem had not changed since the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at which time it had been opposed to those prophets' views also [17]. Those two prophets taught that it is the word of God that matters, not an earthly city. Indeed, Jeremiah, as bearer of the Lord's word (Jer 1:1:9) in a sense became himself the Lord's city and as such opposed the Jerusalemites and Judahites (vv.18-19). Ezekiel too became the abode of the divine word (Ezek 3:1-3) and spoke against the rebellious house of Israel (2:1-7; 3:4-11), and he did so from Babylonia, the land of the Gentiles who had exiled him there in 597 BC and were about to strike down Jerusalem a decade later just as the Romans did in the first century AD. Through these two prophets, God's saving message to Jerusalem was directed against it and from outside its boundaries!

Mark capitalized on this situation and formulated his literary plan according to the scheme of Ezekiel. The divine word, now as Paul's gospel, summoned the Jerusalemite church to break with the insurgent Judaism of Judea, and it did so from outside Jerusalem -- from Rome or Western Asia Minor. Moreover, it called upon that church to move away from Jerusalem and settle among the Gentile churches, from whom the divine word as gospel was now originating. And since this divine word was identified with Jesus himself, the crucified Messiah, Mark used whatever traditions about Jesus were at hand and presented them as a story, namely the story of Jesus from Galilee. The importance of his Galilean origin is that it means he came from outside Jerusalem and outside Judea. It was to this place relatively foreign to Judaism that Peter was called to leave Jerusalem in order to "see him risen" (Mk 16:7) and thereby to become a true apostle of Jesus [18].

I strongly believe Mark went even farther: he conceived and patterned this story of Jesus after the plan of the book of Isaiah. This means he intended it from the beginning to act as scripture, to be read in the Pauline Gentile churches as well as, hopefully, in the Jerusalemite church community in its eventual new location outside Jerusalem. Why would he have chosen the book of Isaiah to emulate? Two main reasons come to mind, one material and one formal. Materially, besides being the Messianic book par excellence [19] and consequently the most appropriate as a blueprint for the story of Jesus the Messiah, the book of Isaiah is conceived as the "story of God's word" addressed to his city Jerusalem. God's word judges the city and calls it to become truly his city, the place where he will fully execute his mišpat (righteous judgment) and to which all nations will flock to enjoy his šalom (peace) [20]. The fact that this "story" is one of "continual faithlessness on Israel's part and equally unrelenting faithfulness on the Lord's part" [21] made it remarkably appropriate for Mark's purposes. His intention was to emphasize how "Israel," in the persons of Peter and James, was unfaithful to God's word as expressed in the (Pauline) gospel.

Formally, the one "story" presented in Isaiah is actually presented "as a whole series of stories following one repeated pattern" [22]. The purpose of this arrangement is to underscore the people's faithlessness versus the Lord's faithfulness, for the repeating pattern is that "the people through their rebellions try to put an end to the story, but God, through his prophet(s), always has the last word" [23]. This pattern, though particularly clear in Isaiah, is actually encountered throughout the Old Testament, making it effectively a "scriptural" as much as "Isaianic" pattern. Mark, as we shall see, follows suit.

This scriptural pattern entailed another very important feature. Isaiah's "story" is presented more specifically as that of the city of Jerusalem from its beginnings up to its end as the "new" Jerusalem. Yet the city is viewed throughout from the perspective of the end, as is clear from Isaiah's opening "vision" of the divine "word": its subject matter is the eschatological Jerusalem where God's eschatological šalom (peace) is established and to which all the nations flock (2:1-4) [25]. This "perspective from the end" is a trademark of the Old Testament literature as well as Paul's gospel, for Paul's Christ is always the one who is coming, the risen Lord who will come to judge the world [26]. Consequently, when Jesus begins "preaching the gospel of God" (1:14) at the very beginning of Mark, that gospel is already focused on the end time: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (v.15). The Jerusalem of Isaiah's day was a real earthly city, but what he wrote about it was colored by his vision of its future glory; in the same way Mark wrote about the human person Jesus of Galilee but his presentation of that person was always colored by his vision of the risen Lord expected to return in glory.

-----------------------------------------------

The Written Gospel as Scripture

As I indicated earlier, Mark was not merely writing a dissertation or an appeal addressed to Peter and the Jerusalemite church such as what Paul did with his letter to the Romans. He was also writing a "scripture" for the Pauline Gentile churches based on Paul's gospel as it had been presented in Paul's preaching and teaching. He actually refers to his work as a "gospel" by placing that word in the very first sentence, which effectively acts as a title: "(The) beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Another indication that Mark intended to write a "scripture" is the remark "... let the reader understand..." in 13:14. That reference to one reader is telling. Nowadays, being children of the post-printing press era, our understanding of the meaning of "books" and even "reading" is quite different from that of the first century AD. At that time, copies of any given manuscript were very few and their "reading" was done usually in gatherings. This is borne out by the meaning of the Hebrew verb qara' and the corresponding Greek anaginosko; both meant "to read aloud," and not just for oneself, as we understand it today. Thus, the very notion of reading implied that it would be done aloud by one person, the "reader," in an official gathering at which the others present were the "hearers." Rev 1:3 offers another witness to this: "Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near" (Rev 1:3). Two things in this text are especially significant: a) the RSV translates the same Greek word once without and once with "aloud"; b) the original Greek of Revelation has "Blessed is the reader and the hearers of the words of the prophecy." Therefore if Mark was addressed to one reader, that person was "the official, public reader" of the gathered community [27]. And since scripture was read and commented upon at these gatherings, the reader or commentator is the one who had to understand the text, in order to explain it to the others.

My conclusion is that in Mark we have a "story" intended to be read in the Pauline gatherings as a prophecy would [28], a "story" being offered as a "word," and more specifically as the "word of God." This is exactly how the "stories" of the Patriarchs, the exodus, and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are handled in the Old Testament. In other words, Mark was conceived as scripture.

----------------------------------------

The Content of the Story

So Mark decided to create a "story of Jesus" and intended it to serve as scripture, but what will have been the source for the overall outline of that story? Could he have created it from scratch, devising his own plan for fitting numerous short vignettes about Jesus into a cohesive whole? I am convinced that he in fact utilized a story outline that had already been known among the Gentile churches. Earlier I referred to two essential points: the practical equivalence between the person of Jesus and the words of the gospel concerning him; and the fact that for the Gentile churches as well as for the Jews Timothy and Mark, Paul was the apostle, the original authoritative bearer of this gospel. When one takes these two matters seriously into consideration, one can understand that in the minds of Paul's disciples and communities, the "gospel story" was already outlined: it followed the major contours of Paul's life and activity as an apostle. It is not difficult to determine those contours, for they are laid out in some detail in Paul's epistles. These letters were written by him as an apostle, that is, in conjunction with his explication and defense of his gospel. Of these letters, only in Galatians and Philippians is the argument itself closely interwoven with personal data about Paul as an apostle, thus making the author's own history and experiences a kind of "gospel story." The former deals squarely with Mark's immediate interest: Paul's gospel on the one hand, and Peter, James, and the Jerusalemite church, on the other. The latter is Paul's testament from his place of imprisonment prior to his death and reflects the fact that the Jerusalemite church authorities did not heed Paul's appeal to them through his letter to the Romans. It is along the lines of the arguments in these two epistles that Mark wrote his "gospel story."

-------------------------------------------------

The Old Testament Precedent

This whole process may seem strange to the contemporary reader, but it is precisely what had been done earlier in the Old Testament, and Mark was merely following an example set for him by scripture itself. The Pentateuch as a whole, as well as Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in particular, were "stories" conceived on the basis of the prophets' teachings [29]. One can even say that these same "stories" were actually woven from the prophets' personalities and lives. Scholars have long pointed out similarities between Moses and Jeremiah [30]. They have also noticed that the Pentateuch describes two Aarons: one subservient to Moses and even opposed to him [31], the other his successor as high priest throughout the ages [32]. Whereas Moses led Israel during his lifetime, this second Aaron leads it throughout the generations [33]. This second Aaron bears a remarkable resemblance to Ezekiel, the exilic priest-prophet. Indeed, Ezekiel's eschatological Jerusalem is the blueprint of Aaron's temple in the wilderness [34]. Finally, Joshua, Israel's leader into Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, is patterned after Second Isaiah and, to some extent, Ezekiel. The names Isaiah and Joshua are from the same root in Hebrew meaning "the Lord saves," and Second Isaiah is the prophet who speaks of the return to God's city, Jerusalem, and at the same time presents Abraham as the one to whose progeny the promise is made [35]. On the other hand, the land's conquest by Joshua is done in a "priestly" manner: it is the Lord who leads Israel in a cultic manner into the land as though it is his holy of holies, exactly as Ezekiel's "new Jerusalem" is [36].

Mark has created a similar mixture in his gospel; the life of Jesus here is reminiscent of the New Testament "prophet" [37] Paul. Mark's purpose is to call upon the Jerusalem church and Peter's followers -- and ultimately through them the Judaism of his time as a whole -- to relinquish the earthly Jerusalem that is bound to destruction, and follow the prophetic call arising from the "wilderness of the Gentiles," into the new, heavenly Jerusalem. This prophetic voice was none other than Paul's, "an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:1-2). And consequently, the image of Paul shows through in Mark's portrayal of Jesus, just as the image of Jeremiah shows through in the Pentateuch's depiction of Moses.

------------------------------------

The Structure of Mark

The literary structure of Mark can best be discerned precisely by paying attention to the way Paul and the issues facing his Gentile churches show through in the story of Jesus. The story is built around a framework that begins with a preamble (1:1-15) followed by three cycles of calling/invitation (1:16-3:12; 3:13-6:6a; 6:6b-8:21) and three cycles of teaching (8:27-9:29; 9:30-10:31; 10:32-45). Then there is a pivotal pericope [38] where Timothy's leadership as Paul's successor is introduced (10:46-52), and that is followed by two long sections, one offering the gospel for the last time to the Jerusalemite Christian leadership (chs.11-13) and one recounting their refusal of it (chs.14-15). Finally there is a short text indicating the door is still open for Peter and his following (16:1-8) to accept Paul's gospel.

The following list breaks this structure down into some more detail and indicates how these sections reflect Paul himself, his gospel, or specific issues faced by adherents to his gospel. It is offered here less as an initial overview than as a "quick reference" that may help the reader to visualize more easily the flow of the Markan story while following the main text of this book. It is placed here merely to make sure that the reader is aware of its availability; to anyone who is reading the book for the first time I suggest that this list be skimmed quickly or skipped entirely.

quote:

---

The rest is wheel-spinning on your part, as you imply that the ideas are mine (they aren't) ...

---

* Luke's rendering of the Baptist's preaching is taken from Paul's own words.
* Other words spoken by John call to mind the epistle to the Galatians.

quote:

---

Is he really saying that Luke freely imported Pauline concepts into his narration of John's actual words? I was so incredulous, I had to re-read it several times.

---

Yes. That is what he says is quite normal for the setting in which Luke writes. His area is Old Testement. He is Middle Eastern. He has an Eastern education and upbringing. (University of Bucharest, and Antiochian church).

The first thing to do here is to admit that his frame-of-reference seems strange to our sensibilities. Then, consider, that IF that kind of thing actually takes place, that Luke might be an example of it. There are just so many little things, that are right there in the text, and are taken plain-as-they-are.The changes between Mark and Luke make so much sense when compared to the reasons that would make them make sense: e.g., Jesus coming "down" the mountain as carrying meaning, making reference to Moses, and that being loaded in itself. Based on how much of it I have read so far, I'd say that the simplest answer is that it is true. Otherwise--if these things can't be taken as they are--there is just so much little contortions that have to be made.

. . . . . . . . . .

There are several people who I would like to see this. But as to you, Hilston, a goal that I might have would be that you move beyond just considering whether Tarazi's posits merely fit the structures you use to critique them, and begin examining whether such "irrational" (not really) practices are possibly possible.

You wrote: "If you're so sure Tarazi's ideas can successfully conflate two..." "Conflate" has been used a few times now. Too great a diversity of different things take place in the various examples he uses. Conflate seems to be clearly wrong. You can't judge Tarazi by a standard of whether he "successfully conflates."

Then:

quote:

---

First, are you saying that you quote ideas that you disagree with?

---

LOL! No, you were posting quotes from the writer of a book, and saying "PoW says,"
I'll take the blame for the selection. I was expressing my pickiness. Say what you want.

quote:

---

The fact that someone is being academic and scholarly is no guarantee that the end result will prove to be cogent.

---

True. But your specific criticisms didn't fit. I built on skills that I concider those in the arts to have to say that his text stands up to vigourous critique. I also mentioned, and will expand here, that many people work with and expect very linear relationships, bordering on A=B or A=B=C, etc. Read a lot of his writing, if you want. You might come to the same conclusion.

quote:

---

to crash-and-burn.
------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I've heard this sort of taunt before

---

Hilston, I think that we are past this. You showed me, on one of these threads, that you are deep inside your position -- and therefore are BOTH supportive and critical of it. You take it seriously. I respect that.

I am not going to "taunt" you.

So, YOU decide whether you want to discuss this wierd, foreign seeming position. If not, I can even remove the long "Mark" post from the Paul" thread. I put it there only because I felt that you were being open, candid, and would give it an even treatment. My hope is that you will do just that.

Shall we make this interesting.

Or is this too removed from what you are interested in?

PoW


Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/13/2002 6:10:58 PM