An Essay for Humanities Courses: The Bible


PART A

MARK\'S THEOLOGY REFLECTED IN WRITING

Mark and the other evangelists used basically five ways to change, edit
or enhance Jesus\' sayings to reflect their own views of Christianity. According
to the Five Gospels Book, plagiarism and changing of writing was not a crime,
but actually very common Mark\'s time. Besides, Mark never knew Jesus first-hand,
he somehow had to make a \'story\' from basically Hearsay!
Mark groups different parables and sayings of Jesus by topic; making a
false impression that these things happened in order. This may have little
effect on changing the meaning of the lesson, however it illustrates the fact
that Mark was trying to author a "readable" story for people, rather than a book
of facts. The best example would be in Mark 10:17-31 (Jesus Counsel to the
Rich) & (Parable of The Camel and the Eye of a Needle). It is doubtful that
these things happened at the same time; however, they are GREY in The Five
Gospels anyway ... and probably didn\'t happen as Mark describes. This brings us
to Mark\'s writing style.
Mark seems to "tack-on" sentences to Jesus\' teachings to make them more
"Christian." This really changes the meaning more than any other tactic! Who
knows what Mark may have edited-out to accomplish what he wanted to impress upon
his readers? In this, he tries to interpret the meaning of Jesus\' actions ...
and does this in a misleading way! For example: Mark 2:19, Jesus regarding
Fasting. Jesus makes a strong statement against importance to fasting, but Mark
(in 2:20) tags on:

"But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from
them, and they will fast in those days."
This blatantly shows that Mark held higher regard for the Old Traditions
of Fasting rather than Jesus\' new teachings! This is also an example of
"Christianizing Jesus" according to traditions that have already earned respect
from Jews in their tradition. (Wow, this is starting to sound like a fight
between Today\'s Political Parties, isn\'t it?! [Jesus = Liberal Politics /
Judaism = Conservative Politics]).
Finally, Mark likes to "soften the blow" of Jesus\' Hard sayings. He
does this for probably the same reason Paul preached that Circumcision was not
required for Christians. A good example is The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:28-).
Jesus clearly states that words against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable.
However, Mark adds that "all things are possible with God," which softens this
harsh rule!

MARK & THE PAROUSIA

Mark lived during the Jewish War of 66-70 ADE. Unlike the later
evangelists, Matthew and Luke, Mark believed the Parousia was upon us, about to
happen at any time! And, for obvious reason: he lived in an extremely troubled
time for the Jews, and he had not been worried yet by the Parousia\'s delay as
were later evangelists.
Mark 13:4 - \'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the
sign when all these things will be fulfilled?\' According to Mark\'s writing,
Jesus first predicts the destruction of the Temple. However, Mark had written
after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ADE! This tactic agrees with The Five
Gospels: writing apocalyptic sayings of Jesus after they have already been
"fulfilled." I would suppose he did this to give credit to his writing of the
second coming of God.
An example is the parable of The Fig Tree in Mark 13:28-37. This
addition, obviously written by Mark and not said by Jesus, shows the urgency in
which Mark expected the parousia:

"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place."
You can easily see why the other evangelists, Matthew, Luke & John, re-
wrote Mark\'s apocalyptic writing to be more of a "Sacred Time," and less
definite.
Mark used a common tactic of quoting scripture (especially Dan, Isa, Mic
& some Psalms) for his apocalyptic writing. We also saw this in Paul\'s letters
years before. People regarded scripture as fact, therefore a perfect tool to
give credit to Mark\'s & Paul\'s new writing!
Our own culture today is wrapped-up in tradition and Bible quotes as
undisputable fact, even though people twist these things to promote their own
interests! My own family justifies their hatred for gays by quoting the Bible;
they justify a "Woman\'s Place" by using the Bible; they justify their racism
through the Bible (saying that "Love your Brother" could only possibly refer to
people of your own color, because your brother could not possibly be of another
color); they justify violent punishment for