Past articles in this series:
I have been arguing that a major part of Mark’s project included writing something to sustain Judaism in the context of Roman brutality and, at the same time, to try to avoid the charge of sedition with its almost certain consequences. A Roman reader might be aware of the surface telling of an awkward, disturbing, building carpenter who upset his own temple authorities and was later executed for sedition.
For me, this point of being understood by the Jews and being opaque to the Romans is key to understanding Mark.
A couple of points by way of illustration. Having established Jesus’ connection with John the Baptist, the first story that Mark gives us at the beginning of Jesus ministry is that of recruiting two fishermen, brothers, with the words “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men”, and immediately, says Mark, they put down their nets and followed him. There must be more to the story than this!
For a Jew knowledgeable of the Hebrew bible, the clue is in the use of fish as a metaphor.. Four writers in the Hebrew Bible had used fish as a metaphor: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and Habakuk and all four metaphors were descriptions of war! Such a Jew might understand this story as if Jesus had said, somewhat idiomatically, to the brothers: “Look around you, we are in a time of war. Join me, and let us do what we can to help our people.” With such an invitation and challenge I can picture the brothers willingness to throw in their lot with him.
The verb which is translated as ‘follow’ could well stand alone to do the job Mark requires. But he immediately adds a preposition: ‘after’. Read in the way I have been advocating, can we take this as a hint that what follows is Mark continuing Jesus’ work after Jesus’ lifetime. I agree with much of the academy that Mark is not writing history, nor writing a biography, far less an obituary. He is simply doing what he can do to follow after Jesus.
So, how might Mark proceed if he were to do this? Mark makes it very clear that Jesus always taught in parables. By so saying, isn’t he giving a very broad hint that he, too, will be teaching in parables and in what follows there will need to be interpretation? If so, where are his parables?
In the March issue, I spoke about that double story of the woman with the haemorrhage and of Jairus’ daughter. Because of the significance of the number 12, both of these stories are to be understood as stories about Israel. I continue to read these as two of Mark’s many parables. Any question as to the historicity or otherwise of these stories, becomes irrelevant. Understanding the story of the woman with the haemorrhage we learn that Israel has been suffering for years under many ‘physicians’, that the state is now impoverished, that the temple and its staff are unclean, and that things are getting altogether worse. Contact with Jesus, however, will make an immediate improvement – she (Israel) feels better in herself. When she reflects, she realizes that it was her faith and actions that had saved her, that she will be able to live in peace in community, healed from the effects of the occupation.
From the story of Jairus’ daughter, we learn that Israel is finished and that the people are mourning. Gathering the family and his team together conspicuously using the local language, Aramaic, Israel arises and resumes normal life – but she will need continuing refreshment – perhaps a hint that this refreshment is Mark’s own project.
I take these parables to be gems. To the Romans they read as-if they are events in the ministry of someone who will be later executed as a criminal. To the Jews, both stories are powerful parables of hope. They would do much to sustain Jewish culture and, as such, provide further resistance to the occupation.
Further, by being parables requiring interpretation – what readers and hearers come to understand is their own understanding – they are not being spoon-fed! Their own understanding gives each the possibility of being their own person within their respective communities – they are not dependent upon a guru, – not on a Mark, nor on a Jesus – they are simply adults together in their respective communities.
What follows from the view of Mark that I am advocating? Quite a lot I believe. I’ll start with the gospel of Matthew – Mark’s first canonical interpreter. We are used to the opinion that Matthew copies almost all of Mark – but it might come as a surprise to you, as it did to me, that Matthew also edits and changes Mark. In this story of the woman with the haemorrhage, Matthew used 48 words, Mark had used 154. For the story of Jairus’ daughter, Matthew used 90 words, Mark had used 192. Matthew omits all those details from Mark which are not strictly relevant to the healing miracle.
The parable of the Sower and its interpretation are perhaps the verses most commented upon in the whole of the New Testament. Mark says that Jesus taught in parables lest hearers turn and be forgiven. Matthew, it seems, has such a problem with Mark’s story that he reverses this and says that Jesus teaches in parables ‘in order that’ hearers will will turn and be forgiven! The reading of Mark that I am advocating has no problem at all with Jesus’ use of parable. Paying Mark the courtesy of believing that he wrote exactly what he intended, we remember that Mark was writing of ‘outsiders’. Here he is pointing directly to the Romans, whom he simply cannot name as such. Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches in parables so that the Romans should not easily ‘turn and be forgiven’. Matthew seems to think that the stories of the healing miracles are historically true – he hasn’t understand that Mark is using parable. Recall, if you will, that in the course of time that Matthew was the choice of the later church as their most significant gospel – and that of the four evangelists it is Mark that is least regarded until early in the twentieth century. Might we not say that the church has been built largely on the basis of a writer who misunderstood his sources?
Before coming to that conclusion, let’s consider probably the best known chapter of Matthew – chapter 5 with the beatitudes – a good example of spoon-feeding. Following the beatitudes, the remaining 2/3rds proclaims the necessity of keeping the law to the very last degree and then some: “For truly I tell You, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (…) For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment,’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the fire.” And so it continues for another 20 verses. Introducing such judgements, Matthew is making the growing Jesus movement safe for the development of a clergy class.
The contrast with Mark’s story of what he calls the the realm or kingdom of God is palpable. Mark tells of sustaining community, he tells of reconstituting families to minimize the damage done by the Romans. Perhaps most importantly, he tells that healing and forgiveness are almost synonyms. Any military occupation divides the conquered – the one group will want anything for a quiet life and might even collaborate. At the other extreme, some will resist even to the point of militant opposition – setting Jew against Jew. For the occupied to survive the occupation there will need to be a healing of the wounds – this will require radical forgiveness. Recall another of Mark’s parables – the sick man (read Israel), so damaged as to be unable even to walk, is lowered through the roof, leads to Jesus as demonstrating an identity of forgiveness and healing. Jesus’ teaching will bring healing and new life again to Israel.
I now see Mark’s gospel as one of the most brilliant, brave, political documents that I have come across – a document that John le Carré would have admired. Like any good crime fiction, the clues are all in there – as I hope you will decide.
Given a choice between Mark’s picture and Matthew’s – I know which I choose to follow and throw in my lot.
What do you think? Send your comments to editor@sofn.uk or direct to the author davidlambourn@mac.com