The phone rang. “Hello, this is John Mark.”
“Hi, JM. This is Simon Peter.”
“Oh, hello, Mr. Rock,” said Mark. “What can I do for you?”
“Well, JM” said Peter, “I’ve been very impressed by your recent essays in the New Jew Review, especially your series on David as the anointed one, pointing to our Lord Jesus. Some of what you’ve been writing about dovetails, if I may use the word, with what some of us have been hearing from the Spirit.”
“New prophecies?” asked Mark.
“No. What I meant was the way the Spirit has been leading our conversations. JM, Agrippa is becoming intolerable. The man is scum, but bears the title of `king’ thanks to that loony Caesar Littlebooties; and now that old pseudo-philosopher Claudius has added Judea and Samaria to Galilee and given it all to him. He thinks he’s Herod the Great reborn.
“JM, I don’t know if you’ve been following all the politics, but now that Herod Agrippa has the whole country, including Jerusalem, he’s determined to show just how good a Jew he is. He’s been buttering up the whole Temple crowd, and they’ve been filling his ear. And you can guess what they’ve given him to read.”
Mark said, “Brother Jacob’s letter to the dispersion.”
“Yes,” said the Rock. “With all that ‘howl ye rich’ stuff that Jeremiah originally said to Jehoiakim. Agrippa’s not stupid, and he gets the point. It’s reported that he told some of the chief priests that if James thinks we should count it all joy when we encounter trials, then he, Agrippa, is going to give him what he wants.”
“Sounds bad,” said Mark.
“It could be,” said Peter. “Look. What we are thinking is that Brother Levi’s book about our Lord Jesus needs to be rewritten in a shorter version, leaving out the Moses-like sermonic material, and presenting the Lord as a new David. Antipas could be called ‘king,’ even though he never got the title formally from Rome, because as you know, the Hebrew word ‘melech’ has a broader meaning. This new book needs to present Jesus as David and the Herods as Saul.”
“Well,” said Mark, “That certainly fits. It’s interesting you should phone me about this, Mr. Rock, because, well, here’s the thing: The end of the prophecy of Daniel predicts the rule of Herod the Great and the arrival of Octavian, and then the coming of the Lord as Michael. But that whole last prophecy uses the history of Israel as a template, so that the Ungodly King, Herod, is in the position of Saul, and Michael is in the position of David. So you see, Gabriel has already told us that the Herods are Saul and that Jesus is David. I was working on an article about this for the New Jew ‘View when the phone rang.
“You know, I really like this idea,” Mark continued. “Are you telling me that you men have been thinking about asking me to do this? That the commission is coming from you Top Brass?”
“Yes,” said Peter. “Obviously, we’ll help you with it, read over the completed draft, as we did with Levi’s book. And before you start, we’ll want to lay hands on you and set you apart for this work. But we keep coming back to you, JM. You’re the man for this task.”
“I’m interested,” said Mark. “And something else. I’ve been a bit concerned by some trends I see in some of the meetings. Levi’s book, of course, presents our Lord mostly as a Moses, giving a new law, and commanding that all nations be brought under His theocratic rule. I think that’s very important, of course, but I’d like to stress Jesus as a man of action, as a warrior, as the One who actually brings the kingdom, even if first of all in a concealed and hidden way.”
“That’s good,” said Peter. “We do have, all of us, a tendency to become rule-oriented, and then even secretly proud of our faithfulness. It’s just our sinful nature – especially us Jews. Hmmm. I can see that becoming a problem in the Church before too long. Yes, a second book that balances the rules and demands in Levi’s book with a picture of Jesus as the One who fought and brought the kingdom on our behalf, well, that would be very good. You’re right that Levi’s and Jacob’s books can be misread as laying out rules of some kind of hyperpiety, and that was not Jesus’ intention. It’s certainly clear in both books that Jesus brought us the kingdom by Himself alone, but another book that really stresses that point would be very good.”
“You think Agrippa’s going to strike against us soon, Mr. Rock?” asked Mark.
“The signs are that way,” said Peter.
“So, maybe these are the end of the last days of the first covenant?”
“Well, our whole generation is living at the end of the last days,” said Peter. “But every other time like ours has lasted forty years, not only twelve or so. Still, if Herod attacks the Church soon, and then judgment comes upon him, that would be a foretaste of what is going to happen at the end of this generation. Oh! I see your point, and yes: It would be good to stress the coming judgment in your book. With Jesus as Davidic warrior, you can bring that theme out just as prominently as Levi did.”
Mark said, “In Levi’s book, the coming judgment is against spiritual Egypt. I’d be contextualizing Jesus’ words as against the spiritual house of Saul.”
Peter said, “Precisely. You’re really tracking with what we want, JM. Please do seriously consider the commission.”
“I will, Mr. Rock,” said Mark.
“Very well,” said Peter. “I’ll phone you tomorrow and see what you’re thinking.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Good bye for now, then.”
“Good bye, sir.”
Biblical Horizons (ISSN 1050-0588) is published occasionally, funds permitting, by Biblical Horizons, P.O. Box 1096, Niceville, Florida 32588-1096. Anyone sending a donation, in any amount, will be placed on the mailing list to receive issues of Biblical Horizons as they are published. The content of all essays published in Biblical Horizons is copyrighted, but permission to reprint any essay is freely given provided that the essay is published uncut, and that the name and address of Biblical Horizons is given.
A few more comments on Mark. The traditions of the early Church Fathers/Babies put Matthew first, but these traditions are not terribly early. They are all we have, however, and they make a good deal of sense.
The notion of Markan primacy is supported by assertions that, in every single case, can be inverted to become assertions of Matthean primacy (as Peter Leithart has pointed out).
Mark is supposedly first because Mark is shorter! This is a nice piece of Modern thinking: The classical and short and compact is prior to the romantic and florid and more discursive. Those of us who are post-Protestant and A-modern have no truck with such notions.
In view of the complete and total absence of any internal or early external evidence for the order of the gospels, we are cast back on common sense.
1. Contrary to notions of oral culture in village life, the Jews were a city culture and were book oriented. This was especially true of their religion, which was totally book oriented. This is seen not only in the synagogue, but in the vast amount of pseudepigrapha and other Second Temple literature of the time. The Jews would have expected a prophetic book about Jesus, and would have demanded it swiftly. I imagine there was an oral culture of sorts in the villages, but this was not the culture of the Temple, of Jesus, of the synagogue, and of the apostles.
2. Contrary to the odd notion that the various OT and NT writers wrote in vacuums, both in fact wrote wholly in terms of a scribal and heiratic (priestly) tradition. The OT writers were almost all priests and Levites, or were trained by such. They were a company of men usually at odds with 95% of the society around them. They wrote tightly in terms of this hieratic tradition. Song of Songs, for instance, is written in the language of the Temple symbolism. Ecclesiastes is written in the language of the Feast of Booths. These books did not come from outside the priestly tradition.
The idea that the author of Chronicles did not have the book of Kings in front of him as he wrote is totally ridiculous. The same is true of the NT writings. These men knew one another, got together betimes, discussed each other’s writings, and built on one another. That’s just common sense. That’s how things are today, at least in the Biblical Horizons/Federal Vision Conversations. Note how Peter refers to Paul’s letter to Jewish Christians in 2 Peter 3, and puts his imprimatur on it.
3. The House of Straw understanding of ancient literature constructed by Modernity needs to be cast out and burned up completely. By now nobody believes the Iliad and the Odyssey are composite works, and there’s no reason to believe they are by different authors. The perpetuation of this kind of nonsense in Biblical studies is appalling, and “evangelical” versions of it only show the paucity of the evangelical mind. It’s time to get real and to think the way the Bible and the historic Church have thought about these issues.
Good stuff, but can we get some “continue reading” breaks in this and the previous post?
Jeff?
Not arguing or anything, but David Bryant delivered a wonderful, sermon out of Mark on Sunday. He convincingly showed that Mark was writing for a Roman audience, putting Nero on display as an imposter god/lord-of-all. Could this fit into your narrative in place of Herod?
Greatly enjoying these posts!
al sends
Steven: Sorry for the lag in fixing up these posts. I’ve been on vacation.
Al: You know, I hate to say this, but, I don’t think Nero was doing his thing when the Gospel of Mark was written. Mark was not written with Rome in mind. I heard my share of sermons on Mark from this perspective. I know that’s what Christian school children are taught. Mark was written for a Christian audience, a specifically Jewish Christian audience. The life of David is the background.
Rosenstock-Huessy argues for a Roman audience. He makes some good points, and I don’t dismiss it out of hand. But I think a Jewish audience always comes first. “To the Jew first” is the rule. The bad David is Herod.
Ah, but Herod is a representative of Caesar, the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast. Hence, a second-order intended application to Caesarianism could well be there. Plus, of course, a kingly Davidic orientation would naturally intersect with the Herodian/Roman kingly power of the day.
Rich Bledsoe has argued quite convincingly that John’s Gospel partakes of Plato’s Symposium, especially in ch. 13-16. That is, it is an “anti-symposium.” Yet, John is the most Jewish, if any, of the Gospels. The “Word” in the beginning is first and foremost the Debir, the Holy of Holies, which becomes flesh and has a Tabernacle around it. But as an intended second-order application, it can be seen to answer Greek philosophical ideas.
So long as we keep in mind that all the NT is “to the Jew first,” we can make other applications.
My hypothesis, that Mark comes around AD 44, means Caligula has been gone for 3 years and we are now in the reign of Claudius.
Overall, I think you guys are having waaaaay too much anachronistic fun with this series. It is refreshing to see you “let down your hair” and still make some really great and insightful points.
I always pretty much followed the consensus regarding Mark’s primacy but really have no ax to grind either way. You article (and especially the comments after) present your case well.
How about this? “A Jewish story crafted in a Roman context.” This is what David B. meant I think. Here is David’s Sermon if anyone is interested.
I guess an early date for Mark is required here. To be honest, my limited research has pointed me to a later date for Mark, but it has been awhile since I looked at this.
Thanks for the response.
Al sends
Al: Better, I think, would be: “The story of Jesus told to early Jewish Christians, but a story that can be applied to later Roman persecution.”
Jim: I think ERH is simply following what he read in most scholarly commentaries at the time. He had no reason to rethink the dating of the Gospels so that Mark would be addressing Christians persecuted by apostate Jewish authorities.
Highly persuasive, but then I’ve long believed in the priority of
Matthew. When the church assembled the four Gospels, they must have had a good reason for the order they used.
Mr Jordan: what is your appraisal of John Wenham’s
“Redating the Synoptic Gospels”? You seem to be developing several of his arguments.
A blessed Eastertide to all.
Naturally I find Wenham helpful. I’m more radical, I guess. Since the whole discussion is in much of a vacuum, I just look at the situation: Jews expected a book immediately, and Jesus had done most of His teaching in private. As the church expanded, there would have been much confusion almost immediately, so even if Matthew did not start writing on Pentecost, he’d've needed to within a year or so — especially after the Acts 8 dispora separated believers from one another (an event I take, on the basis of Galatians and Acts 11, to have been in late AD 30).
Taking yet another angle, is there possible internal support for Matthean priority? Meaning, can redaction criticism help us see why Mark (later) does/emphasizes this or that differently from what Matthew does/emphasizes? What about unique aspects/passages of Mark? One interesting difference Mark brings to the table is his approach to Jesus’ family. Mark seems much more openly critical (see the 3:20-35 inclusio/”sandwich”) of Jesus’ family. Could this be a conscious corrective to popular over-reactions to Matthew’s (if not Luke’s) historical narrative of the Holy Family? If so, maybe such a unique feature in Mark as over against Matthew can also help suggest and support a theory of Matthean priority.
Is there a Q&A link or page on this site?