Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 5. Scenes 2 and 3

This is the thirty-second installment, comprising Act 5, Scene 2, chapter 11: 12-19 and Act 5, Scene 3, chapter 11: 20-25(26) in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the thirty-first installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 2

12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. 15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.(NRSV)

Scene 3

20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered." 22 Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, "Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses." 26.(NRSV)

Scene 2: 11:12-19

At the end of Act 5, Scene 1, Jesus “looked around at everything” (11:11) in the Temple and then left Jerusalem with “the twelve.” Scene 2 opens the next day with a confusing and mysterious event. As Jesus and his disciples return to Jerusalem, though the immediate purpose of his return is not clear, Mark tells us that Jesus was hungry (11:12). He spots a “fig tree in leaf” (11:13) in the distance and goes to the tree, but “when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (11:13). One would think that would be the end of the story, if not Jesus’ hunger, for if the fig tree is not in season for fruit, it is simply not the time for figs. Jesus, however, says to the tree, “’May no one ever eat fruit from you again’ and his disciples heard it” (10:14).

If we stop right here, we are left with the strange reality of a prophetic denunciation of a tree! More than that, the tree is denounced for being a tree – the nature of fruit trees is to give fruit in season. Why denounce the tree for fulfilling its nature? Did Jesus think it should be the season for figs? Some scholars have argued that the leaves on the tree indicate that there should be fruit, but Mark’s claim that “it was not the season for figs” suggests otherwise, as does the fact that fig trees bear fruit in June in Palestine, after Passover. If we were to leave the story here, it seems that we have an illogical and angry condemnation because Jesus did not get the figs he wanted to satisfy his hunger. As odd as the story is, however, we know that Mark, to say nothing of Jesus, has something more to show us in this dramatic and unexpected rebuke.

Act 5, Scene 1 ends in the Temple; Jesus’ denunciation of the fig tree here in Act 5, Scene 2 will intercede before Jesus returns to the Temple; and Act 5, Scene 3 will complete the story of the fig tree. We have, I would argue, two interlocking Markan “sandwiches,” in which it goes Temple 1 (A)- Fig Tree 1(B) – Temple 2 (A) – Fig Tree 2 (B), though it is possible just to see it as Fig Tree 1(A) – Temple (B) – Fig Tree 2 (A). Remember that in Mark’s narrative sandwiches the one story explains the other, or makes sense of the deeper purpose of each of the stories: “each Scene explains the previous Scene and the one still to come.”

Alone, the cursing of the fig tree seems like a churlish action on Jesus’ part; it will only make sense in light of what now occurs in the narrative structure. Jesus and the disciples arrive in Jerusalem and

He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (11:15-17)

The night before Jesus had surveyed the Temple and it is now clear he did not like what he saw. He begins a very public demonstration of dissatisfaction with the Temple, overturning tables and stopping people from carrying anything through the Temple confines. This is a large area, though, and one wonders if he enlisted his disciples in this cause. We hear nothing of them, though, so they are either stunned bystanders, mouths agape at Jesus’ action, or they are participating by blocking entrances to the Temple mount and chasing people off of the Temple area.

What is the reason for doing this though? What is motivating Jesus’ violent action at the Temple? One small detail that cannot go unnoticed is Mark’s claim that Jesus “was teaching” (11:17). Mark has condensed the teaching into one line, a combination of Isaiah 56:7 LXX and Jeremiah 7:11, in which the Temple was to be a “house of prayer for all nations” not a “den of thieves.” It must be said, though, that having moneychangers and animal sellers on the Temple was rather essential for the smooth operation of the Temple sacrificial cult; there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Pilgrimage festivals drew Jews from all over the world and they had to buy animals for sacrifice – they could not carry them with them – and they had to exchange foreign currency. Is Jesus criticizing the sacrificial system itself or the way it is operating? Because the way it is operating is the way an international Temple needs to operate. Does Jesus want to see the Temple cult come to an end? I do not see this as the heart of the issue either in Jesus’ condemnation and action in the Temple.

Jesus’ teaching is summarized by Mark, but I think the best way to see Jesus’ teaching and action is not simply as a purification, or cleansing, of current practices, or a denunciation of the Temple sacrificial cult as such, but as a preparation for the eschatological Temple in the time to come. One passage which speaks of the Temple at the end of time in the OT, one of many, is Zechariah 14:16-21, though the whole of Zechariah 14 is relevant. Just as Jesus entered Jerusalem according to a prophecy from Zechariah 9, so he symbolically prepares the Temple for the age to come:

16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The LORD will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 20 On that day HOLY TO THE LORD will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite {or Merchant; Trader} in the house of the LORD Almighty. (Zechariah 14:16-21)

Notice that Zechariah foresees an eschatological end when all nations come to worship in Jerusalem,  when the city itself is Holy as are all the things of the Temple, and when the people themselves are Holy. The last line of the passage might also point to the end of “traders” in the Temple, though current readings suggest “Canaanite.” Whatever the precise meaning of this word, Zechariah points to a time when all people come to the Temple and worship in holiness. Zechariah brackets Jesus’ entry into the city and his “cleansing,”  but this passage does not see the end of the Temple, only a time when all nations come to a new, restored, purified Temple.

It was not yet that purified Temple, Jesus is saying, and his action points to the fulfillment of his time in Jerusalem, which he has predicted numerous times on the road to Jerusalem. How does it fit with the Fig Tree episode? That completion will only come in Act 5, Scene 3, but we can say this much already: a fig tree is to give figs and when it does not fulfill its purpose, its usefulness has come to an end; in the same way, the Temple is to be holy for all people, and if it does not realize its purpose, its time, Jesus is signifying, has come to an end. The parallel is not exact, as we shall see, but the symbolic purposes of each action are explained by the other: the fig tree is not fulfilling its goal and neither is the Temple.

There is one more matter. Jesus has come to Jerusalem for a specific purpose and we know that his time will come soon. The cleansing of the Temple will hasten this time, certainly, for the Temple officials cannot approve of Jesus’ actions in disrupting the Temple mount, especially not during the most significant pilgrimage festival of the year. Indeed, “when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching” (11:18). In the midst of the unraveling of the symbolic meaning of this action, we cannot overlook the actual action and its meaning for the Temple officials: Jesus has radically disrupted the Temple and he must be stopped. Why do they need to look for a time to kill him though, when he is there on the Temple mount right now?

The “fear” that they experience must be of his control of the crowds, or his ability to entrance the crowds, and this, I think, gives us the answer. Any attempt to arrest him in a crowd will give the crowd a chance to riot since they were “spellbound by his teaching” (11:18) not by his overturning of tables. The fear of the authorities, therefore, rests not in his personal ability to disrupt the Temple, but to win over the crowds to his side. His arrest will come later, away from crowds and the public stage. As a result, “when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city” (11:19). It is another anticlimactic ending – Jesus just leaves on his own terms.

Scene 3: 11:21-26

Scene 3 completes the Markan narrative sandwich of the Fig Tree-Temple -Fig Tree A-B-A structure (or Temple-Fig Tree-Temple -Fig Tree A-B-A-B structure). The next day as Jesus and his disciples are passing by they see “the fig tree withered away to its roots” (11:20). In itself, this shows us Jesus’ prophetic and miraculous power. What Jesus said to the fig tree has come to pass; if such is the case, we can expect the same to come true regarding his denunciation of the Temple. Keep in mind, though, that Jesus does not see the Temple itself coming to an end, but being brought to fulfillment in a way that the fig tree is not. The Temple will be a “house of prayer for all nations,” we are lead to believe. If the Temple withers, it will only be to come to fruition more fully in the future.

That Mark is not certain what to do with the completion of the fig tree account is shown by the fact that he has appended to it a number of sayings on faith from the sayings of Jesus. Peter points out that the fig tree has withered (11:21) and Jesus answers saying,

Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. (11:21-25)

The sayings on faith, that is, stand apart from Jesus’ prophetic denunciations. His disciples are not expected to cleanse the Temple or curse fig trees, since this is the task of the Messiah, I would argue. Mark has attempted to transition from the awkward fulfillment of the fig tree’s withering to the faith of Jesus’ followers and the need for faith in general. The first two sayings do speak to the power of faith (faith to cast a mountain in the sea), including in prayer (believe what you have asked for in prayer), while the third saying is connected, rabbinic style, to the previous two sayings by the linking word and conception of prayer not faith (whenever you stand praying).  The final verse also gives us a link to Jesus’ prayer from Matthew and Luke – a clear sign of the oral tradition of Jesus’ sayings and the only verse from the Lord’s prayer that Mark gives us.[1]

Act 5, Scene 3 serves to reduce dramatic tension for a while, but Jesus’ return to Jerusalem is imminent and with it the plan to stop him by his opposition grows and Jesus’ goal to bring his mission to its necessary end also comes into view.

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies

---

[1] Historically 11:26 was included here also:  “But if ye do not forgive , neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses” (KJV). This verse is not found amongst the best and earliest manuscripts.

Did the Authors of the New Testament Know They Were Writing Scripture? Who Cares? UPDATED

It’s rare in my blog that I deal with theological issues of the day, controversy in the blogosphere, or try to create controversy. The whole point of this blog is to present and to practice biblical scholarship from the position of reasoned reflection, which includes theological and historical reflection. Sober reflection might not drive page views as well as well as throwing rhetorical raw meat to the lions, but what matters is approaching the truth of a matter to the best of my ability. Yesterday I ran across a post titled “Did the Authors of the New Testament Know They Were Writing Scripture?” by Jimmy Akin. He argues that the New Testament authors must have known they were writing Scripture when they composed the various books that comprise the New Testament.  He states, after examining the following documents, that “we have good evidence that the authors of Revelation, the Gospels, and Acts knew they were writing Scripture.” He does not examine the Epistles in this post – that is coming – but it is hard to see him coming to another conclusion, especially in light of 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Writing Scripture?

None of his arguments, though, are persuasive and they all involve a number of incomplete theses, partially understood conceptions and poorly defined terms. As to what is at stake in making these arguments, I do not know, but he is proposing a solution to a problem which does not exist. He begins by saying that to the question of whether the New Testament authors knew they were writing Scripture,

“you'd think that the answer would be an easy, "yes," but a startling number of people--including New Testament scholars--say "no."

I'm always taken aback when I'm reading along and suddenly encounter a statement like, "Of course, the authors of the New Testament didn't know that they were writing Scripture. Their writings only came to have this status later."

I am not certain why “you would think that the answer would be an easy yes,” since the designation of whether an early Christian document was Scripture is not made by an author of a text, but by the Church over a long period of time in which texts were used in Church, accepted or rejected. The process by which a text was recognized as Scripture was indeed a process in which the regular use of the document in Church lead to its final recognition as a part of the inspired trove of documents known as The New Testament. Such final recognition is often attributed to the list of documents found in St. Athanasius’ Easter  letter of 367 A.D., though Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment (amongst others) give us a clear sense that most of the NT documents were in use in the Churches at a much earlier date. But that’s the point: it was a process! And some documents accepted by the Church went through a process of rejection and then acceptance, while others documents were in regular use for some time and then rejected.  Authors of all of the New Testament texts were already dead by the time an “official” New Testament was accepted, which for Catholics was only dogmatically defined at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, so why would we think that the authors of such texts would know they were writing Scripture?

Perhaps this gets to Akin’s understanding of what constitutes Scripture or what he means by Scripture. I cite him in full on this issue:

“Today we often think of a particular book as Scripture based on whether it is in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, it's Scripture. If it's not in the Bible, it's not Scripture.

This may be a practical test for us today, but it's not the way the New Testament authors thought of Scripture. Back when they lived, there was no book called "the Bible." Instead, there were a collection of books, which were originally written on scrolls, that they thought of as Scripture.

Only the invention of new forms of publishing technology allowed these to be put together as the single volume that we now call "the Bible."

Also back in the day--their day--the canon of Scripture was not yet completed, which means that it was still open. There was no closed canon, and so they also couldn't use the test "Is it one of the books of the (closed) canon?"

If you can't define what Scripture is by relating it to "what's in the Bible?" or "what's in the canon?" how can you define it?

The answer that the first Christians would have given if they had been asked "What is Scripture?" would probably have involved these concepts:

• A book of Scripture is a sacred book.
• A book of Scripture is an divinely authoritative book.
• A book of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

These provide important clues to whether the authors of the New Testament thought they were writing Scripture. Before we apply them, though, we should look at another way of approaching the issue . . .”

I agree with Akin that as far as we know the canon of biblical books was not closed by the Jews, at least not until a couple of centuries into the Christian era, but it is disingenuous to suggest that at the time of the early Christians the question of what constituted Scripture was completely open either. The books of the Torah were universally acknowledged as divinely inspired and authoritative, as were most of the prophetic books and the writings. There were discussions about some of these books, and also different versions of some of these books (especially in the Septuagint, known as the LXX), but the very fact that there is a LXX Greek version indicates the basic boundaries of what might be considered Scripture: those Hebrew texts which were translated into Greek! And that translation took place some 200 years before the birth of Christ!

For the vast majority of Jews Scripture would not have been considered what you or your friend were writing.  Acceptance and use in the Temple and Synagogue would have mattered. The antiquity of the writings did matter. Keep in mind that the latest book that Jews accept as a part of the Tanak is Daniel, thought to be written in the mid-2^nd century B.C. It is true that some of the rabbinic writings, gathered up from the oral tradition and the system of commentary of the rabbinic schools, come to have an authoritative status amongst the Jews in the Christian era, but this too was part of an ongoing process, not people suggesting to each other, “what we have here is divinely inspired and authoritative.”

Akin does, indeed, state that “when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they overwhelmingly (around 80-90% of the time) quote from a particular version of it: the Septuagint. This was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used internationally by the Jewish community.” This is true, and points to the fact that they did indeed see a sort of “closed canon” already.  It does not mean that the Hebrew text, upon which the LXX was based and which Jesus and the apostles would have used in Judea, was devalued, only that the Greek speaking and Greek writing Christians of the 1^st century were bound to cite the Scriptures in Greek.

Akin says that because the LXX has foundational books, historical books, prophetic books and wisdom books, if the New Testament has books like these it must mean that the NT authors were self-consciously modeling themselves on the LXX and so self-consciously writing Scripture . (It should be added that the LXX has these sorts of books because the Hebrew has these, it is not unique to the Greek translation.) He says, “it’s not unreasonable to think that if we find the New Testament authors writing books of these types then they would have seen themselves as writing Scripture.” It might not be unreasonable, but it is a huge stretch of the imagination to go from saying “the OT has historical books” to “any author writing about the history of Christianity thought he was writing Scripture.” This is a massive jump across many presuppositions. There is nothing like the Gospels in the OT, unless any story about any prophet or king in the OT is seen as a type of Gospel. This drains the term “Gospel” of any meaning.  So, yes, it is unreasonable to assume that because a Christian was writing an “historical” book or a “prophetic” book they thought they were writing Scripture. By that score, Jude thought he was writing a non-canonical apocalypse because he cites 1 Enoch in Jude 15.

Did John Think Revelation was Scripture?

Why did John, the author of Revelation think he was writing Scripture according to Akin? “This one is so obvious that it's blinding. The book of Revelation presents itself as a prophetic revelation like the prophetic books of the Old Testament, whose imagery and language it frequently uses. How could John not think he was writing Scripture?” I would say because we do not know that he was thinking in terms of writing Scripture. That does not mean what he was writing was not considered authoritative, but many apocalypses, the genre to which John’s Revelation belongs, were written which were not considered authoritative ultimately, such as 1 Enoch or 2 Baruch. Even more significantly, the Christian apocalypse Shepherd of Hermas presents itself as a prophetic vision and was accepted and read in the Church for a long period of time. Did he think he was writing Scripture? According to the Muratorian fragment, the Shepherd of Hermas could be read in Church, but it was not apostolic. One the other hand, the Apocalypse of Peter was accepted in the early Church, at least at first. It too presents itself as a genuine prophetic vision. What seems so obvious truly is not, unless the authors of all these other Christian apocalypses also thought they were writing Scripture and were not. Remember too that prophecy was practiced by many early Christians in the Church and considered inspired (1 Corinthians 12:28; 14:1-5, 24, 29-32), but this does not mean that every prophecy, even if written down, would have been considered Scripture.

  

Did the Gospel Authors Think They Were Writing Scripture?

Apparently, “also easy are the Gospels. They belong to the class of foundational books, just like the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) does in the Old Testament.” They are indeed foundational for early Christians, but that does not indicate their authors thought they were writing Scripture. The earliest purposes of the Gospels is not exactly clear, but certainly preserving the story of Jesus and liturgical reading must have been amongst them. Yet these purposes do not indicate that the authors – if there was only one for any of the Gospels – thought what they were writing was Scripture. Luke refers to other Gospels for instance at the beginning of Luke (1:1-4) and says that he is going to give an accurate and an historic account of Jesus’ life  which indicates that he feels at least something is missing from earlier attempts to tell Jesus’ story.  Luke sees himself as augmenting those who came before, which indicates he does not think they have fulfilled the task completely. Akin says that “anyone writing a Gospel to be read in the churches had to have the idea that he was writing Scripture,” but this is by no means clear. It would be the Church that would determine what was Scripture, not the author the text. How did the author(s) know that their text would be read in Church at any rate?

When Akin says that 2 Corinthians 8:18-19 shows that Paul is referring to Luke as an author of a Gospel it stretches credulity to the breaking point, even by the standards of internet blogging on the Bible, which is thin already:

In 2 Corinthians 8:18-19, St. Paul writes:

¹⁸ And we have sent with [Titus also] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;

¹⁹ And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind [KJV].

I've quoted this from the King James Version because most modern translations render what verse 18 says dynamically rather than literally.

What Paul literally says is a brother "whose praise is in the gospel" and who, as revealed in verse 19, was a travelling companion of Paul.

Do we know any travelling companions of Paul who wrote a Gospel?

Sure! Luke!

And perhaps that's what he's referring to here. He's sending Luke along with Titus to visit the Corinthians.

Or maybe not.

The verse is ambiguous, and it could mean something else. It could mean, in keeping with modern, dynamic translations, "the brother whose praise is in the service of the gospel" or "in preaching the gospel."

First of all, there is no identification of this person as “Luke.” That is a conjecture that has no basis in the text. Second, Luke’s Gospel is dated after those of Matthew and Mark, and is generally placed in the 80s of the 1^st century; this letter is written in the 50’s, 20 to 30 years before Luke’s Gospel is written! Third, the first and primary meaning of “Gospel” (euangelion) is the saving message of Jesus and its proclamation. Given that this letter is written at least 15 years before the first written gospel, it could not refer to “written” Gospel, but must refer to the proclamation of the Gospel message.

Akin has another passage from an Epistle, though, one which Paul may or may not have written: 1 Timothy. Keep in mind, though, that depending on the date which one assigns to 1 Timothy, Luke’s Gospel may not yet have been written yet. That is, if Akin believes that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, as  Paul did 2 Corinthians, then it would be written prior to Luke’s Gospel and could not be referring to a Gospel not yet written. For the sake of argument, though, let's say Luke's Gospel is written. Here is what Akin writes:

Less ambiguous is 1 Timothy 5:17-19, where we read:

[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

[18] for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

The command about not muzzling an ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the statement that the worker deserves his wages is Luke 10:7--the only other place in the Bible this statement appears.

So here we have a direct New Testament reference to Luke as Scripture.

We thus have a consciousness being displayed, in the New Testament age, that Luke--and, by extension, the other Gospels--were Scripture.

So, we are accepting that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul, but is Deutero-Pauline, written somehwere between 80-100 A.D. and Luke’s Gospel was already written. “Scripture” in the Greek in this passage (graphe) is singular and refers only to the first passage from Deuteronomy 25:4 not the second citation from Luke 10:7. But let us put this aside too and grant that both passages are referred to as Scripture. It still does not indicate that Luke himself thought he was writing Scripture but that someone else did!  It does not mean that Luke thought his own writings  are authoritative. This is why canon is so significant. It is the Church which determines its Scripture. As to why this passage would be cited in 1 Timothy if it did not come from Luke? It was a part of the oral tradition of Jesus’ sayings, which were authoritative and were passed on both before and after they were written in the Gospels.

Akin’s argument for Acts of the Apostles is as follows: “If Luke thought he was writing Scripture when he wrote his Gospel then he would have thought the same thing when he was writing Acts.” As I have already demonstrated that we do not know from the examples that Akin gives whether Luke himself thinks he is writing Scripture, we can say the same thing about Acts of the Apostles.

Why Does This Even Matter? or Who Cares if the NT Authors Thought They were Writing Scripture? 

What I cannot figure out, I must admit, is why this matters to Akin whether the authors of the NT thought they were writing Scripture or not! The actual creation of the NT canon was guided by the early Church and they chose texts which presented Jesus as they had known him and as the Church taught. The NT does not create the Church, but the Church the NT. Some scholars have argued that the formation of the NT, like the formation of the Gospels themselves, is simply an attempt to “eliminate” or “compromise” opposing definitions of Christianity by a group that is often now called “proto-Orthodox.” They point to other texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, as a counterpoint to the documents preserved in the NT. But the NT was not an attempt to “eliminate” other “Christianities,” it was an attempt to define the teaching and message of Jesus. Some scholars now point to groups such as the Marcionites, or the Gnostics as being Christian groups with as much authority to define the story of Jesus as his own apostles. Well, it is true, that each group did attempt to define Jesus. But I would argue that he “proto-Orthodox” group, as the apostles and the Church are now sometimes referred to, did not “become” the dominant position, but accurately reflected the earliest Church and the teachings of Jesus and their development, and was from the first the “dominant” position. What was at first “canonical” was what Peter, James, and Paul taught “in continuity with what Jesus had proclaimed.”^[1] Remember, first there were no texts, but only the Church: Jesus’ apostles and first disciples. The first criterion for inclusion in the NT was this: the texts which were “chosen” had to have some connection with an apostle, even if the Apostle himself did not write the work himself. This is why both Revelation and Hebrews were debated in the early Church: it was not clear if they had a connection to an Apostle (John and Paul respectively).

 The second criterion was as follows: writings were also preserved, approved, and canonized according to their role in the early Churches; this was not an individual choice, but reflected the primacy of the community of believers and worship. Whether an author thought what he wrote was Scripture was not an issue.

There was a third criterion which was also essential for canonization: conformity with the rule of faith, or orthodoxy, also played a role. If a “Gospel” preached many gods or Christ’s “seeming” existence, this was in error with the earliest teachings of the Church. 

The NT canon, it is true, does not comprise all of the early Christian literature. There is literature of many sorts found in the early Christian church:

1)      Some of the material is lost to us, such as some of Paul’s letters to the churches or earlier writings which might have been integrated into our Gospels;

2)      Some material was, and is, considered valuable and significant, but came not to be included in the NT canon because it did not have an apostolic origin; such material would include the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas. This material might be considered perfectly valid for teaching or preaching or studying, but it is not considered apostolic and so not inspired in the same manner as the canonical writings;

3)      Some material, such as the Gnostic Gospels, simply was at odds with what the earliest Church preached and taught about Jesus, and did not meet the criteria to be included in the NT canon.^[2]

It is also true that the development of the canon did take time. It took place over time and in history. It also represents different authors and different viewpoints. Diversity of thought is not opposed to Unity, Diversity is opposed to Uniformity, and Unity is opposed to Division. It is possible to be diverse and united; uniformity is not desirable nor is division. This is what sets the early Christians who produced the NT apart from their opponents: some caused division, some sought uniformity, but the early Christians were diverse, but united. Whether the authors thought they were writing Scripture is insignificant because the Church, over a period of time, decided which texts were inspired and worthy of canonical status, long after these authors had died. 

UPDATED:

From an Orthodox priest, "How The Scriptures Became The Scriptures" was posted today. I must say that I find it very congenial, since it agrees with what I have to say, but also because I think Fr. Stephen is clear in setting out the issues. Since his piece is not a response, at least not a direct response to another post or article, it is a fluid read.  

John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies 

 

---

[1] New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1043.

[2] Having said this, I think that the Gospel of Thomas does preserve some early and authentic sayings of Jesus, perhaps taken from the oral tradition.

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 5. Scene 1

This is the thirty-first installment, comprising Act 5. Scene 1, chapter 11: 1-11, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the thirtiethinstallment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 1

1 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, "Why are you doing this?' just say this, "The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.' " 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!" 11 Then he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple; and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. (NRSV)

Is it my imagination, or does the dramatic tension rise again as Jesus enters Jerusalem?  I do not think it is simply my imagination. Mark’s dramatic proclivities have prepared us for this entry as well as any Western film which has primed us for the hero’s entry into a one road town to face down the bad guy, gun hanging in its holster on his right leg, hands dangling loosely at his sides. We know what is to come, but how will it play itself out? Mark has had Jesus tell us three times in Act 4 that he is going to Jerusalem to fulfill his mission, that he will die and that he will rise again. These three Passion Predictions have been met with incomprehension for the most part by his disciples, who attempt to turn the conversation, in various ways, to human success, achievement and honor. As they come near to Jerusalem, we wonder how this will play itself out, not just for Jesus, but for his followers and the crowds which have often been near to him. We remember, too, the chilling foreshadowing, which Mark left us at the end of Act 1: “the Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him” (3:6). Why do they want him dead? Their purposes as we have seen are at odds with those of Jesus, at least in some fundamental ways, but both see Jesus’ death as the necessary outcome of his mission.

The tension is seemingly undercut by the casual approach to Jerusalem which Mark describes, but in fact it places Jesus’ entry in the prophetically drenched tradition of Messianic hopes, the edges of which Mark has been traversing for the whole of the Gospel. So as they approach Jerusalem and Mark locates their entry “at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives” (11:1), and Jesus instructs two of his disciples to “go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately,’” (11:2-3), it creates the dramatic context in which all that has been and will be unfolds. Jesus knows, for instance, that there will be a colt awaiting his disciples that has never been ridden. Jesus’ need for the colt will be understood, somehow, by the owner, when the disciples tell him that “The Lord needs it.” And, finally, Jesus identifies himself, or the fulfillment of his mission, or perhaps both, with the Lord. In either case, Jesus knows the will of the Lord. The prophetic context has been set in these simple instructions.

 Indeed, when the disciples go and take the colt, which they find just as Jesus said, “some of the bystanders said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying the colt?’”(11:4-5), which is a fair question. You might ask the same question if someone decided to take your car while you were standing in front of it. It is more than just the owner of the colt, though, whom we might expect to question why someone is taking his colt - these are actually just bystanders. It actually ramps up the prophetic nature of the action. They know these disciples of Jesus do not own the colt, but when the disciples "told them what Jesus had said…they allowed them to take it” (11:6). This means that the prophetic nature of the act is “known” in some manner to a diffuse group, even by these bystanders, who are not major players in the unfolding drama. All has gone according to plan, just as Jesus outlined it.

When the disciples bring the colt to Jesus, therefore, anticipation is high. These simple instructions have heightened our expectations as to Jesus’ next move.   Jesus sits upon the colt (11:7) and Mark now tells us that a crowd has gathered and “many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!’” (11:8-10). These verses give us the culmination of the prophetic nature of Jesus’ actions. First, by riding on the colt into Jerusalem, Jesus is placed by Mark as the one who fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9-10:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war-horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

This is a messianic prophecy in the context of the eschatological end, the triumph of God's plan. The warrior Messiah enters Jerusalem as a sign of contradiction, “triumphant and victorious” – in what way? – but “humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt.” Zechariah foresees a King whose dominion is worldwide, commanding peace to the nations. Mark does not explain how this victory will be won, unless we have missed it along the way, but he implies that in some way it is being won even by his entry into the city.

Second, the response of the people to Jesus, shouting out to him, “Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!,” indicates their acceptance of this prophecy. They are shouting words from Psalm 118:25-26,  

Save us, we beseech you, O Lord! O Lord, we beseech you, give us success! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord. We bless you from the house of the Lord.

“Hosanna” is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “save us.” Whether they are acknowledging Jesus as a savior, and in what way, or simply acknowledging him as king, they are certainly in Mark’s dramatic context welcoming him as from God. There is an element to their cry which is hard to pin down, but the addition of “blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David” to the Psalm leaves no doubt of the eschatological and messianic fulfillment which Mark sees in this entry. Jesus is the davidic king, whose coming has been awaited for generations.

 Everything has been put into place. Jesus enters Jerusalem as the fulfillment of prophecy, as the coming king, as the eschatological harbinger of the new age. Mark brings the scene to a subtle end, though, letting it all sink in as Jesus goes to survey the Temple of Jerusalem. It is a subtle end because the Temple is the center not just of Jerusalem and the Jewish sacrificial cult, but in ancient near eastern thought, the center of the world, the navel at the center of the world, the cosmic rock which links heaven and earth, the dwelling place of God. Jesus’ survey of the Temple mount without a word or insight into his intentions raises our expectations once again, just as we are coming to terms with Mark’s presentation of Jesus as the king who is to come. Jesus “looked around at everything” (11:11) in the Temple and then left with “the twelve.” Welcomed into the city as king, he leaves the city with his closest disciples as night as falling, the next step undisclosed.But the Temple must be at the center of his plans. Why else would he "case the joint" wordlessly before leaving the city?

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies