Kata Markon

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT attbi.com>]

Forwarded for Susan Hunnicut:


The two books in which Kelber discusses the dating and the geographic
provenance of Mark are The Kingdom in Mark:  A New Time and a New Place,
and The Oral and the Written Gospel
.
He argues that Galilee and Jerusalem function as a kind of "polarity"
which is reversed in the gospel's narrative.  He also argues that Jesus'
ministry in Galilee, and not the temple mount in Jerusalem, is
paradigmatic in Mark of the Kingdom.

In Galilee, Jesus preaches, heals, casts out demons.  The journeys on
and across the lake, and north to Tyre and Sidon, contain an implicit
message of a Kingdom that is inclusive of both Jews and non-Jews.  The
two feeding stories occur on Jewish and Gentile sides of the lake.
Healings and exorcisms are balanced on both sides of the lake, further
symbolizing an inclusive kingdom.

Jesus tells the disciples that when he is raised up "I will meet you in
Galilee," an instruction, essentially, not to return to Jerusalem to
wait for him, because Jerusalem is not the place where the kingdom will
come.  This in particular seems to me to lend weight to a seeing the
gospel as a post-war Galilee- based narrative.

Mark 14: 27-28. And Jesus said to them, "You will all become deserters;
for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be
scattered.'  But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

We know, in fact that (at least some of) the disciples did not go
looking for Jesus in Galilee, but returned to Jerusalem, became involved
in the war effort, and came to a bad end there.

This seems germane to Jeffrey's thesis that Mark discourages the belief
that involvement in the war effort is a good thing, and that the author
of Mark favors an essentially pacifist position.  As I understand
Kelber's position, Mark's inclusive Kingdom is already an arguement for
not becoming involved in the War effort.

All of this is in The Kingdom in Mark.

In The Oral and the Written Gospel, Kelber tries to show that the spoken
word is intimately connected to life and community, but that writing is
more distanced, reflective, and allows for greater emotional complexity
in the interpretation of events.  One of the things that is accomplished
in the gospel is that the suffering and death of Jesus is brought into
very direct conjunction with the story of the fall of Jerusalem, while
both stories are at the same time articulated through prophetic and
psalmic traditions.  Why would God allow the Messiah be crucified?  Why
would God allow Jerusalem to be destroyed?  What Mark does is to bring
these two events together.  As spiritual crises that cry out for
interpretation, they are on the same level.  They demand the same deep
resources of the  person who looks, and who struggles to have faith.

At the tomb, the boy tells the women, "He has been raised; he is not
here. ... But go, tell his disciple and Peter that he is going ahead of
you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you."  But they
were terrified and ran way and didn't tell anyone anything.

Which means the reader is left with this crucial piece of information.
Don't seek kingdom in Jerusalem.  The Son of Man was crucified there.
Return to Galilee, and he will meet you there.

All of this, it seems to me seems to fit very well with Jeffrey Gibson's
thesis about the essentially pacifist orientation of the gospel, and
that to become involved in the war effort is to tempt God.  That is why
I am calling it to your attention.

Susan Hunnicutt

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT attbi.com
          jgibson000 AT hotmail.com