WM 240 (a): Review: Ancient Christian Commentary on Mark

 

 

JTR

Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 8 of 8)

JTR

Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 7 of 8)

 

 JTR

Clement of Alexandria, Who is The Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 6 of 8)

 

 JTR

Clement of Alexandria: Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 5 of 8)

 

 

 JTR

Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 3 of 8)

 

 

 JTR

Eusebius, EH.2.16-17: Mark, Philo, and the Therapeutae

Image: Modern entrance to the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Anthony in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. It is considered by many to be the oldest Christian monastery in the world, founded c. 251.

A new installment is posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 2, chapters 16-17 (listen here).

Notes and Commentary:

Eusebius begins by relaying the tradition that Mark was the first to take the gospel to Alexandria, Egypt, before he went to Rome to be with Peter and to compose his Gospel.

Eusebius then draws on Philo of Alexandria’s work On the Contemplative Life and his description of the Therapeutae, an ascetic spiritual group near Alexandria.

Eusebius claims that the Therapeutae were, in fact, a Christian sect. Like the early Christians described in Acts they gave up their possessions and held their goods in common in order to follow their “philosophy.” He describes their practices of fasting and their allegorical interpretations of their Scriptures. He assumes their sacred Scriptures to have included the Gospels, the writings of the Apostles, and expositions of the prophets, like those found in Hebrews (which he assumes was written by Paul). He emphasizes the extremes of their fasting with some not eating for three days or barely eating over six days.

Eusebius acknowledges that some might be skeptical of his claim that the Therapeutae were Christians. Indeed, most would see them as a Jewish sect.

He further notes that men and women lived separately and practiced chastity. They also followed patterns (like fasting and keeping vigils to celebrate “the Passion of the Savior”) and practices, which Eusebius says, were still followed by Christians in his day.

Though his claims that the Therapeutae were Christians seems dubious, the description shows the developing interest in early Christianity in monasticism and ascetical spiritual practices like chastity and fasting.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.2.13-15: Simon the Sorcerer, Peter, and Mark

A new installment has been posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 2, chapters 13-15 (listen here).

Notes and Commentary:

Eusebius here focuses on a tradition of Simon the Samaritan sorcerer, a false convert from Acts 8:9-25 as an arch-heretic who eventually settled in Rome.

He describes Simon as a demon-possessed magician who was fancied a god by his followers. He suggests that a statue to him was raised in Rome. Lake notes that Eusebius is likely in error here, suggesting that the statue, discovered in 1574, was inscribed not “to Simon a holy god” but “to the god Semo Sanctus” [Semo Sanctus being a Sabine deity].

Simon’s companion was a woman named Helena, whom Eusebius suggests was a former prostitute and whom Simon called the “First Idea” from him [a pseudo-Platonic or Gnostic concept].

Eusebius cites Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons as his sources for these traditions of Simon as “the first author of all heresy.”

He notes that the false practices of Simon and Helena includes being “thrown into marvel” [ecstatic spiritual experiences] and indecent sexual conduct.

If Simon was the arch-villain, the hero was Peter, the leader of the Apostles, who came to Rome “like a noble captain of God” to preach the gospel and refute heresy.

He suggests that the Romans encouraged Mark, “Peter’s follower,” to compose the Gospel of Mark, written in Rome and commended by the Apostle. He also cites Papias for the tradition of Mark being written in Rome and his reference to Mark in 1 Peter 5:13, as well as the reference there to “Babylon” as a code term for Rome.

JTR

Darwinian-based objections to Markan Posteriority

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) not only influenced re-calibration of the interpretation of the historicity of Genesis, but it had wider influence in other areas of Biblical interpretation as well, such as source criticism and the so-called Synoptic Problem.

In his “response” article in The Synoptic Gospel: Four Views (see this previous post), Two-Gospel Hypothesis advocate David Barrett Peabody addresses the “problem of omissions” objection against Markan Posteriority. This objection—lodged by those who hold to Markan Priority—suggests that Mark could not have been written after Matthew and Luke, because, if this were the case, it would not have omitted so much of their material. Mark, the shortest Gospel, must have been earliest and expanded upon by Matthew and Luke. So goes the theory of Markan Priority.

Among Peabody’s responses to this objection, he calls attention to the possible influence of Darwinian ideology on the assumption of Markan Priority:

The “problem of omissions” may have been raised by those who presuppose that the Gospel tradition always grew by incremental gain (perhaps under the influence of Darwin’s theory of evolution, once it appeared), and placing Mark’s Gospel third in the order of composition of the Synoptic Gospels clearly does not conform with Darwin’s theory, which never should have been applied in the field of literary criticism in any case (149).

JTR

Aramaic in Mark

One of the distinctive features of the Gospel of Mark is its attribution of several Aramaic phrases to Jesus:

Passage in Mark	Aramaic phrase (bold added)	Parallels in other Gospels
Raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5)	And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise (Mark 5:41).	Cf. Matthew 9:25; Luke 8:48. Neither includes the Aramaic phrase. Matthew does not record any speech by Jesus to the girl.
Healing of deaf and dumb man (Mark 7)	And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened (Mark 7:34).	No direct parallels.
Jesus’ cry from the cross (Mark 15)	And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34).	Cf. Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Notes:

1.    Some have argued that the use of these Aramaic phrases demonstrates Mark’s primitive nature (i.e., that it is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels). This, however, is not necessarily the case. It could be that, regardless of any literary relationship to the other Gospels, for some unknown reason Mark took more care in preserving and recording these words and phrases from Jesus, as preserved in early Christian tradition.

2.    Though Mark includes these Aramaic phrases, he also includes a translation. Though his audience might include Greek and Aramaic speaking Jewish Christians who would understand these phrases, it also includes Hellenistic Jews and/or Gentiles who would only have known Greek and not Aramaic, and who needed translation, but who still might have been curious about Jesus’ words.

3.    These statements indicate that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native language. This would be consistent with Jesus being, according to the flesh, a Palestinian homeland Jew of the first century. He knew how to read the Old Testament in Hebrew (cf. Luke 4:16-20). He may also have spoken Greek or Latin to a greater or lesser degree.

JTR