Liberal Orthodoxy encore

ORTHODOX SAID:

“Beware of book blurbs.”

Very well. Since Orthodox objects to “book blurbs,” let’s reproduce some verbatim abstracts from one of Tarazi’s books:

Here one must recall that, besides editing the prophets' words into scrolls as scripture, the school of Ezekiel proceeded to produce its own writings, the Torah (Pentateuch), in order to present a more systematic view of their teaching [13].

The Pauline school took the first step by putting together the master's epistles into a corpus, and it augmented that corpus with a series of additional letters composed along the line of his teachings and, as was usual in those times, superscripted with his name out of deference to him (the first of these being Colossians and 2 Thessalonians).

The gospel of Paul to the Gentiles carried Jesus for them; the only Jesus they knew, beginning with Timothy and Mark who had never personally seen him, was the reality engraved on their minds and hearts by Paul's apostolic words [15]. They -- probably leaders such as Timothy and Mark -- must have decided that Paul's written legacy was inadequate, even supplemented as it was by works such as Colossians.

The event that led to the decision to write a gospel book was Paul's death. This left the Gentile churches in a very precarious position with no apostle supporting them and necessitated finding a different, yet equally authoritative, means of support. Paul's epistles were being collected, and Timothy did provide a new charter (Colossians) based on Paul's apostolic authority, but despite everything said above about the importance of Paul's apostolic word over his person, that written word in these collected epistles still did not carry the same weight as a living apostle. The remaining living apostles were associated with the Jerusalemite leadership, which had openly rejected the believing Gentiles' freedom from circumcision and the Mosaic ordinances. The only hope was to sway one of these leaders into the Pauline camp. James himself (or his following) might be too difficult to persuade, but Peter (or his following) was apparently less adamant on this position than James and seemed a possible convert to Gentile cause.

Thus, Mark was someone who actually shifted allegiance from Barnabas (and Peter) to Paul, i.e., he himself had done what was about to be asked of Peter or his successors.

The fact that Mark was the bridge to the Petrine following must have sealed the tradition that the gospel was named after him; and he may well have actually been the author. However, the gospel text seems to allude to Mark as part of the gospel story [16]. Another candidate would be the author of Luke-Acts, who shows a mastery of the Greek language essential for anyone contemplating an undertaking of this sort. Moreover, this would explain the liberty Luke took in rewriting the first gospel into his monumental two-volume work, Luke-Acts. At any rate, if Luke was the author, he would have written "Mark" under the scrutinizing eye of both Timothy and Mark, given the delicacy of the matter. Since the appeal to Peter was either written by Mark himself or used Mark as an example, or both, this book is in a sense a "Markan" message to the Petrine following, and since Luke's name brings to mind Luke-Acts, I shall henceforth refer to this gospel and its author as simply "Mark."

Mark capitalized on this situation and formulated his literary plan according to the scheme of Ezekiel. The divine word, now as Paul's gospel, summoned the Jerusalemite church to break with the insurgent Judaism of Judea, and it did so from outside Jerusalem -- from Rome or Western Asia Minor. Moreover, it called upon that church to move away from Jerusalem and settle among the Gentile churches, from whom the divine word as gospel was now originating. And since this divine word was identified with Jesus himself, the crucified Messiah, Mark used whatever traditions about Jesus were at hand and presented them as a story, namely the story of Jesus from Galilee. The importance of his Galilean origin is that it means he came from outside Jerusalem and outside Judea.

So Mark decided to create a "story of Jesus" and intended it to serve as scripture, but what will have been the source for the overall outline of that story? Could he have created it from scratch, devising his own plan for fitting numerous short vignettes about Jesus into a cohesive whole? I am convinced that he in fact utilized a story outline that had already been known among the Gentile churches. Earlier I referred to two essential points: the practical equivalence between the person of Jesus and the words of the gospel concerning him; and the fact that for the Gentile churches as well as for the Jews Timothy and Mark, Paul was the apostle, the original authoritative bearer of this gospel. When one takes these two matters seriously into consideration, one can understand that in the minds of Paul's disciples and communities, the "gospel story" was already outlined: it followed the major contours of Paul's life and activity as an apostle. It is not difficult to determine those contours, for they are laid out in some detail in Paul's epistles. These letters were written by him as an apostle, that is, in conjunction with his explication and defense of his gospel. Of these letters, only in Galatians and Philippians is the argument itself closely interwoven with personal data about Paul as an apostle, thus making the author's own history and experiences a kind of "gospel story." The former deals squarely with Mark's immediate interest: Paul's gospel on the one hand, and Peter, James, and the Jerusalemite church, on the other. The latter is Paul's testament from his place of imprisonment prior to his death and reflects the fact that the Jerusalemite church authorities did not heed Paul's appeal to them through his letter to the Romans. It is along the lines of the arguments in these two epistles that Mark wrote his "gospel story."

This whole process may seem strange to the contemporary reader, but it is precisely what had been done earlier in the Old Testament, and Mark was merely following an example set for him by scripture itself. The Pentateuch as a whole, as well as Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in particular, were "stories" conceived on the basis of the prophets' teachings [29]. One can even say that these same "stories" were actually woven from the prophets' personalities and lives. Scholars have long pointed out similarities between Moses and Jeremiah [30]. They have also noticed that the Pentateuch describes two Aarons: one subservient to Moses and even opposed to him [31], the other his successor as high priest throughout the ages [32]. Whereas Moses led Israel during his lifetime, this second Aaron leads it throughout the generations [33]. This second Aaron bears a remarkable resemblance to Ezekiel, the exilic priest-prophet. Indeed, Ezekiel's eschatological Jerusalem is the blueprint of Aaron's temple in the wilderness [34]. Finally, Joshua, Israel's leader into Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, is patterned after Second Isaiah and, to some extent, Ezekiel. The names Isaiah and Joshua are from the same root in Hebrew meaning "the Lord saves," and Second Isaiah is the prophet who speaks of the return to God's city, Jerusalem, and at the same time presents Abraham as the one to whose progeny the promise is made [35]. On the other hand, the land's conquest by Joshua is done in a "priestly" manner: it is the Lord who leads Israel in a cultic manner into the land as though it is his holy of holies, exactly as Ezekiel's "new Jerusalem" is [36].

Mark has created a similar mixture in his gospel; the life of Jesus here is reminiscent of the New Testament "prophet" [37] Paul. Mark's purpose is to call upon the Jerusalem church and Peter's followers -- and ultimately through them the Judaism of his time as a whole -- to relinquish the earthly Jerusalem that is bound to destruction, and follow the prophetic call arising from the "wilderness of the Gentiles," into the new, heavenly Jerusalem. This prophetic voice was none other than Paul's, "an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:1-2). And consequently, the image of Paul shows through in Mark's portrayal of Jesus, just as the image of Jeremiah shows through in the Pentateuch's depiction of Moses.

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Very_Rev_Paul_Nadim_Tarazi_Category/Introduction_to_Mark/

Let’s now take stock of Tarazi’s position:

1.The Pentateuch is not a factual report of actual people, speeches, and events. Instead, the Pentateuch is an allegory of the exilic prophets, fabricated by the School of Ezekiel.

2.A number of the “Pauline” epistles (e.g. Colossians; 2 Thessalonians) are actually pseudonymous productions, fabricated by a Pauline school.

3.Timothy and Mark didn’t personally know the historical Jesus. All they knew about Jesus was filtered through the teaching of Paul.

4.The Pauline school was at loggerheads with the Jerusalem apostles. Mark as alienated from Barnabas and Peter.

5.Mark may have written the Gospel attributed to him. Or it may have been written by Luke, under a Markan pseudonym.

In any event, it doesn’t preserve Petrine tradition. Rather, it’s addressed to Peter. It’s an exercise in ecclesiastical power politics.

6.The author of Mark tells the “story” of Jesus from Galilee, not because Jesus really came from Galilee, but because Mark is modeled on Ezekiel.

7.The Gospel of Mark is not a factual report regarding the life and teachings of Christ. Instead, it’s an allegory of the life and teachings of Paul. Galatians and Philippians, creatively rewritten as a mock historical narrative. A theologumenon or imaginary reification of doctrine under the garb of history.

8.The author of Mark padded out his allegory with whatever Jesus traditions he had access to.

And what was the source of his Jesus traditions? Well, we know what the source wasn’t. He didn’t get his information from the Apostles who actually lived with Jesus, day in and day out, for the duration of his public ministry—for the Gospel of Mark is written in opposition to the Jerusalem apostles, as a piece of religious propaganda to counter the official version of the gospel promulgated by the mother church in Jerusalem.

Tarazi’s historical reconstruction is the latest iteration of the old Tübingen school, a la F. C. Baur. It also repristinates the old form critical view, a la Bultmann et al., in which the Gospels are allegories of the church. The real sitz-im-leben is the church, and not their putative historical setting.

So, between the allegorical character of Mark’s Gospel, and the author’s lack of access to firsthand information, the historical reliability of his Gospel would be just about nil. Ninety-nine parts imagination to one part residue fact.

Welcome to the one true Church!