Index

Back

Next

The gospel of 'Mark' was unique and new, soon after 70 CE, when it was written in Rome. For the first time the oral 'gospel', used when people were talking about Jesus, the Risen Christ, was committed to writing. All the spoken memories, and treasured stories were selected and arranged into one long, connected story for the first time. Many people read the gospels first in their New Testaments, not only because they tell the story of Jesus, but because they are easier to read than Paul's letters which were written several years earlier. This, however, is misleading in Biblical Studies, because all the Gospels were written from the viewpoint of the Christian communities after their 'headquarters' in Jerusalem, had been destroyed, and yield much more information when read after Paul.

Until the 18^th century, the gospels were accepted as 'History', word for word, (as they still are, for many people, even clergy), but post-Enlightenment thinking has forced Christian scholars to study them differently. The next idea was to accept them as 'biography', but that did not meet the requirements of biographical literature. During the 20^th cent, there were three main thrusts in NT scholarship, each of which has given us valuable insights to enrich our reading.

The first was developed by Rudolph Bultmann, after his experience as a Lutheran chaplain in the trenches of the first world war. It is known as 'Form Criticism'. Bultmann analysed the gospels into their natural paragraphs, or 'Pericope' s, and demonstrated that each was a sermon in the Early Church, to serve their teaching needs, - for missionary work, catechetical teaching, apologetics, or for liturgy when the Church was at worship. It was a valuable insight, and useful to get away from 'History', but not enough in itself.

Next came 'Redaction Criticism', developed after the second world war, by Gunter Bornkamm who demonstrated that the gospels reflected the minds and the different purposes of each different author. He found it profitable to discover how and why each one in turn had 'edited' its predecessor to create a 'new' one. This worked better in the studies of Matthew, Luke and John than for Mark's gospel, for that had no apparent model to follow.

Then Literary Criticism' was applied to the gospels, looking at each one in turn, as a whole, and as a separate piece of world literature. This has been invaluable, helping scholars to appreciate the gospels as 'Stories' instead of History, especially as they are so often written in poetic narrative. Through 'story' it is possible to tell something profoundly true about the real world in which the reader lives, and who is thereby 'drawn into' the story as a participant. When, for example, Mark's gospel is considered this way, we find that it has all the hallmarks of a brilliantly-told story - a good beginning and end which are related to each other, a strong plot with a crisis and a climax, dramatic scenes, and vividly drawn characters, etc. Then it is possible to see it in its 'historical setting', its own cultural milieu, - as in this Bible Story course, we have been doing all the time, from the Abraham stories onwards.

When Mark wrote his story, the word 'gospel' was already well-known in the churches, but only for 'oral' transmission, as Paul had used it, mainly about the passion, and death of Jesus. Earlier events in the life of Jesus were of interest, but not of such vital importance. Maybe the earlier attempts of telling a connected narrative can be glimpsed in the words of Peter, as written much later, in Acts 10.34-43.

Mark's opening statement was startlingly unique and new! - 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God'. Now the written 'gospel' included the whole story of Jesus, plus the readers' own experiences of the Risen Christ, and their expectations for the future in the Second Coming of Jesus. Mark wove together many stories of Jesus's activities, and many of his own stories, (parables), creating a dramatic shape for the whole, and leading up to the grand 'climax', when, as Jesus died on the Cross, he was finally recognised, (by a Roman Centurion), in the words which opened the gospel. (This is often referred to as the 'Messianic secret' of Mark). Mark also gives us the first ever mention of the 'Empty Tomb' of Easter, but still no birth narratives. Mark's genius is only now fully recognised by scholars, having been sadly overlooked as important for so long. It is fortunate that it even survived to be incorporated into the New Testament, probably because of the later importance of Rome. - It was 'their' Gospel.!

Once written, copies would have been made, and shared among other emerging Christian centres, especially as now there were no Headquarters in Jerusalem to vet and approve of it. Travelling apostles also carried it, and it became a ready reference for them as they moved from place to place.

Eventually a copy arrived in the great city of ANTIOCH in Syria, where this story will continue.

First a recap about the city of Antioch in Syria. It had been founded in 300 BCE, by the Greek Seleucids who inherited Syria after the death of Alexander. From earliest days Jews had lived there, probably first as slaves, or builders, and eventually as businessmen, for Antioch became a rich and prosperous Hellenstic city. When Pompey conquered it for Rome, in 64 BCE, he made it the capital of the whole Roman Province. Jews were allowed to live according to their own Law and customs, and had no cause for unrest as in Judea.

Over many years in Antioch, Jews at worship in their synagogues, were joined by many intellectual gentiles who found the Jewish monotheistic beliefs very attractive. Some converted completely, even submitting to circumcision, and known as Proselytes, but others remained on the sidelines, as God-fearers. When the news first reached them of Jesus, proved as Messiah by his resurrection, some of each group in the synagogues responded positively. Jews and Proselytes were baptised into the Jesus-sect, but the question arose concerning the God-fearers, - could they be baptised even though they had not been circumcised? Long before Paul arrived in Antioch, they responded with a definite 'yes', because if in Jesus all YHWH's promises to Israel were fulfilled this also meant the bringing in of the gentiles, as in Isaiah, and others of the OT prophets. So it was in Antioch that the seeds of the first great controversy of the new communities were sown. It was also in Antioch, that members of the Jesus sect were first nicknamed, 'Christians'.

In the very early days of the Jesus-movement, one of the proselytes of Antioch, Nicholas, was in Jerusalem when the apostles appointed him as one of the first deacons to help administer the finances of the new community, (Acts 6).

When news arrived at Headquarters, that uncircumcised people had been baptised, the Leaders were alarmed, and sent a trusted man, Barnabas from Cyprus, to sort out the situation in Antioch. (Acts 11.19-29). He was, however, so impressed by what he found there, that he approved. More than that, he went off to Tarsus in S. Turkey to find Paul who had gone home 14 years earlier, still unknown to many, and persuaded him to come and work in Antioch. He and Paul worked together there for over a year. Paul at last, had found his life's work!

The Christians in Antioch had formed their own Committee, (Acts 13.1), - the beginnings of Churchorganisation!, - and this Committee commissioned Barnabas and Paul with the 'laying on of hands', to set off on a missionary journey to Cyprus and S. Turkey. Naturally it was to Antioch that they later returned with news of their experiences. (Acts 14.26-28).

Paul has written of his anger, in his letter to the Galatians, after the compromise had been worked out, allowing the uncircumcised to be baptised, to find that not only Peter, but also even Barnabas, had yielded to the backlash criticism of the strict Jewish Christians, and withdrawn from table-fellowship with gentile Christians. For Paul, this not only disrupted the unity of the Body of Christ at worship, but it also negated the Cross of Christ, and there was a big row. It seems, however, that Paul lost the argument, for he left Antioch, - and Barnabas, went his own way, and did not return.

Before the disaster of 70 CE, Antioch was already emerging as an influential Christian centre, second only to Jerusalem. It had formed its own Committee and acted with authority. Christianity in Antioch was more of a faith-movement, unlike Jerusalem where it was more political.

During the Jewish wars of 66 - 73, the Jews in Antioch, both Christians and otherwise, remained neutral, so escaped any trouble for themselves from the Roman armies. Afterwards they adjusted fairly easily to the loss of Jerusalem, especially as the leader there, James, the brother of the Lord, had been killed just beforehand. It was possibly at Antioch that the destruction of the Temple was seen as God's punishment, (as before, in the time of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon), because his Messiah had been rejected.

After 70, the Christian Community became more organised. The 'Chairman' of their committee became known as a Bishop, among the Elders, or Presbyters, whose main function was to preside at the Eucharistic suppers. The Admin work was done by Deacons, the senior one becoming the Archdeacon.

No doubt the Bishop and Presbyters exercised oversight on what was taught about Jesus, and his teachings, while they experienced his Risen Presence in worship. No doubt too, when they at last received some copies of Paul's letters that had been collected together in Macedonia, they were delighted to read and learn from them, and check their own teaching about the meaning of Jesus and his significance alongside Paul's powerful missives.

One day, presumably in the late 70 s, another document arrived, the like of which they had not seen before, the written Gospel from the Christian community in Rome. The first excitement, however, soon gave way to a very critical backlash of criticism. It was wonderful to have the gospel as one long connected story, - but it was not the 'right' story! It was too 'Roman', with the Centurion at its climax! It was too 'Gentile', like an unfamiliar Greek version of their gospel. Even Mark's God wasn't like their own understanding of YHWH! Altogether, they thought, the new document did not seem to present the story of the Jewish Messiah whom God had promised to the Jews'

Eventually they decided to compose their 'own' Gospel, a proper one, to correct and improve upon the first. Probably their Gospel began life in discussion groups, overseen by the Bishop, but in the end, one person only put pen to papyrus or parchment, and wrote Antioch's Gospel. It was much longer, and included lots more material from various sources. It was also a Jewish Gospel, presenting Jesus as the Second Moses, but even greater in his resurrection. The anonymous document soon acquired the name of MATTHEW.

Thus Antioch gave the Church - both its original structure, and its official Gospel.