Comments on: New Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson #4

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:37:06 +0000

Ardis, it’s funny to me how we generally assume more = better. But I think the removal of “plain and precious things” can sometimes involve the addition of material.

By: Ardis

Ardis — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:21:08 +0000

My class didn’t like Mark’s bare bones account of Jesus’s trial in the wilderness, and told me all the reasons why the other accounts were better. So I guess the others fixed Mark in that instance. :)

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:38:52 +0000

Mike, there is merit to your thought that the other gospels are more “mature.” But there is also merit to the idea that Matthew and Luke found Mark’s Gospel objectionable and wanted to supplant it (but couldn’t entirely because of its popularity) but that their gospels are nonetheless efforts to censor, clean up, and basically “fix” Mark and that if we want an earlier, purer, less corrupted gospel, one closer to history, we need to look to Mark. There is value in both directions, which is probably why we have more than one canonized account.

By: Mike Maxwell

Mike Maxwell — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:55:18 +0000

Reading the Gospel of Mark, in relation to the other gospels, reminds me a bit like reading early versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision vs. later versions. Mark is more of the “just the facts” gospel with less context about the place of Jesus in traditional Judaism, the broader Roman world, or in God’s plan for mankind. The later gospels clearly benefit from the additional discourse, dialogue and experience of the early church, which result in more comprehensive and mature narratives in Matthew, Luke, and John. Stories get better with more telling and with time to reflect on context.

To Julie’s point, it is quite possible that the import of virgin birth simply had not developed as an important part of telling the Christian story at the writing of Mark, much like in Joseph’s First Vision narrative, the identification of two anthropomorphic personages were not an important part of his story, early in his ministry.

It also makes we wonder at what point, if ever, Mary and her contempories began sharing “Joseph is not the father.” Not a taboo that any 1st century Jewish woman would likely acknowledge during her lifetime. There were probably some interesting “transparency” debates among early saints when they began sharing the narratives that Matthew and Luke authored.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:25:41 +0000

Why didn’t Mark include an infancy narrative? After all, there are so many to choose from.

By: matthewscottkern

matthewscottkern — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:09:37 +0000

Julie,

I guess that was the more obvious answer. Baptism causes the result of temptation….I am going to have to chew on that one for a while.

I like the portrayal of temptation that you presented.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:59:46 +0000

Matt, I was just trying to emphasize that Mark links the stories of the baptism and temptation in such a way to imply that the temptation is a direct and immediate result of the baptism. One lesson we might draw from this is that we should expect to be tempted. That’s all.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 05:24:37 +0000

Julie,

Could I ask you to tease out this section a little more:
“Choosing baptism means choosing temptation. Being baptized means being tempted. Temptation is, to borrow a phrase from the geek world, not a bug but a feature.”

I am just looking for clarity. Is the intent of this section to explain that being baptized is to commit to live a certain way, and in doing so one must overcome/struggle through temptation in order to grow and progress? I just wanted to confirm that I was not missing something deeper or potentially more obvious.

Props for using “not a bug but a feature.”

Regards,

By: Mary Ann

Mary Ann — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:06:41 +0000

We had lesson #3 yesterday (birth narratives) and one young RM finally expressed his frustration with us wasting time speculating on Jesus’ childhood and ignoring the more important topics of faith, repentance, etc. It really solidified in my mind the idea expressed in the OP (and other blog commentaries recently) that Mark may have similarly felt the birth narratives a distraction from the simple messages of Christ’s mission. It ended up sparking a good discussion as to why some of the gospel writers might have felt including the birth narratives (or discussion of Jesus’ premortal godhood in the case of John) would aid in building testimonies.

I’ve been enjoying these commentaries. Thanks!

By: Christian J

Christian J — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:51:24 +0000

Julie, I have a hard time believing that the author of Mark, who likely had no expectation of another Gospel writer doing the work of fitting the birth into their own particular narrative, would have left it out for thematic reasons. It could have been humanities only shot at hearing about it at all!

BUT, as it turns out, Mark really does work better without it anyway – I agree. So I like your approach.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:05:48 +0000

Thanks, Naismith and hope_for_things!

By: hope_for_things

hope_for_things — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:36:49 +0000

Julie, I just wanted to thank you for your book Search, Ponder and Pray, I just got it after Christmas (treat to myself) and also for these blog posts. You are helping me to understand and appreciate the NT in new and thoughtful ways. Also, excellent interview on Mormon Studies Podcast, thanks for all you are doing!

By: Naismith

Naismith — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:44:27 +0000

Thanks much–for those of us who don’t attend Gospel Doctrine, this helps us feel connected to the adult world of scripture study.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:26:09 +0000

Oh, I may have misunderstood you, then. I do think it is possible that those events had a teaching function for Jesus, particularly because of the use of the second person (“YOU are my beloved son”) at the baptism in Mark.

By: Terry H

Terry H — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:39:43 +0000

Thanks Julie. I don’t see Barker’s comments as tying the baptism and Transfiguration to proving to the Masses that Jesus was the Messiah, but more to Jesus himself. That’s why the Risen Lord is the best of her books, since the evidence is better documented. I’ll check out Marcus. Thanks.