User:KamrenMaximilian2713

In our first article, we learned that not enough time had passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of Mark's gospel to obscure the core truth of the events he recorded. But what about the contents of Mark's gospel? Was he giving us the straight scoop or heaping on the hyperbole?

If Mark were fudging the facts, we would likely expect to find a polished and pristine presentation of the person who is the center of his concern. Instead, we find that Mark is not at all hesitant to include details that are downright embarrassing. For example, in Mark 1:4-9, Jesus submits to "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Would it not have been better for Mark to leave this little detail out had he been spinning a yarn about a sinless Savior?

In Chapter 6, Mark records Jesus' return to his hometown. Verse 5 plainly states, "And he could not do any miracles there...." Does this sound like the testimony of a myth-maker? Surely it would have been less problematic for Mark to obscure this detail had he been creating a legend about a divine miracle worker, wouldn't you agree?

But Mark's book agent does not stop wincing here. In Mark 10:17-18, Jesus is confronted by a man who addresses him as "good teacher." Jesus responds, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Without any further commentary, Mark actually records Jesus taking issue with a man for calling him good. Excuse me, Mark, but wasn't Jesus God? Not only that, but in 8:43-48, a woman sneaks up behind Jesus and touches the fringe of his garment as he is making his way through a dense crowd. Jesus did not know who it was, and had to ask in order to find out. Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? At this point, maybe Mark should have put his laptop down and let somebody else take over.

But instead, Mark blunders on. In Chapter 16, Mark tells us that three women visited the tomb of Jesus and were the first to witness the empty tomb and receive word of his resurrection. In a patriarchal and misogynist culture in which the witness of a woman was not even accepted in court proceedings, would it not have been shrewder for Mark to make the first witnesses males had he been weaving a whopper?

In addition, the majority of scholars contend that, in their own gospels, both Matthew and Luke took their cues largely from Mark, closely paraphrasing and at times copying nearly verbatim from his gospel. If this is so, apparently neither of these authors had a problem with Mark's embarrassing details either. Just what were they thinking? Well maybe they were thinking that the best thing to do was to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing, and just let their readers sort it out. At the very least, the claim that the gospel writers were creating a legend loses considerable credibility in the face of this evidence.

But is this all the evidence we have? Were there others besides the gospel writers whose testimony needs to be examined as well? Indeed, and we will meet them in our final article. 荒川区　霊園