As I have continued in my New Testament class my instructor pointed out something which I had never really noticed before;the frequent use of the word 'astonished' by Mark. Now granted astonished is not the word that would have been used in the original Greek, as it comes from a middle french word, however, I think the meaning remains the same. Often we think of the word as meaning to be caught by surprise, but it's much older meaning literally means to thunder out, or to be thunder-struck. This is the meaning I think that Mark was trying to convey to his readers. Not just that the people who witnessed Jesus were surprised, or intrigued by his doctrine, but rather what he taught hit them like a bolt of lighting, charging their whole system with awe and wonder.
One particular example of this is from where I drew my title for this week's post. Jesus had just raised the daughter of Jarius and the girl is now walking about. Peter, whose memoirs Mark is writing, must have had a most jarring memory of the event, because in one sentence he proclaims that "... they were astonished with a great astonishment." Wow, what an event. I have since consulted my Portuguese Bible to see how it was translated to see if that would shed a different light on the scene. The translation of the first "astonished" literally translated means haunted, or over shadowed. Now I don't think that it was meant in a negative way as is the typical use today, though it may have been a little frightening to see at first, as one who was dead is now walking about. Rather think what was meant, was that it was an even that no one would ever forget, something they would think about every day of their lives, especially that of the little girl.
Mark was trying to convey this message to us in his Gospel, the life of Christ was something so fantastic and awe inspiring, that knowing his teachings and witnessing his life was something that was akin to being struck by lighting. I pause and think to myself, how often do we really stop and think about how truly marvelous and grand the life of Jesus really was? I think it is far too easy to lose that astonishment that Mark was trying to covey to us, we fail to see the hand of the Lord in so much of what goes on day to day.
I am reminded of the story told by President Eyring about when he kept a journal of everything that happened in the lives of him and his children in which the hand of the Lord could be seen. The feeling I got when he shared this story was that when he went back and read all that the Lord had done for him and his family, he must have been truly astonished at all the tender mercies bestowed upon him in every hour.
I would challenge all of us, myself included, to do everything in our power to hold on to the astonishment that is shared with us from the words of the apostles and prophets in the scriptures and today. If we have lost it, then we must find it again approaching the Lord in humility to show us how the same miraculous, and astonishing, hand that raised Jarius' daughter from the dead; that is active in our lives even now.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Biographies of Christ
Jesus Christ.
Much has been said and done in the name of Christ, and better scholars than I have written countless works about him, but who was he? Depending on who you ask you will receive a different answer, to some he was a great teacher of moral platitudes; while to others he was merely radical Jewish zealot who inspired many followers to rise up against the existing religious systems of his day. To our Muslim brothers and sisters he was a prophet of Allah, or to other he was not one man at all but a conglomeration of several stories that needs an anthropomorphic repository in order for a religious institution to gain power. Again I would say that there has been a lot written about any of theses views and many other, but they are all missing something.
The argumentation of who Christ is may seem like a modern debate, however, I would remind the reader that this same debate is recorded in the New Testament itself. Christ asked his disciples, after their first mission to area surrounding Jerusalem who the public thought he was, some thought of him as Elijah, and others as John the Baptist returned from the grave, but it was Peter's testimony that I would like to focus on here. He states in very simple language, because he is a simple man, but by no means unintelligent, the the truth that he has felt in his heart for a long while before this interrogatory with Jesus: "Thou art the Christ."
This written account of Peter's testimony is the crux of my post today. The New Testament was written based on the eye witness accounts of those who saw and experienced first hand the miracles, teachings and power of Christ. The Gospels really are the records of eye witness accounts of the Savior.
There are a scholarly reasons for this assumption and I will list a few that I have picked up in my New Testament class. Since we are currently reading the Gospel of Mark I will list some of the facts in relation to that book, but keeping the idea in mind that the points made can be applied across the synoptic Gospels.
First, the Gospel of Mark is probably more accurately described as Peter memoirs, Mark would have been in Rome at or just after the execution of Paul and would definitely have been there at Peter's execution, thus he would have had access to Peter, and would have been writing for the branches of the early Church in Rome.
Second, Mark includes names of seemingly insignificant people, it is a point easily argued that this is because these are the eye witness from whom he got the story. The reason one would mention the name is that it would ensure that truthfulness of the story could be verified, these were people that were still alive, and could be asked to retell it.
Third, while the style is different then modern day biographies, Mark wrote in the style of ancient biographical texts, so he was creating a biography of Christ, not just merely spinning tales about a non existent person.
Fourth, the gospel includes elements that scholars would call "embarrassment factors", now what is meant here is that these are elements that would at first glance seem to be contradictions, to later elements of the text. It help in proving validity, for if the story was fictionalized why would one include it in the text in the first place. One of these factors is Christ' baptism by John. John baptized for the remission of sins, it is later stated in the text that Christ was always without sin. So why include that in a fictional account if one it trying to make a story up?
The simple truth of it is the Gospels are telling about real events that happened to real people in the life of Jesus Christ. That is all I will go for now, it may not be earth shattering proof to the unbeliever, but in my opinion that hard tangible proof that those individual seek after will not be had until the day when every knee will bow and all tongues confess that Jesus is the Christ. Until then we may now as Peter knew, as the Holy Ghost speaks to our hearts that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Much has been said and done in the name of Christ, and better scholars than I have written countless works about him, but who was he? Depending on who you ask you will receive a different answer, to some he was a great teacher of moral platitudes; while to others he was merely radical Jewish zealot who inspired many followers to rise up against the existing religious systems of his day. To our Muslim brothers and sisters he was a prophet of Allah, or to other he was not one man at all but a conglomeration of several stories that needs an anthropomorphic repository in order for a religious institution to gain power. Again I would say that there has been a lot written about any of theses views and many other, but they are all missing something.
The argumentation of who Christ is may seem like a modern debate, however, I would remind the reader that this same debate is recorded in the New Testament itself. Christ asked his disciples, after their first mission to area surrounding Jerusalem who the public thought he was, some thought of him as Elijah, and others as John the Baptist returned from the grave, but it was Peter's testimony that I would like to focus on here. He states in very simple language, because he is a simple man, but by no means unintelligent, the the truth that he has felt in his heart for a long while before this interrogatory with Jesus: "Thou art the Christ."
This written account of Peter's testimony is the crux of my post today. The New Testament was written based on the eye witness accounts of those who saw and experienced first hand the miracles, teachings and power of Christ. The Gospels really are the records of eye witness accounts of the Savior.
There are a scholarly reasons for this assumption and I will list a few that I have picked up in my New Testament class. Since we are currently reading the Gospel of Mark I will list some of the facts in relation to that book, but keeping the idea in mind that the points made can be applied across the synoptic Gospels.
First, the Gospel of Mark is probably more accurately described as Peter memoirs, Mark would have been in Rome at or just after the execution of Paul and would definitely have been there at Peter's execution, thus he would have had access to Peter, and would have been writing for the branches of the early Church in Rome.
Second, Mark includes names of seemingly insignificant people, it is a point easily argued that this is because these are the eye witness from whom he got the story. The reason one would mention the name is that it would ensure that truthfulness of the story could be verified, these were people that were still alive, and could be asked to retell it.
Third, while the style is different then modern day biographies, Mark wrote in the style of ancient biographical texts, so he was creating a biography of Christ, not just merely spinning tales about a non existent person.
Fourth, the gospel includes elements that scholars would call "embarrassment factors", now what is meant here is that these are elements that would at first glance seem to be contradictions, to later elements of the text. It help in proving validity, for if the story was fictionalized why would one include it in the text in the first place. One of these factors is Christ' baptism by John. John baptized for the remission of sins, it is later stated in the text that Christ was always without sin. So why include that in a fictional account if one it trying to make a story up?
The simple truth of it is the Gospels are telling about real events that happened to real people in the life of Jesus Christ. That is all I will go for now, it may not be earth shattering proof to the unbeliever, but in my opinion that hard tangible proof that those individual seek after will not be had until the day when every knee will bow and all tongues confess that Jesus is the Christ. Until then we may now as Peter knew, as the Holy Ghost speaks to our hearts that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)