Liveblogging the Bible: Mark

I can't believe I didn't think of this before.

1:2 I thought this sort of post facto messiahfication was reserved for the later gospels. I wonder where in Isaiah this comes from, if this one is a stretch or not. I seem to remember something about that in Isaiah . . .

1:5 Jews "were baptized by him" and "confessing their sins", just like that? Unless I'm mistaken, this was a pretty new concept in Judaism. I wonder if John came up with the idea, and if so how he framed it to people.

1:12 "The spirit drove him out intno the wilderness." I'm not sure how to interpret this, but I like the way it is put.

1:13 In later versions, the devil specifically tempts Jesus to have angels minister to him. In this version, the angels are doing it willingly. Not irreconcilable, but interesting.

1:14 This is certainly a more palatable message than John's. Not "come air your dirty laundry and go through this ritual with me" but "hey, take stock of yourself and listen up."

1:16 this is the second time that it feels Mark has left something out (1:5). Surely it was not this succinct.

1:20 Or was he just that charismatic?

1:21 Did they let people do this? Just walk in and start teaching? Probably not. Pretty ballsy.

1:22 And what does this "authority" consist of? Charisma? Confidence? Logic and reasoning? Knowledgability? Perhaps all of the above . . .

1:23 This is probably not the spirit [sic] in which it was meant, but having "an unclean spirit" has some real applicability. I feel sometimes like my spirit is dirty, like it needs polished.

1:27 I guess I forgot one type of authority: actual power.

1:31 this is the third mention of some sort of service to Jesus (1:7, 13). some kind of theme developing?

1:34 Why not permit the demons to speak this time? Because "they knew him"? What did they know?

1:40-42 A nice parallel to the driving out of the uncleannes in 1:25.

1:43 a little late for this, dontcha think?

2:1 toldya.

2:8 Did he read their minds, or just have good hearing? Or were they simply indiscreet?

2:14 Is this Matthew? Or James? NOTA?

2:21 this is an interesting juxtaposition: straight from a rebuff of fasting to the wineskins analogy. Is he saying that fasting is obsolete, or is it a trick of the editor? Unrelated: the wineskins is one of my favorite sayings of Jesus.

2:27 I don't recall noticing this turn of phrase before. A nice antimetabole.

3:4 Another nice political/rhetorical display of skill

3:11 surely there is something to the fact Jesus calls himself "Son of Man" and all the spirits call him "Son of God".

3:12 Again, a little late for that.

3:16 This is the first I realized that Jesus gave Peter his name. Researching . . . meaning stone! Interesting. More than interesting.

3:18 Again, what is the relationship between this James and the Levi of 2:14?

3:28-30 This seems to answer the question "what is the unforgivable sin?" rather more nicely than I had realized. In my upbringing, it was always a divine mystery, but here it is rather clearly used to mean calling something holy something profane.

3:33 Not very worshipful of the so-called Queen of Heaven.

4:3-9 This is distinctly unpolitical moment. Anybody really interested in temporal power would have seized this moment to make an explicable analogy. Why didn't he explain it? Had popularity gotten too crowded, and he felt like he needed to winnow?

4:12 Why is this section in verse? Researching . . . The first two lines seem to rhyme in Greek, both ending in aw-seen, and the ending appears again in the middle of the next line, which ends in tah-ees. I don't feel like searching through the entire Greek interlinear, but the ending aw-seen does not appear anywhere else in this chapter. It does therefore seem to be deliberate poetry. But what a bizarre thing to say, let alone put into verse. Where is it from? Researching . . . in one version (NRSV), it is given quotation marks, as though pulled from somewhere else. In another, (NWT) not. In Matthew's parallel account, it is definitely attributed to Isaiah, probably 6:9, to wit: "Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand." As in Mark, no reason is given. If it is not meant to be understood by the masses, why say it? Why not reserve it for its intended recipients. Why mess with people's minds like this?

4:13 And then, after specifically saying that the parable was inscrutable, why berate the apostles for not understanding it?

4:21 But he does seem to temper it a bit here, saying, "But don't worry. I'm not just being a jerk. All will be revealed; you really have to pay better attention though."

4:25 I think I understand what he is really saying here for the first time. I have always thought of this as a classic example of Jesus being a jerk. "If you understand, I will explain. If you don't understand, I will confuse you even more." But this interpretation is predicated (literally, for once) on the understanding that the getting and the giving are in the same currency. In light of v.23-4, it makes more sense to say "the measure [of attention] you give will be the measure [of understanding] you get." In this light, Jesus really does seem to be winnowing the flock. Trying to make it more manageable? Or more pure?

4:26-32 He then does them the favor of following up with two easily understood parables. To boost their confidence? To hone their deparabalizing skills? These, he does not seem to (need to) explain. Except tha tI am left with the question "What is this Kingdom of God?" Again, is it understanding? Or some spiritual gift?