Mark's Galilean Primacy

[Yozavan]

Introduction: Was Galilee the intended epicenter of the Church?

Our oldest gospel anticipates a Galilean resurrection, Mark 16:1-8. I say anticipate, because an actual resurrection doesn't occur in our text. Verses 9-20 are considered a pious addendum.

Considerations for debate: Did Mark consider Galilee the epicenter of the Church via the resurrection?

Premise: Matthew and Mark have a Galilean resurrection, and by implication a Galilean epicenter for the Church . Luke has a Jerusalem resurrection, and by implication a Jerusalem epicenter for the Church.
A Jerusalem-till-Rome narrative is in Acts, where the baton is passed for the spiritual capital ( Historically so ).


Church of Antioch: Matthew has no reservations following Mark's Galilean resurrection, 28:7,16, and even casts shade on Jerusalem as the place where truth is despised, at the closure of his book, 28:11-15. Matthew seems to nod to the Church of Antioch at the beginning of Jesus's ministry, 4:24! Very telling, since Acts portays Antioch as being founded independently from Jerusalem's apostolic efforts, and the birthplace of the scornful word "Christian," 11:19-26. Its noteworthy that Antioch was where Judaism needed to be settled years later, Acts 15:1-34.

A Curious Jesus: Its plain to me that Matthew and Luke use Mark's gospel. (To each their own on the Synoptic Problem) Its equally plain that Romans to Revelation have no interest in the historical Jesus, only the heavenly Jesus. There's absolutely no interest in quoting Jesus to settle religious disputes, just theological proclamations and mystical interpretations of the Septuagint Old Testament. ( The exceptions are James, which no doubt uses the Sermon on the Mount for the layout of his book. 2 Peter 1:16, which reads like pious nostalgia of the transfiguration, and Jesus's " good confession before Pilate, " 1 Timothy 6:13. )

Conclusion: Was Mark actually preserving a Galilean epicenter and their particular Jesus? The Ebionites, ( Evyonim in Hebrew, the poor, destitute ) used Galilee as their epicenter, and the Hebrew Old Testament along with Matthew and James. They rejected the Septuagint, and the rest of the NT. Sources: Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius. The Evyonim may well be " the poor " Peter asked Paul to remember, Galatians 2:10. Notice Paul's supposedly large financial offering he collected from gentile churches, Romans 15:22-33, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, never actually got delivered, Acts 21:15-36. Also notice Paul was set up by James to be arrested! Factions are cut-throat. ( Go to the Temple brudda. Angry mob waiting )

Personal Note: The Evyonim were too poor to travel around spreading their message. They lived a life of poverty and austere asceticism, and seemed content to hunker down in Galilee waiting for the apocalypse. They seem to be as close to the historical Jesus as we can get, or at least the first sect that was a direct by-product of his.

Historical Jesus: I realize calling Jesus a historical person, is becoming increasingly contested among academics. Jesus may have been a mystic invention. Jewish rabbinical folklore often used mystic inventions, whereby fictitious people are used for teaching tools. The Talmud exhibits this out the ying yang! This would certainly explain gnosticism's obsession with him later on. I'm entirely open to this possibility.

[The Tanager]

Is it "obvious?" Mark's story is Mark's story and an argument from silence cuts both ways. If Mark is in the same theological universe as Galatians 1:11-12, then we have no need of the women:

"For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

The assumption that Mark knows details added to the story by later authors is your own addition to the text. Mark's omission of the women may very well be intended as a retroactive foreshadowing of the Pauline concept of apostleship with which Matthew and Luke disagree. If, as you claim, Mark's silence isn't properly evidence of such a theological difference between the synoptics, then neither can we properly fill Mark's silence with statements of those following him.

You are right that I probably should not have used 'obvious'. Nobody adds every detail they know of to a story, not even modern historians. All historical sources we have show Christianity getting off the ground primarily through people spreading the message (also supposedly accompanied by miracles), including how Paul spreads the message. There are a few unique experiences peppered in, but they are never presented as the norm. Mark doesn’t give any other evidence that he thought Christianity would spread through direct revelations of Jesus alone, either. Our historical sources speak to the women telling others and Mark is writing after that time and would be aware of them. So, while it isn’t 100% certain, it is the reasonable conclusion.

[The Tanager]

I can't prove Mark intended Galilee to have any relevance at all.Yes, its a hypothetical discussion. I made this discussion for the fun of it. That's all. In school we have tons of hypothetical discussions. Its fun. I don't believe Mark haphazardly picked Galilee. I assume it had relevance to him. I'm speculating what the relevance was. Mark doesn't assign any significance to it, nonetheless I think it had significance to him. Luke obviously sees Jerusalem as the epicenter of the Church. I'm wondering if Mark felt that way about Galilee. He doesn't say what he felt about Galilee.

If you find this discussion ridiculous, so be it. Maybe it is ridiculous.

I don’t find the discussion ridiculous. As a trained philosopher, I quite like hypothetical discussions. I’m saying that hypothetical discussions can (and should) be more than pure speculation, if we want to be rational.

[Difflugia]

You are right that I probably should not have used 'obvious'. Nobody adds every detail they know of to a story, not even modern historians. All historical sources we have show Christianity getting off the ground primarily through people spreading the message (also supposedly accompanied by miracles), including how Paul spreads the message. There are a few unique experiences peppered in, but they are never presented as the norm. Mark doesn’t give any other evidence that he thought Christianity would spread through direct revelations of Jesus alone, either. Our historical sources speak to the women telling others and Mark is writing after that time and would be aware of them. So, while it isn’t 100% certain, it is the reasonable conclusion.

I'd say that the opposite conclusion is the reasonable one. You are concluding that Mark expected the reader to understand that the women were the initial vehicle for the spread of the Christian message despite Mark's explicit claim otherwise. You say that there isn't other evidence of spread through direct revelation, but how much more do you need? "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." To assume that Mark intended us to think that the women later changed their minds is to completely reverse both the narrative and theological impacts of the last line of Mark's Gospel.

While we can perhaps treat Mark's story as a historical source, that doesn't make Mark a historian or imply that he even attempted historiography. Whether or not Mark's characters are based on real women, your interpretation of their actions isn't just competing with silence, but Mark literally wrote that they didn't tell anyone. You're changing what Mark told us in an effort, though perhaps unconsciously, to harmonize with Matthew, Luke, and John. Why the other three evangelists have different stories is an open question and while a reasonable conclusion is that their stories might be closer to historical events, that's speculation. You're unjustified in adding details to Mark's story that are merely missing, so there's far less justification for ones that Mark has himself directly contradicted.

[Yozavan]

You are right that I probably should not have used 'obvious'. Nobody adds every detail they know of to a story, not even modern historians. All historical sources we have show Christianity getting off the ground primarily through people spreading the message (also supposedly accompanied by miracles), including how Paul spreads the message. There are a few unique experiences peppered in, but they are never presented as the norm. Mark doesn’t give any other evidence that he thought Christianity would spread through direct revelations of Jesus alone, either. Our historical sources speak to the women telling others and Mark is writing after that time and would be aware of them. So, while it isn’t 100% certain, it is the reasonable conclusion.

I'd say that the opposite conclusion is the reasonable one. You are concluding that Mark expected the reader to understand that the women were the initial vehicle for the spread of the Christian message despite Mark's explicit claim otherwise. You say that there isn't other evidence of spread through direct revelation, but how much more do you need? "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." To assume that Mark intended us to think that the women later changed their minds is to completely reverse both the narrative and theological impacts of the last line of Mark's Gospel.

While we can perhaps treat Mark's story as a historical source, that doesn't make Mark a historian or imply that he even attempted historiography. Whether or not Mark's characters are based on real women, your interpretation of their actions isn't just competing with silence, but Mark literally wrote that they didn't tell anyone. You're changing what Mark told us in an effort, though perhaps unconsciously, to harmonize with Matthew, Luke, and John. Why the other three evangelists have different stories is an open question and while a reasonable conclusion is that their stories might be closer to historical events, that's speculation. You're unjustified in adding details to Mark's story that are merely missing, so there's far less justification for ones that Mark has himself directly contradicted.

That's the problem Christians have. They can't read Mark without bringing the entire New Testament in to interpret it. I find their approach irrational. I was, and often am, called irrational for wondering what Mark's motives were. Post # 32 for example.


John MacArthur has an interesting view of Mark's ending: Don't run away and hide like the women did. Thus the conclusion is a call to action. This interpretation would support your view that Mark's ending has theological implications.

My view is that Mark preserves an old tradition, namely that Galilee was where the early faith was established, and as such the epicenter of the early Church. No doubt, it wound up in Jerusalem before the turn of the decade, Galatians 1:18. I never argued in my OP that Jerusalem wasn't the epicenter of the Church. I'm simply curious about Mark's Galilean Primacy.

My personal view is that Mark was written well after Jerusalem was destroyed, 70-80 CE. So I find it spectacularly curious why he selects Galilee as the place for show and tell! Why have a Galilean gathering for a Jesus' sighting? Exceedingly odd. Jesus was killed in Jerusalem, seems appropriate to have him unkilled in Jerusalem. Well, Mark sends us back to Galilee, and I find it perplexing. I'm not a Christian, so I read Mark for Mark. I don't read the NT for Mark.


Hopefully, this discussion will eventually gain some curiosity, rather than dogmatic rebukes. Thank you sir, for having something interesting to add to the discussion.


I look forward to reading your posts

I haven't gotten into yet, and probably won't, but Marcion vehemently opposed the teachings of the Church of Rome. As stated in my OP, Jerusalem was the epicenter of the Church, and eventually it went to Rome. I think that Marcion, the first recognized collector of a New Testament canon, ( mid 2nd century ) had an agenda! I probably won't get into this on this site though. ( I believe Marcion has a couple fingerprints in the NT )

[JehovahsWitness]

That's the problem Christians have. They can't read Mark without bringing the entire New Testament in to interpret it. I find their approach irrational.

Why is that irrational? The tenets of Christianity are obviouly multifaceted. The oral traditions about Jesus must have had numerous sources so it is perfectly rational that a multifaceted religion has multifaceted hermeneutic.

Further, to ascertain the truth about any given matter, having more than one source is a logical, rational way of proceeding. Christianity was from its very beginning built on the oral, and later written testimony of its founding Fathers, so to take all those testimonies into consideration to assess its key beliefs is both illogical and rational.

[JehovahsWitness]

My view is that Mark preserves an old tradition, namely that Galilee was where the early faith was established, and as such the epicenter of the early Church.

All four gospels depict one Jesus of Nazareth as being a native Galilean who conducted the majority if his preaching in that region. Galillee was where that one's followers came from and where he is reported to have made several post resurrection appearances. In short that Galilee was Jesus "home-base" and where most of his first disciples originated is not unique to Marks testimony and hardly a controversial point.

As for the the "early Church" you fail to define specifically what period you are refering to, so the point cannot be properly addressed but surviving records of the first century Christian activity after the death of Christ have their leadership primarily located in Jerusalem not up north in Galilee.

[The Tanager]

I'd say that the opposite conclusion is the reasonable one. You are concluding that Mark expected the reader to understand that the women were the initial vehicle for the spread of the Christian message despite Mark's explicit claim otherwise.

Does Mark say they never told anyone? If not, then Mark doesn’t explicitly claim the women weren’t the initial vehicle for the spread of the Christian message. If he claimed another vehicle, then you’d have something, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t claim the message spread at all. By your reasoning here, that means he thinks it didn’t spread. But he is part of spreading that message by writing this, so it’s unreasonable to think he was unaware of its spread before he started writing this book.

You say that there isn't other evidence of spread through direct revelation, but how much more do you need? "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." To assume that Mark intended us to think that the women later changed their minds is to completely reverse both the narrative and theological impacts of the last line of Mark's Gospel.

There are other theological impacts that could come from that line, such as Mark challenging his Christian readers to fight their fears to continue spreading the message. The text doesn’t directly answer our disagreement. So, the reasonable conclusion is to then look at the wider context and our historical sources make it more reasonable that Mark knew that the women did eventually get over their fear.

While we can perhaps treat Mark's story as a historical source, that doesn't make Mark a historian or imply that he even attempted historiography. Whether or not Mark's characters are based on real women, your interpretation of their actions isn't just competing with silence, but Mark literally wrote that they didn't tell anyone. You're changing what Mark told us in an effort, though perhaps unconsciously, to harmonize with Matthew, Luke, and John. Why the other three evangelists have different stories is an open question and while a reasonable conclusion is that their stories might be closer to historical events, that's speculation. You're unjustified in adding details to Mark's story that are merely missing, so there's far less justification for ones that Mark has himself directly contradicted.

I’m not changing what Mark told us, but using the wider historical context to try to understand why Mark wrote what he did since he doesn’t explicitly say why he wrote it the way he did. Mark doesn’t directly contradict that understanding because he wasn’t interested in answering that question. Your claiming that he is addressing that direct question is an argument from silence.

[The Tanager]

That's the problem Christians have. They can't read Mark without bringing the entire New Testament in to interpret it. I find their approach irrational.

I haven’t brought in the entire New Testament, I’ve appealed to the historical sources we have on a particular point of history: how the Christian message spread. Yes, those sources are a part of the New Testament, but they are being treated as historical sources, not religious ones for my point. Appealing to the historical sources we have is not an irrational approach.

I was, and often am, called irrational for wondering what Mark's motives were. Post # 32 for example.

First off, my comment wasn’t about wondering about an issue, but how one comes to a belief/conclusion within that wondering. Second, I can understand your confusion, but I wasn’t calling you irrational. I made a general comment about the role of pure speculation in our wonderings. They should not be a part of coming to our belief on the matter. Are you saying pure speculation gives us truth? I doubt it, so we probably aren’t disagreeing on that. You seem to care about rationality, but you were putting a lot of weight on speculation; I was saying let’s lessen that weight in making our conclusion on this fun hypothetical discussion.

My personal view is that Mark was written well after Jerusalem was destroyed, 70-80 CE.

Why do you believe that?

So I find it spectacularly curious why he selects Galilee as the place for show and tell! Why have a Galilean gathering for a Jesus' sighting? Exceedingly odd. Jesus was killed in Jerusalem, seems appropriate to have him unkilled in Jerusalem. Well, Mark sends us back to Galilee, and I find it perplexing. I'm not a Christian, so I read Mark for Mark. I don't read the NT for Mark.

Even if Mark wrote it after Jerusalem was destroyed, it’s not odd for Jesus to send his disciples back to what had been their base of operations and where they grew up. Plus, Mark does locate the “unkilling” in Jerusalem. Mark 16:6 doesn’t say Jesus’ body was taken to Galilee so he could be raised there, it has the young man dressed in a white robe (in Jerusalem) saying Jesus has been raised and will meet them in Galilee. This isn’t reading the NT for Mark, but reading Mark for Mark.

[Difflugia]

All four gospels depict one Jesus of Nazareth as being a native Galilean

This is the same kind of harmonization again. Remember that this is TD&D where the entire Bible is authoritative, so we shouldn't be changing any of the stories to fit our own theologies.

In Matthew, Jesus and his family were native to Bethlehem and that's where their home was (2:11). Nazareth was presented as someplace new that they traveled after they fled (2:23: "... and came and lived in a city called Nazareth ..."), because they were afraid to return to their home in Judea (2:22). According to Matthew, it was because they relocated to Nazareth that Jesus was known as a "Nazarene" (2:23).

[Difflugia]

Does Mark say they never told anyone?

"... and they said nothing to anyone."

How much does an author have to qualify something before you're not allowed to change it?

If not, then Mark doesn’t explicitly claim the women weren’t the initial vehicle for the spread of the Christian message.

"... and they said nothing to anyone."

If he claimed another vehicle, then you’d have something, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t claim the message spread at all. By your reasoning here, that means he thinks it didn’t spread.

By your straw man of my reasoning, anyway. Remember, I'm not the one claiming silence. You're trying to claim that Mark's explicit statement about the women isn't good enough.

We can speculate by whom or by what mechanism the message did spread. Mark didn't tell us. What he did tell us, though, is that it wasn't via the women who were at the tomb.

But he is part of spreading that message by writing this, so it’s unreasonable to think he was unaware of its spread before he started writing this book.

Once again, you're assuming some form of literal historiography. It might be, but you don't get to assume that. Maybe the women did spread a Christian message, but maybe there were no women at all. According to Mark's Gospel, though, there were women at the tomb and they didn't tell anyone their message. You can speculate that the other evangelists knew what really happened and that's why their stories were different, but it's no less valid to claim that they just had different theological stories to tell. What we know for sure, though, is that the women in Mark's story fled and didn't tell anyone.

You say that there isn't other evidence of spread through direct revelation, but how much more do you need? "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." To assume that Mark intended us to think that the women later changed their minds is to completely reverse both the narrative and theological impacts of the last line of Mark's Gospel.

There are other theological impacts that could come from that line, such as Mark challenging his Christian readers to fight their fears to continue spreading the message. The text doesn’t directly answer our disagreement.

It absolutely does. "... and they said nothing to anyone."

So, the reasonable conclusion is to then look at the wider context and our historical sources make it more reasonable that Mark knew that the women did eventually get over their fear.

The reasonable conclusion is that Mark was a competent author that told us the story he wanted to tell. Why that's different than the stories that Matthew, Luke, and John told us is an interesting question, but just saying that it's the same story isn't intellectually honest.

I’m not changing what Mark told us,

"... and they said nothing to anyone."

but using the wider historical context to try to understand why Mark wrote what he did since he doesn’t explicitly say why he wrote it the way he did.

The "wider historical context" is three other theological stories, none of which is established as attempted historiography and all three of which are later than Mark. Two of those three are obvious modifications of Mark with other changes to historical details. Whether any of those details is true in a historical sense is, once again, an interesting question, but unless you're willig to claim that Matthew or Luke is more authoritative than Mark, there's no justification for subsuming Mark's narrative details to a hamhanded harmonization just because you want them to be historically true in a particularly narrow way.

Mark doesn’t directly contradict that understanding because he wasn’t interested in answering that question.

"... and they said nothing to anyone."

Your claiming that he is addressing that direct question is an argument from silence.

It's only silence if your fingers are in your ears.