Good News
My professor brought up something today at class regarding the book of Mark, which I found compelling. Mark 1:1 states, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”The word for "good news" in this passage is, of course, euaggelion. This word does not have a Christian origin, or even a biblical one. In fact it is found only once in the whole OT (2 Sam 4:10, LXX). So then, where does it come from?
The answer Dr. Brown gives is that it is to be found in numerous inscriptions connected with Roman emperor worship. For example, the ancient city of Priene in Asia Minor (9 B.C.) preserves a calendar which is proposed to begin on September 23, or day of Caesar Augustus’ birthday. The proposal says that this day "marks beginning of new era." It goes on to say that "It is the good news of the birth of the God, the emperor."
So then what is the beginning of Mark’s gospel saying? The answer is that the real good news is not birth of Caesar Augustus, rather it is the good news of the birth of Jesus. The real son of God is not Caesar, rather it is Jesus Christ. This verse is making a challenge to the Emperor worship of Mark's day.
So at the end of Mark's gospel, we have in the centurion's statement regarding Jesus, not a personal confession of faith, as has been traditionally taught. Rather, we have a cry of defeat, an acknowledgment that the kingdom of this world has been vanquished.
“Truly this man was son of God.”
Thoughts?
posted by DrewDog | 9:06 AM
7 Comments:
But they had just got done killing him.
I dont think he felt vanguished. More likely he perceived a sick reality, that the strong and the good arent necessarily the same thing.
Rome was stronger. This man on the cross was better. And they had killed him.
Little did he know that they hadnt defeated him...and that they werent really stronger.
So which was the centurion's statement: a perception of a generally revealed sick/unjust reality ("We've killed a good and innocent man-from-God"), a personal confession of faith ("He IS the Messiah!!!"), or something in-between? Was he speaking as a new or existing God-fearer expressing noticia and/or assensus, or was he speaking as a dimly enlightened pagan borrowing monotheist jargon for the sake of irony? What did he most likely mean by theou huios ("[a/the] son of [a/the] God") if in Greek... or by either deus (God/god) or divus (divine, a la the emperor) if in Latin?
Steve,
Sorry for the ambiguity. I was not saying that the centurion was actually admitting defeat. Rather, as Mark writes this tragic epic, and as we read it through his eyes, we see his cry as one of defeat. In other words, Mark is concerned with triumph, not with a personal confession of faith.
Does that make sense?
Getting a little too smart for yourself, dont you think.... college boy.
Just kidding. I like the idea of understanding Marks reasons for including the statement there.
One problem lingers for me: In order to get the theme you discuss, it seems like we have to read the centurion's statement in a way other than he intended. That is, we must mis-interpret him.
Do you see a way around that?
Or, perhaps one could say that Mark understood the reason for the centurion's statement better than the centurion himself did.
And if this is still "mis-interpreting him," doesn't it seem like the biblical writers are perfectly content to do this in other places (i.e.-"This was done to fulfill the prophecy...")?
Or, of course, there is the slightest possibility that I'm just dead-wrong.
Doesn't saying more than one intends at least mean saying what one intends but not fully grasping the broader significance or appreciate the irony.
The starting point has to be the intent of the speaker. Otherwise, Mark is using his phrase out of context.
Or I could be beating a dead horse and slipping around in the blood instead of working on my diss.
I guess that's the real question:
Does the starting point have to be the intent of the speaker?
Is this rule followed consistently in Scripture?
If the answer is yes, then I'm totally off here.
Get back to work, slacker.
Post a Comment
<< Home