Was Mark 2nd Coming-Focused?

The question raised in the title of this post comes from a question I raised of Brendan Byrne's book "A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark's Gospel". There, Byrne asserts that Mark's text is both apocalypitc and eschatalogically-oriented (ch. 1). Though Byrne's view of these two elements differ a little from the ways that they are typically used, I cannot say that I go as far as he does when applying them to Mark's story. Still, that is not the issue I want to raise here.

What is interesting to me is that for Byrne, who takes the view that Mk. ends at 16.8, there is precisely no encounter with the risen Jesus BECAUSE Mark (and his community) were eschatalogically-focused. In other words, if I'm understanding his initial chapters correctly, Byrne's arugment is that Mark purposefully excludes a resurrection scene BECAUSE he is more interested in the return of Jesus. Byrne suggests that to include an appearance of a resurrected Jesus would have taken away from the more important event (to Mark) of the 2nd Coming.

Not only does Byrne's view challenge some of my thinking but it is quite interesting. Initially, I would disagree with Byrne's views but perhaps there is more to be said about his ideas. I'm only a couple of chapters in but like I said, I don't find the idea convincing that a resurrection appearance would take away from the Parousia return. Just as well, I'm not sold on the argument that Mk. and his community (if we can even say there was "a" community) was apoc/eschatological-oriented (I suggest, in fact, that Mk. 13 argues the opposite). Futher, I do not subscribe to the notion that the story concludes at 16.8 and therefore, we are indeed, lacking an "appearance" story.

Of course, debates have raged about the ending of Mk. for quite a long time but Byrne's view is rather intriguing and seemingly unique in a number of ways; I'm excited to get further into his work because it is already brimming with invaluable insights (even if I do disagree with some of them). What would you say in response to (my explication of) Byrne's view?

No comments:

Post a Comment