James has continued his “What Jesus Said and Did” series of blog posts with his second installment, which above other things concerns Jesus’ teachings on Divorce in Mark 10. First, I would like to point out that I enjoy the fact that James likes to try to analyze his own conclusions by offering alternative possibilities in his series. In this instance he brings to light the prohibitions of divorce in the Dead Sea Scrolls from the beginning. It is good to see somebody second guessing themselves, but I do not think that James follows his own thoughts to conclusion when it comes to this subject. Why do I say that? Because his argument for reliability is less than thoroughly explained and when read seems to rely on a foundation that is, to put it bluntly, weak. His argument rests in the assumption of embarrassment, once again.
One ought to consider, however, the indication that Jesus' disciples were less than thrilled about this teaching attributed to him, which might provide an argument against it having been invented.
The assumption here is that because the narrator, Mark, suggests that his disciples were unhappy with the conclusions of Jesus’ teachings, this would imply a historical core (See my Finding Oneself on the Mount of Olives for details on James’ use of embarrassment). At its heart the historical core is not necessarily concerning the article of divorce, but rather would shift to how the disciples viewed Jesus’ teachings. Let’s face it: Jesus’ disciples often were annoyed at or oblivious to Jesus’ lessons. If James is going to use this literary trope inappropriately, it should be the first thing to dissect. Does Mark’s comment about the disciples discontent about this teaching “provide an argument against it having been invented?” Yes, it does, but not in the way that James thinks. Once more, James is arguing against an ad hoc. My position is not that these stories were invented whole cloth, as I have stated elsewhere (see here and here) but are rewritten from previous traditions, through model use and trope use, which are common not only in the Hebrew Bible but in all ancient literature of every genre.
The oblivious disciple(s) in Mark have a history that goes back for thousands of years, and predates Christianity by hundreds. I’ll use Dennis MacDonald’s words and call this, for the sake of understanding, the Trope of the Foolish Companions. Dennis argues (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 20-23), and I think convincingly, that the reason why Jesus’ followers seem inconsiderate, treacherous, forgetful, incompetent, and ignorant of the scriptures is two-fold: (1) It makes Jesus appear more wise and learned and (2) Mark writes them this way as a means to express the state of the Israel (i.e. the twelve disciples represent the state of the twelve tribes—that they are inconsiderate, treacherous, forgetful, etc…). Both are literary (not historical) reasons for Mark’s plot. The disciples are tools. They hold the most secure place in Jesus’ company, learning the mysteries of the Kingdom, but happen to be the least coherent lot in all Judaea, much in the same manner that Israel holds a special place in God’s company, as the chosen people, yet often stray from the straight and narrow path. Mark highlights this fact by showing that the “dogs” of the world (gentiles) can be more Godlike and respectable than those in the highest Jewish positions. This is why the scene with the Syrophoenician woman is so important to Mark’s story line and theology. Although she is labeled a “dog” she is more likely to receive God’s blessings because of her faith which is more than those in Jesus’ company.
This trope is seen elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It is seen with Moses, who is constantly tested by those closest to him to provide a sign for the future ‘people of the book.’ It is there with Elijah who is reluctant to perform miracles of God. These themes are not new, just reused in new ways. In Mark’s Gospel, the ignorance of his companions is not evidence of a historical lot of incompetents but rather it is evidence for the literary plot that Mark is toying with to create his narrative. It is evidence of Mark’s use of Jewish scripture as a model for his good news.
This brings us back around to Mark’s figure of Jesus, also based on scripture. This is none-more clear than right here, in Mark 10; the same chapter that James wants to suggest has historical cores to it is precisely the chapter that utilizes scripture as a model, including the teachings on divorce and faithlessness. And no more obvious is the scholar’s ineptitude to understand context than it is here as well. As James forgets to read beyond his fragmenting of the narrative once again, he misses the intent behind the words of Mark.
As a reminder, it is Paul who first brings to light the words of Malachi:
Another thing you do: You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. "I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel” (Mal. 2:13-16)
As Paul writes:
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)
James is right to inquire about this passage, but his interpretation (that Lord means Jesus) is not accurate. The Lord, through Malachi, hates divorce. And Paul rightly shows that it is the Lord who makes this degree.Is Paul “indicating his awareness that he was here passing on teaching attributed to Jesus that he had had passed on to him” as James suggests? No. Once more James’ realistic explanation is not thought through to its conclusions. The fact is Paul is reciting directly from Malachi (which is why Paul goes on about marrying unbelievers, as Malachi makes note). Paul’s remarks concerning the betrothed are not mentioned in Malachi, forcing Paul to recite his own theories on this, which he does quite extensively. This is not a manner of guilt at his ploy, nor is he filling in a blank splotch in his teachings, but rather he is elaborating on Malachi’s words, from the Lord, and explaining what is left unexplained. Paul does so smashingly.
The teachings of Jesus in Mark 10 are found in the Hebrew Bible and stem from teachings of Paul, who is also getting them from the Hebrew Bible. The Lord hates divorce and thus Jesus, his son, does too. His disciples, as Mark makes them, must question this, as they represent an Israel who has fallen from the path and must right themselves. They must be incompetent because Jesus has the law of the Lord behind him and must be seen as superior. This is how Mark writes, and as with the other instances where I have shown Mark is doing this, Mark cues the reader to this practice.
Mark’s idea of having the Pharisees—the temple cult—challenge Jesus is a cue to Malachi 2, which says:
“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi," says the LORD Almighty. "So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law. (Mal. 2:7-8; cf. Mal. 2:1)
The fact that the Pharisee’s bring up the law in Deut. 24:1-4 is to illustrate to the reader how the Pharisees, the priests, have abused the law and have “caused many to stumble.” Jesus sets them right by humiliating the Pharisees time and time again before crowds of people. The Pharisees have shown partiality in matters of the law; they revere one teaching over another and Jesus must show them their error and why they are not to be trusted. Mark does a fantastic job with this scene and makes it more than implicit that he is doing this.
Once more, James shows that he may fall into the category of the apprehensive disciple, where his understanding of the teachings mark is imparting is limited by his hardened heart, if you will. Limiting the Gospels to individual segments of so-called “historical cores” does nothing but limit one’s ability to see the forest between the trees. I will have to spend some time writing a blog article on how ancient authors utilized models to build plot, as it is clear that James refuses to comprehend my own lessons on this time and time again. This may be something for next week. In any event, the matters of divorce in Mark, spoken by Jesus, originated in Mark’s models: Paul and the Jewish scriptures. They did not originate from a historical Jesus.
