L
LiseTravis
Guest
I like it & I would be interested in seeing the finished product. I don’t have any suggestions for you- I just find your approach intriguing. 
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
I’d like to note a comment in the first link:
Apart from these aesthetic considerations, there are also some unusual choices in Brown’s otherwise unadventurous transcription of Mark. When Jesus encounters a leper in Mark 1:41, he is said to be moved by compassion and not “anger” (as stated in Brown’s narration). Jesus, as depicted in the panel in question, seems at best to be irritated and one feels that Brown has over interpreted the stern warning given to the leper not to tell anyone of his healing, charging the episode with something more than what is suggested in the original text.
The thing is, the reading “moved with anger” (orgistheis) in place of “moved with compassion” (splanchnisteis, literally “had his guts yearn” - the bowels were considered to be the seat of emotion) is actually a legitimate textual variant.
It only appears in one Greek text - the 5th century Codex Bezae - and few Latin ones (as iratus), but since this is the more difficult reading some people have wondered whether this could be more authentic. After all, it is a rule in textual criticism that scribes are more likely to smoothen out a difficult passage rather than change a perfectly-normal reading into a more difficult one; in this case, people who think the reading is authentic argue that it is more likely that scribes changed “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion” rather than the other way around. However, there are also those who think that “moved with compassion” is the original, citing the fact that it is the reading found in most manuscripts, and try to explain how the “anger” reading came to arise, which is attributed either due to an attempt at harmonization prompted by the context and the words used in the story (see below) or due to a confusion in a putative Aramaic source Mark supposedly had used. They also question why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant).
Some have even argued that orgistheis make more sense in the context: the Greek word used for Jesus sends out the now-healed leper is exebalen, also happens to be the word used when Jesus “casts out” demons. Not to mention that the word used for “sternly warn,” embrimēsamenos, literally means “snort in.” It was usually used for the braying of horses; by extension, it also meant snorting or growling in anger or agitation and usually implies a stern, menacing command (we could say “to snap at someone”). That same word, embrimaomai, is also used at 14:5 when the disciples were indignant with - “scolded” - the woman who anointed Jesus and at John 11:33 and 38 when Jesus “groaned (in the spirit)” - or more literally, “was outraged/agitated in the spirit.” (Interestingly, the passage in John is also considered difficult that some ancient versions soften it to “he was troubled in spirit as one who was outraged.”)
Of course if this reading is correct this would bring us to the question of why Mark’s Jesus was “angry” at this point. A lot of theories exist to explain this. Some think that Jesus was annoyed at the leper either because: (1) it seems the leper is basically challenging Him (supporters of this idea think that the leper’s wording of his request is quite confrontational: “If you will, you can make me clean”); (2) the leper was supposed to stay away from normal society - in other words Jesus was irked by his breaking the rules; (3) Jesus knew that the leper will disobey His command to shut up about his cure; (4) the leper ruined His chance of lying low and avoiding any attention (note how the pericope ends: “But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter”); or (5) somewhat related to the third suggestion, Jesus knew that if He touched the leper He’d be ritually unclean and thus had to spend some time away from civilization (which is what supporters think was meant by Jesus being “out in desolate places;” cf. Numbers 5:1-3), thereby limiting the scope of His ministry.
Others meanwhile think that Jesus was angry, not so much at the leper, but either at the powers of evil - symbolized by the man’s disease - which oppress and distort God’s creatures (or alternatively, at the putative demon who was causing the leprosy) or at the society which had excommunicated this man as an undesirable. In support of the former idea, we could note that Mark likes to categorize everything that threatens the fullness of life intended by God - whether disease or demonic possession or even “natural” evil such as storms, as part of the kingdom of Satan, so that the cleansing of the leper has overtones of Jesus’ confrontation of demonic evil (this would also explain why Jesus is said to have “cast out” the man in the same way that He “cast out” unclean spirits).
Still others argue (slightly related to the aforementioned idea) that the “anger” and the whole business of snorting and growling is the ritual agitation that a Hellenistic miracle worker experiences as a result of the divine spirit working within him and was all a part of the healing/exorcism ritual. In other words, supporters of this idea argue that Mark’s account actually preserve traces of an earlier form of the story in which Jesus was presented as a shamanistic, magician-like figure who healed by esoteric techniques such as working Himself up into a ritually-agitated state, and that this earlier version spoke of an exorcism (which Mark had altered to a healing). The problem with this view however is the lack of uniformity in the way the expression is used and because none of the examples leaves the impression of Jesus being taken over or controlled by a spiritual power that vents itself in such a variety of ways.
Apart from these aesthetic considerations, there are also some unusual choices in Brown’s otherwise unadventurous transcription of Mark. When Jesus encounters a leper in Mark 1:41, he is said to be moved by compassion and not “anger” (as stated in Brown’s narration). Jesus, as depicted in the panel in question, seems at best to be irritated and one feels that Brown has over interpreted the stern warning given to the leper not to tell anyone of his healing, charging the episode with something more than what is suggested in the original text.
The thing is, the reading “moved with anger” (orgistheis) in place of “moved with compassion” (splanchnisteis, literally “had his guts yearn” - the bowels were considered to be the seat of emotion) is actually a legitimate textual variant.
It only appears in one Greek text - the 5th century Codex Bezae - and few Latin ones (as iratus), but since this is the more difficult reading some people have wondered whether this could be more authentic. After all, it is a rule in textual criticism that scribes are more likely to smoothen out a difficult passage rather than change a perfectly-normal reading into a more difficult one; in this case, people who think the reading is authentic argue that it is more likely that scribes changed “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion” rather than the other way around. However, there are also those who think that “moved with compassion” is the original, citing the fact that it is the reading found in most manuscripts, and try to explain how the “anger” reading came to arise, which is attributed either due to an attempt at harmonization prompted by the context and the words used in the story (see below) or due to a confusion in a putative Aramaic source Mark supposedly had used. They also question why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant).
Some have even argued that orgistheis make more sense in the context: the Greek word used for Jesus sends out the now-healed leper is exebalen, also happens to be the word used when Jesus “casts out” demons. Not to mention that the word used for “sternly warn,” embrimēsamenos, literally means “snort in.” It was usually used for the braying of horses; by extension, it also meant snorting or growling in anger or agitation and usually implies a stern, menacing command (we could say “to snap at someone”). That same word, embrimaomai, is also used at 14:5 when the disciples were indignant with - “scolded” - the woman who anointed Jesus and at John 11:33 and 38 when Jesus “groaned (in the spirit)” - or more literally, “was outraged/agitated in the spirit.” (Interestingly, the passage in John is also considered difficult that some ancient versions soften it to “he was troubled in spirit as one who was outraged.”)
Of course if this reading is correct this would bring us to the question of why Mark’s Jesus was “angry” at this point. A lot of theories exist to explain this. Some think that Jesus was annoyed at the leper either because: (1) it seems the leper is basically challenging Him (supporters of this idea think that the leper’s wording of his request is quite confrontational: “If you will, you can make me clean”); (2) the leper was supposed to stay away from normal society - in other words Jesus was irked by his breaking the rules; (3) Jesus knew that the leper will disobey His command to shut up about his cure; (4) the leper ruined His chance of lying low and avoiding any attention (note how the pericope ends: “But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter”); or (5) somewhat related to the third suggestion, Jesus knew that if He touched the leper He’d be ritually unclean and thus had to spend some time away from civilization (which is what supporters think was meant by Jesus being “out in desolate places;” cf. Numbers 5:1-3), thereby limiting the scope of His ministry.
Others meanwhile think that Jesus was angry, not so much at the leper, but either at the powers of evil - symbolized by the man’s disease - which oppress and distort God’s creatures (or alternatively, at the putative demon who was causing the leprosy) or at the society which had excommunicated this man as an undesirable. In support of the former idea, we could note that Mark likes to categorize everything that threatens the fullness of life intended by God - whether disease or demonic possession or even “natural” evil such as storms, as part of the kingdom of Satan, so that the cleansing of the leper has overtones of Jesus’ confrontation of demonic evil (this would also explain why Jesus is said to have “cast out” the man in the same way that He “cast out” unclean spirits).
Still others argue (slightly related to the aforementioned idea) that the “anger” and the whole business of snorting and growling is the ritual agitation that a Hellenistic miracle worker experiences as a result of the divine spirit working within him and was all a part of the healing/exorcism ritual. In other words, supporters of this idea argue that Mark’s account actually preserve traces of an earlier form of the story in which Jesus was presented as a shamanistic, magician-like figure who healed by esoteric techniques such as working Himself up into a ritually-agitated state, and that this earlier version spoke of an exorcism (which Mark had altered to a healing). The problem with this view however is the lack of uniformity in the way the expression is used and because none of the examples leaves the impression of Jesus being taken over or controlled by a spiritual power that vents itself in such a variety of ways.
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
I like it. I am a fan of graphic novels in general, and I think giving each individual Gospel its own treatment in visual form is a neat thing.
How do you feel about what I call “the composite Jesus.” This is the Jesus of film and most literary adaptations; a combination of everything we know about Christ mashed up together into one narrative.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, there is only one True Gospel and only one Christ. As such, true knowledge must include all the Canon scripture about him.
On the other hand, I feel much is lost by conflating the 4 individual witnesses. Since we are talking about Mark (my favorite
) his Gospel gives us the clearest testimony that Jesus was a mystery. Those around him didn’t really understand his messages or his purpose. Jesus doesn’t perform miracles to impress those around him, but rather is able to heal in body, soul and mind those that believe. For those that don’t already believe? Little can be done. Regardless he tells those he heals to keep all this secret. And of course, Mark’s miracles include a higher proportion of exorcisms ( John includes none.)
Contrast this with John where the 7 miracles are performed to serve as proof that Jesus is who he says he is, and he has no qualms going to Jerusalem early and often to proclaim himself as God’s Son.
I think there is a happy medium between the two approaches, but I am not sure where it is.
How do you feel about what I call “the composite Jesus.” This is the Jesus of film and most literary adaptations; a combination of everything we know about Christ mashed up together into one narrative.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, there is only one True Gospel and only one Christ. As such, true knowledge must include all the Canon scripture about him.
On the other hand, I feel much is lost by conflating the 4 individual witnesses. Since we are talking about Mark (my favorite
) his Gospel gives us the clearest testimony that Jesus was a mystery. Those around him didn’t really understand his messages or his purpose. Jesus doesn’t perform miracles to impress those around him, but rather is able to heal in body, soul and mind those that believe. For those that don’t already believe? Little can be done. Regardless he tells those he heals to keep all this secret. And of course, Mark’s miracles include a higher proportion of exorcisms ( John includes none.)Contrast this with John where the 7 miracles are performed to serve as proof that Jesus is who he says he is, and he has no qualms going to Jerusalem early and often to proclaim himself as God’s Son.
I think there is a happy medium between the two approaches, but I am not sure where it is.
P
patrick457
Guest
Let’s just say that I’m very big on the idea of looking at each gospel on their own respective terms. I mean, it’s an under-developed approach: for much of 2000 years, we Christians have been busy trying to harmonize Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with each other that most of the time, we forget to simply see Matthew as Matthew or John as John without mixing the two together. I mean there hasn’t really been much effort devoted on looking at the gospels synoptically and separately until fairly recently; by contrast, you have lots and lots of gospel harmonies from Tatian’s Diatessaron to the one you can find on the bookstore shelf, enough to fill a small library I’ll warrant - and I’m like, what?I like it. I am a fan of graphic novels in general, and I think giving each individual Gospel its own treatment in visual form is a neat thing.
How do you feel about what I call “the composite Jesus.” This is the Jesus of film and most literary adaptations; a combination of everything we know about Christ mashed up together into one narrative.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, there is only one True Gospel and only one Christ. As such, true knowledge must include all the Canon scripture about him.
On the other hand, I feel much is lost by conflating the 4 individual witnesses. Since we are talking about Mark (my favorite
Contrast this with John where the 7 miracles are performed to serve as proof that Jesus is who he says he is, and he has no qualms going to Jerusalem early and often to proclaim himself as God’s Son.
I think there is a happy medium between the two approaches, but I am not sure where it is.
I wrote at another thread:
Harmonization has its good points, but sometimes I do feel that it can tend to stifle the different voices and perspectives in Scripture (which IMHO is one of the beauties of it). Sometimes we get so caught up trying to homogenize all of these sometimes admittedly conflicting voices into something more manageable and palatable that we tend to lose sight of their inherent beauty. What we have with Scripture I think is diversity in the truest sense of the word, and that’s something that’s kind of underappreciated due to several factors. Detractors look at it and see it as an arsenal against belief while believers are busy mixing them into one. Many on both sides treat this diversity as something bad - I strongly disagree.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m currently doing the baptism and the temptation (1:9-13) and Jesus and the leper (1:40-45). I’ll admit that I followed the “moved with anger” reading for the latter (the “moved with compassion” reading is on a footnote though.)
5
57Bill
Guest
In one of my son’s NT classes there was a book suggestion to read “Marked” by Steve Ross (2005).
It was a comic book on Mark’s Gospel. It was an odd read but I could fine some humor and irony although it obviously didn’t come across as reverent…it was a comic book
Humor and irony is in a wee bit of the Gospels, too.
Have at it. I look forward to a complete project!
It was a comic book on Mark’s Gospel. It was an odd read but I could fine some humor and irony although it obviously didn’t come across as reverent…it was a comic book
Humor and irony is in a wee bit of the Gospels, too.
Have at it. I look forward to a complete project!
P
patrick457
Guest
Sorry - can’t make any promises. You know how lazy I am.In one of my son’s NT classes there was a book suggestion to read “Marked” by Steve Ross (2005).
It was a comic book on Mark’s Gospel. It was an odd read but I could fine some humor and irony although it obviously didn’t come across as reverent…it was a comic book
Humor and irony is in a wee bit of the Gospels, too.
Have at it. I look forward to a complete project!
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, here it is finally:
http://imageshack.us/a/img6/5360/qajz.jpg
Mark 1:9-15a
http://imageshack.us/a/img690/9441/5kuk.jpg
Mark 1:40-45
There’s actually two common key words in these two pericopes (for a sec, I haven’t explained what a ‘pericope’ is before, haven’t I? It basically means a unit or section of text, what we laymen would call a ‘passage’): the word ekballō, meaning something like “drive out,” “cast out” or “send out” - with a connotation of violent force.
In Mark’s gospel we see quite a few ‘driving outs’. I’ve already mentioned Jesus driving out demons. Also, the Spirit drives Jesus out into the wilderness as soon as (another Markan key word there: euthys ‘immediately’) He gets baptized; Jesus drives out the leper after He cures Him; Jesus drives out the crowd of mourners who ridiculed Him for saying that Jairus’ daughter is only sleeping and not dead out of the house (5:38-40); and of course, Jesus drives out the moneychangers from the Temple (11:15).
I’d also like to point out the fact that at His baptism, Jesus sees the heavens “tearing apart.” If that expression seems familiar to you, look at the end of the gospel. What happens at Jesus’ death? “And the curtain of the temple was torn apart in two, from top to bottom.” That’s the same Greek word there - schizo. So in effect the life of Jesus in Mark’s gospel is bookended by two ‘tearings’: that of the sky and that of the temple veil. (Incidentally, Jewish thinking linked the temple curtain with the heavenly firmament - so you also have that connection between the second tearing and the first.)
Finally, Mark’s Jesus goes back to the Galilee at the “handing over” of John. Most English translations would render the Greek there as something like “after John was arrested” or “put into custody,” but that translation obscures the fact that the word used there - paradidomi, meaning “to hand over,” “to deliver up” or “to give up” (into the hands of another) - is the same word used when Jesus predicts His being handed over to death (9:31; 10:32-34), and when that prediction comes true: when Judas hands Jesus over to the chief priests (14:10-11, 17-21, 42, 44; again, this isn’t evident in most translations since they would render the word paradidomi when used of Judas as “betrayed”), when the chief priests hand Jesus over to Pilate (15:1, 10), and when Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified (15:15). It is also the word used in 13:11: “And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.”
And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
So in effect, John’s fate in Mark prefigures that of Jesus. Even at the beginning of the gospel we already get a clue as to what will soon happen to Jesus.
http://imageshack.us/a/img6/5360/qajz.jpg
Mark 1:9-15a
http://imageshack.us/a/img690/9441/5kuk.jpg
Mark 1:40-45
There’s actually two common key words in these two pericopes (for a sec, I haven’t explained what a ‘pericope’ is before, haven’t I? It basically means a unit or section of text, what we laymen would call a ‘passage’): the word ekballō, meaning something like “drive out,” “cast out” or “send out” - with a connotation of violent force.
In Mark’s gospel we see quite a few ‘driving outs’. I’ve already mentioned Jesus driving out demons. Also, the Spirit drives Jesus out into the wilderness as soon as (another Markan key word there: euthys ‘immediately’) He gets baptized; Jesus drives out the leper after He cures Him; Jesus drives out the crowd of mourners who ridiculed Him for saying that Jairus’ daughter is only sleeping and not dead out of the house (5:38-40); and of course, Jesus drives out the moneychangers from the Temple (11:15).
I’d also like to point out the fact that at His baptism, Jesus sees the heavens “tearing apart.” If that expression seems familiar to you, look at the end of the gospel. What happens at Jesus’ death? “And the curtain of the temple was torn apart in two, from top to bottom.” That’s the same Greek word there - schizo. So in effect the life of Jesus in Mark’s gospel is bookended by two ‘tearings’: that of the sky and that of the temple veil. (Incidentally, Jewish thinking linked the temple curtain with the heavenly firmament - so you also have that connection between the second tearing and the first.)
Finally, Mark’s Jesus goes back to the Galilee at the “handing over” of John. Most English translations would render the Greek there as something like “after John was arrested” or “put into custody,” but that translation obscures the fact that the word used there - paradidomi, meaning “to hand over,” “to deliver up” or “to give up” (into the hands of another) - is the same word used when Jesus predicts His being handed over to death (9:31; 10:32-34), and when that prediction comes true: when Judas hands Jesus over to the chief priests (14:10-11, 17-21, 42, 44; again, this isn’t evident in most translations since they would render the word paradidomi when used of Judas as “betrayed”), when the chief priests hand Jesus over to Pilate (15:1, 10), and when Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified (15:15). It is also the word used in 13:11: “And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.”
And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
So in effect, John’s fate in Mark prefigures that of Jesus. Even at the beginning of the gospel we already get a clue as to what will soon happen to Jesus.
P
patrick457
Guest
From here onwards I’m quite a bit in the dark. Perhaps this pericope, but again, can’t make any promises.
Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”
Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”
P
patrick457
Guest
Bumping 
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
Very nice. Put me on the pre-order list.
I don’t know if it is because we both have read E.P. Sanders, or what, but my minds eye image of this Gospel is very similar to your art, especially the sparse backgrounds which emphasizes the figures themselves and the heavy inking in your panels. I also like the way you draw Mark himself. His gospel reads much like oral stories to me (and I have turned them back into such in retelling many of them to my daughter!) and showing him narrate these sections emphasizes this. Keep up the good work.
P
patrick457
Guest
Thanks. Again, can’t promise if I’ll continue definitely, but I will try from time to time. And yes, you make a good point about Mark’s oral, colloquial style.Very nice. Put me on the pre-order list.
I don’t know if it is because we both have read E.P. Sanders, or what, but my minds eye image of this Gospel is very similar to your art, especially the sparse backgrounds which emphasizes the figures themselves and the heavy inking in your panels.
I also like the way you draw Mark himself. His gospel reads much like oral stories to me (and I have turned them back into such in retelling many of them to my daughter!) and showing him narrate these sections emphasizes this. Keep up the good work.
And yeah, Ed Sanders is actually one of the modern-day NT scholars out there I regard highly along with (just to name a few) Tom Wright, Mark Goodacre, Ben Witherington, Larry Hurtado, Craig Evans, James Dunn, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Richard Bauckman.
- Status