Is the Gospel of Mark all allegorical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdoroTeDevote
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AdoroTeDevote

Guest
I have read a few “historians” who have claimed the earliest Christians believed in a celestial Jesus (see Ascension of Isaiah) and that Mark only wrote his gospel as an allegory to edify Jesus.
I don’t think it’s true, but do want some re-assurance here.
God Bless.
 
Just read the early church fathers, or other historians (non-Catholic) who chronicle Christ’s existence.

That sort of “historian” is full of crap, to put it as politely as I am physically able. They ignore the obvious historical realities in favor of crackpot theories that fit their particular views. Those people are no more historians than that guy on the “History” Channel who claims everything was the work of aliens.
 
I think it’s clear that the Evangelists (especially Mark, whose work is the most down-to-Earth and usually considered the earliest) believed they were writing about a real person who had actually lived. The stories of Jesus, however embellished a skeptic may consider them to be, are set in a specific time and place. They trace the guy’s ancestry and name both his personal friends (including ones that only figure into the story occasionally) and the historical authority figures he interacted with. One could perhaps characterize the Gospels as a form of historical fiction, but they’re not some kind of allegory for the movements of the sun or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that they’d attack Mark as allegorical. Of all the gospels it is generally the most down to earth and generally agreed to be the earliest of the canonical gospels (large part of why it’s always been my favorite NT book). I’d much rather expect John to end up on the receiving end of such claims.
 
Last edited:
If you read Mark you will see that Mark presents to us a very human Jesus as opposed to a “celestial” Jesus. Mark 5 for example is probably one of the most moving and emotional stories given about Christ in the gospels where one connects with the full humanity of Christ. With regard to the Ascension of Isaiah, the parts that you are referencing were likely written in the late 2nd to 3rd Centuries and are teeming with gnostic influence. Mark however, was written in the mid first century. In effect, the “historians” you are referring to are turning history on its head.
 
First of all, those “historians” are all fringe figures. Some of them like Richard Carrier might have PHDs, but beyond their education that have almost no academic credentials as measured by positions at a university and publication in peer reviewed journals, ect. There are many historians who are atheists and agnostics but they still believe that some kind of historical Jesus is far more likely than a fabricated Jesus, much less on that the original apostles didn’t believe was a literal person at all.

Second of all, we have many ancient texts by Christians arguing against various heresies. We also have some ancient anti-Christian writings. There are no ancient discussions of the “celestial” Jesus. Why would we have records of so many anti-Christian arguments and heresies, but nothing left recording the arguments between Christians that believed in a flesh and blood Christ and those who thought that he was merely “celestial?”
 
.
The Catholic Church holds that the Gospels are historical. The Second Vatican Council taught: “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation.” (“Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” chapter v, section 19).

This is not meant to stifle discussion, but to say what what is in accord with the Catholic faith in the matter.
 
Last edited:
Mark’s gospel was written to and for the Romans. The Romans were merely interested in the “facts” and didn’t really give a hoot about the “spiritual” aspect of Christ. Remember the Romans had their own Gods, and didn’t need some Jewish “deity” messing things up. This might account for the nature of Mark’s writing
 
You have to keep in mind that much of what was written at the time was more concerned about the story and effect of what happened as opposed to the exact time frame or details. We live in a world of precise timing and facts for facts sake. When your clock was a rough observation of where the sun was in the sky, society looked and felt different. When your news was from essentially rumors that spread through out the land and reading a first hand account written down was impossible because you were illiterate. You might really only see 100 or 500 people different people in your lifetime since your world was limited to the next two towns over.
 
We must remember the Early Church contained all manner of ideas on who Jesus was, and the focus mostly, was on the Divinity of Jesus. That’s what the Council Of Nicea was about. Refuting some of the errors and heresy about Jesus, and confessing Jesus the Son Of God and Divine,
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
Interesting that they’d attack Mark as allegorical. Of all the gospels it is generally the most down to earth and generally agreed to be the earliest of the canonical gospels (large part of why it’s always been my favorite NT book). I’d much rather expect John to end up on the receiving end of such claims.
Click to expand...
Aah, but if you attack John, then the Synoptic Gospels still stand unmolested.

Attack the earliest Gospel, though, and you can attempt to make the claim that Jesus wasn’t real at all. (It would be an invalid claim, and only the lunatic fringe makes it, but it’s a claim that’s nevertheless made by some.) 😉
 
My cousin makes this claim (not a historian). He thinks Jesus was fabricated by the Romans to keep the Jews in check. He got the idea from that Zeitgeist movie.
 
The early Church contained many different ideas of who Jesus was but the “celestial Jesus” idea was not one of them. If it was, cite direct ancient evidence.
 
Are you meaning to ask me this question? If so perhaps define

‘Celestial ‘ first, and is your definition the same as the OP

Then we can look at Jesus-movement ideas and see if one matches. Simple!
 
Last edited:
Maybe I misunderstood how the term “Celestial Jesus” was used at the beginning of the thread, but I thought that it was referring to a contemporary fringe-theory you see people pushing on the internet that claims that the disciples, apostles, and NT authors did not believe Jesus existed as a human or even as a human -like apparition, but that he existed only in heaven. The theory claims that the Gospels were not meant to be dishonest but allegorical and that their original audiences understood them that way. Maybe that’s not what other people were talking about and I was just confused. But there were no ancient refutations of the theory I just described, because no ancient people thought that that’s what Christians believed.
 
Perhaps the op will explain the use of celestial in this context.

The Bible contains many different genres, allegory is one of them. We see a lot of it in the parables. What layers of meaning are in the story? What political and social statements are in a parable. Jesus was so controversial to the Jewish leadership because He preached reversal. And this reversal is to be found in His parables and sermons.

So it is accurate to say the Gospels contain allegory. Mark wrote in a very politically charged and dangerous time for the Jesus-movement. It was a time of the destruction or leading up to, of the temple and martyrdom of early Christians.
I am not sure what edifying Jesus means though? And who are the historians and what is their context.

Edifying is seeking to produce, improve, instruct.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t worry about it. Non-biblical history records Jesus, the other synoptic gospels and The Gospel of John record Jesus.

The theory of allegory as it pertains to Christ’s existence is pretty safely a bunch of junk.

We’re about as reasonably sure of Jesus’s existence as we are virtually any other pre-modern person.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
The Bible contains many different genres, allegory is one of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I was talking specifically about thinking the claim that there was a guy named Jesus who had a body, who walked around and talked to people, they think THAT was allegorical and that the first Christians understood it to be allegorical. If I recall correctly some Gnostics thought Jesus didn’t really become man but they still thought that he appeared to people.

The pseudo-historians that I am talking about are people like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald. Carrier uses the term “Celestial Jesus”

Look at the “Celestial Jesus” section of his Wikipedia Page

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top