JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding "Mark's" presentation of Joseph of Arimathea:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15

Per The Legendary Peter (Kirby)

We need two qualities to rise above the level of speculation:

1) The figurative use would be recognizable to the audience.

2) Figurative use of a name would fit the author's style.

Recognizable could be reading or hearing. In Carrier's breakout the sound would be about the same:

Ari-------------------------mathea

Ari = prefix for "superior"----matheia = "disciple town"

2) is easily demonstrated in this Thread.

The author may have intended "best disciple town" but changed it a little to make it sound like a town (he may very well have had "Ramoth" in mind). I use that style all the time.

I hereby unleash my heretofore unknown criteria for figurative use of names (I really should be charging you guys for this):

Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

1) Recognition through reading or sound. Demonstrated above.

2) Demonstrated style of the author. Demonstrated above.

3) Contextual fit. A character sympathetic to Jesus accepts his body just as John's disciples accepted his body.

4) Thematic fit. Action expected of Jesus' disciples, accepting his body (really "accepting" his death. Understand dear Reader?), replaced by stranger to Jesus.

5) Lack of known literal fit. The cruncher as the Brits say. No one has any idea where the hell "Arimathea" is.

6) Fictional story. The overall Empty Tomb story is likely fiction which means the default for any individual piece is fiction.

I have to confess that without any direct evidence I can not prove the above. But I think it is a reasonable possibility. On to ErranyWiki as a Neutral observation Mark 15:43



Joseph of Aricawithia

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

What Was The Name of the Tax Collector?

Per "Mark" it was "Levi". "Matthew" changed the name to "Matthew". "Levi" sounds contrived as the Levites were the Priestly tribe that survived on taxes. That "Matthew" felt motivated to exorcise "Levi" (because it was too Jewish) is additional evidence that the name was contrived (it sounded contrived to "Matthew").



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" has a literary style of replacing major characters with multiple characters with the same name. Presumably the most important natural character to Jesus would have been his father. Since per "Mark" Jesus' replacement father is God, no natural character would have had the same name = Jesus' natural father is not named.

The next most natural character to Jesus would have been his mother. The key which unlocks "Mark", The Parable of the Sower ("Juewee! Juewee! Here Juey Juey. Come here Juey Juey"), explains that the result of discipleship is multiplication:

Mark 4:8

"Mark" is kind enough to make the major theme of family replacement explicit:

Mark 3

Putting the two together the good seed/disciple will fall/suffer but will give rise to multiple good seeds.

And here we see "Mark" replace the mother Mary who fell from discipleship with two Marys who are still following Jesus:

Mark 16



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark's" overall style of fictional use of names has already been well established. Here's another one regarding Jesus of Nazareth:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Note that this is the first invokation (incantation?) of the offending word. The first spirit that encounters Jesus, than interprets the connection:

The explanation is that Jesus is referred to as a Nazarene because he is frum Nazareth. This is the only explicit connection in the text. The clever sub-text however is that Nazarenes are the Holy Ones of God.

Sticking with the Text, Jesus' Mission (by the Way, a story consisting souly of a Mission would be unknown for Bios but textbook for Greek Tragedy) starts by coming from Nazareth of Galilee and:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

ends by going back to Galilee. Note the stylish balance of "Nazareth" at the start and "Nazarene" at the end. The only use of "Nazareth" to "Mark" appears to be a reason to label Jesus a "Nazarene". "Mark" is clear that Jesus' home is Capernaum so he lacks any other reason to mention Nazareth.

Something else that looks contrived is that the only archeological fact everyone seems to agree on is that Nazareth had tombs. So Jesus is coming from the tombs at the start and coming from the tomb at the end.

In the context of HJ/MJ, another consideration is that if there was an HJ from Nazareth, since Nazareth at the time was either nothing or very small, it's unlikely that PJ (possible Jesus), a great Teacher & Faith Healer, grew up there.

I've previously listed Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

1) Recognition through reading or sound. "Nazareth" verses "Nazarene".

2) Demonstrated style of the author. Demonstrated by this Thread.

3) Contextual fit. Jesus' description as Nazarene fits as the holy one of god.

4) Thematic fit. I've demonstrated in this Thread:

Jewish Bible Prophecy Fulfillment By Jesus According To “Mark�?

that "Mark's" claims of prophecy fulfillment are always ironic. Jesus being identified as a Nazarene because he was from Nazareth is ironic.

5) Lack of known literal fit. This is dependent on whether there was a Nazareth and to what extent in Jesus' supposed time. There may have been a Nazareth so there is a potential literal fit. But not a good one.

6) Fictional story. Since the text provides no historical reason for why Jesus would have come from Nazareth and is merely movement between two clearly primarily fictional stories, prophecy from the Jewish Bible and the Baptism, it is likely fictional (that HJ came from Nazareth to John the Baptist).

By the Way. AA keeps whining that these types of arguments for fiction are "speculative" and "ad hoc" implying they have no criteria. They do have criteria. AA just ignores the criteria. Speaking of which, for those who need points sharply explained, again, proving it likely that there was a Nazareth in Jesus' supposed time does not prove that "Jesus came from Nazareth". That would be proof-texting.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Vorkosigan

Yes, that's why I put AA on ignore a long time ago. Much peace of mind was thereby gained.

I think it is rather obvious that Nazareth was never in Mark, and find Hjalti's suggestion in the other thread that Mark got the Nazarene designation from the OT....:

• http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=303947&page=2
  Merely coincidental! Ok, we have this hebrew term, nazir, which is translated as "holy of god" and "naz-[something]" in the LXX. Then we have a passage where Jesus is called both "holy of god" and "naz-[something]". It doesn't look coincidental to me. Why would you think, from reading Mark, that it has anything to do with a town called Nazareth?

....to be quite interesting.

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
I want to start this post by issuing a refresher of:

Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

1) Recognition through reading or sound.

2) Demonstrated style of the author.

3) Contextual fit.

4) Thematic fit.

5) Lack of known literal fit.

6) Fictional story.

I've demonstrated many times on these unholy Boards that in general "Mark" as a whole is primarily fiction and specifically the individual stories are primarily fiction, so the default position for any individual story in "Mark" is that it is Fiction.

The next Name case study is Jairus:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_5

I have Faith that everyone here has learned by now that the Christian commentaries generally assume that everything is historical. If you want to evaluate historicity, do your due diligence and start out with the Legendary Vorkosigan's blessed historical commentary on "Mark":

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark05.html

So the assertion here is that "Mark" created/selected (fiction) the name "Jairus" because it has a meaning of "awaken" which is the primary theme/point of the related story. Of course the Vorkster's word is as good as gold here and truth-seekers need nothing more. But for those who require more than Skeptic evidence:

http://biblos.com/judges/10-3.htm

http://biblos.com/psalms/57-8.htm

Not an exact match, but similar. The name "Jair" has a Yod at the start which "awake" does not. Other than that the words are pretty similar phonetically. Aleph vs. Ayin are both silent and both have the Resh as the dominant consonant sound.

Would a Greek speaker get the connection? Probably not, "awaken" is only potentially in the related Hebrew. Would a Hebrew speaker make the connection? If one was looking for this Type of connection, I think so. I wouldn't complain if spin chimed in here. I think this explains why "Matthew" exorcised "Jairus". He knew the Hebrew connection.

Bonus material for Solo. On a very related note, the use of "Jairus" also explains "Mark's" peculiar use of Gerasa for location of the preceding Jewrassic Pork story. "Mark" again wants to make a phonetic connection =

Gerasa = Jairus

http://biblos.com/mark/5-1.htm

http://biblos.com/mark/5-22.htm



Joseph of Erricawithia

ErrancyWiki

lmbarre

Mark 1:1 ruins the story by telling them what to conclude regarding this person of Jesus rather than following the story of how the "true identity" of Jesus was variously recognized and unrecognized by certain parties at different times.

aa5874

There are more than one Mark 1.1.

lmbarre

The Markan theme messianic secret should be understood in the context of Jesus finally revealing publicly that he thought he was the Messiah. So the theme moves from Jesus' publicly concealed secret to his revelation of the secret at his trial. "I am the Messiah."

But according to my understanding, the fact of Jesus' death demonstrated that he was not the Messiah who would free his people and take his seat as the king of the messianic age.

No messianic age (as portrayed in Dan 7:13f to which Jesus alluded), no Messiah. In my view, it was the failure of the messianic age to appear that led Jesus to think that his god had abandoned him. While gMark does not think that Jesus was the Messiah, his positive assessment is expressed in the words of the Centurion that Jesus was a "son of God," not the Messiah that Jesus thought he was.

So the plot of the story compared with the claims of Mk 1:1 is only partially "correct." Jesus whas not the Christ (demonstrated by his death) but he was a "son of god" as a Roman would understand this phrase. Mk 1:1 uses the term in a Christian context to mean, "the Son of God." Although it is certainly true that Mark uses the dullness of the disicples as a foil to the truly informed reader, Mark's title for the story spills the beans prematurely, not letting the reader figure out for himself, from the narrative, who and what Jesus was and what he was not.

aa5874

It is extremely critical that it is remembered that the author of gMark claimed his Jesus admitted he was the Son of the Blessed and the Christ.

The EARLIEST gMark was written PRECISELY to make people BELIEVE gMark's Jesus was the Son of the Blessed and the Christ and that it was his Abandonment, Rejection, and Crucifixion by Jews was the CAUSE of the Fall of the Jewish Temple.