Nazaroo

This seems pretty reasonable. Although there are a few miracles in Mark, they are of the travelling 'magician' type, and the story is not simply an opus of astounding 'miracles'. One of Mark's features is its brevity, and lack of both miracle-story and sayings of Jesus. Its the short newspaper account for dummies. On this basis, we could even expect a few exaggerations and an over-emphasis on miraculous events.

Many of the 'miracle' stories seem inferior as 'shockers', and more like the expected background of belief / superstition of the times, at least in Mark's circle.

Presumably, at least some people, many commoners, slaves, illiterate fishermen and farmers having to cope with malnutrition, accidental poisonings, mentally deficient children, epileptic seizures, heat-stroke, desert-blindness, crippling injuries without medical treatment, should be expected to have a corpus of 'superstitious beliefs' about demons and invisible 'forces' behind unfortunate tragedies.

Even if it could be shown that some better educated 'priests' or philosophers were skeptical of 'miracles' in the time of Jesus, this would have little impact upon Mark's story and his presumed audience.

People who believe in demon possession as an explanation of epilepsy are going to want to here literal stories about it. How do you get around that, and the perpetuation of the very superstitions that even Jesus Himself may have been inclined to try to correct? (e.g. Jesus' discussion of 'demons' and blasphemy!)

Why not take Mark at face-value, believing in demons and 'miracles' as a kind of norm for the illiteracy and superstition of the period?

On what basis do you think Mark was a skeptical atheist-philosopher who was talking through his hat about demons and miracles? What if he was simply exactly as he appears: a near illiterate Jewish fisherman or whatever, babbling about the rumours he has heard concerning Jesus?

Where's the 'intent to commit fiction'?

Roland

At least two of the names in Mark's tale strike me as suspicious:

the man who betrays Jesus just happens to be named Judas, a derivative, I assume, of Judah, making Judas a symbolic representative of the Jews.

Barabbas means "son of the father," which places him in direct opposition to Jesus who is THE Son of THE Father. It seems more than highly coincidental that Pilate has to choose between these two similarly identified people.

yalla

]
Also interesting, with respect to Barabbas, is that in many manuscripts of the gospel of "Matthew" he is given the name "Jesus Barabbas", and Philo ["In Flaccum" VI, 36-39] describes a scene in Alexandria where a man named Carabbas is crowned, robed and paraded and mocked as the "King of the Jews" as comment on the appointment by Rome of Agrippa 1 to that title c 40something CE.

JoeWallack

JW:
"Matthew", "Luke" and "John" all give the supposed origin of Jesus. I'm not aware of any Narrative Gospel that doesn't (besides "Mark"). The Jewish Bible gives the origin of Moses. Apollonius has an origin. Is there any other ancient writing here with an extended Narrative of the Hero that does not give the origin such as at least a Father or Heaven? The better question here is is "Mark's" presentation of Jesus' name regarding origin unique rather than unusual.

"Mark" does later mention that Jesus' mother was Mary and that his home was Galilee so I do have to qualify my assertion of Jesus' unusual origin according to "Mark". Regarding the question of Fiction concerning "Mark's" presentation of Jesus' name and lineage here if Internally "Mark" has a good Literary reason
not to present Jesus' lineage this supports a conclusion of Fiction in General. "Mark" chooses not to give a historically expected name because Literary style is more important to him. A priMary theme of "Mark" is the question of Who exactly Jesus is ("Who do men say that I am?) and thus we have Internal style to support and explain an unhistorical type presentation. This of course does not prove Fiction, by itself it is only a small suggestion.

JW:
An excellent counter-point. We can be pretty sure of the root name in Hebrew/Aramaic just based on the Greek. My point stands though that literally no one is sure exactly what Jesus' name was. If you are an Orthodox Jew than the familiar phrase "his name and words shall be blotted out forever" and the thought that the only authentic words of Jesus (Aramaic) as preserved by Christianity are his final words "My God, my God, why have you left me?" from a proof-texting standpoint would be exponentially better evidence that Jesus was really the bad guy than any proof-texting the Christians can try to use that Jesus was the good guy per the Jewish Bible.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solo

Ok., I kind of wondered; the opening verse looks heavy-footed.

I agree with this. I also think that he inserts the Reader(s) into the story as the outsiders who "get the kingdom" whereas the disciples don't. There is a hilarious Markan "slyness" about 4:10-11. He is alone with his "twelve" and the a group whom I call the "convulsives". The latter group asks him why he speaks in parables. Jesus says "to you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom, but to those 'outside' (of the secret) everything is in parables".
And immediately, Jesus gives - to this mixed group a bunch of ......what else, parables.....but in the end he explains everything to his own disciples, in private. The storm in the evening that follows is again a clue to those who know the kingdom.

Yeah, but my problem with Luke is that when he created his Leben Jesu he made Jesus look like one of his own docetic disciples, if not downright Luke himself. I think the Quest for the historical Jesus really starts with Luke.

Not sure about that, Joe. But I am willing to consider it as a kind of Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

But you see that's where I can't figure where you are going. On the eve, Jesus wines and dines the "twelve" and he takes them "up" the mount and lays out the itinerary. "I will go before you to Galilee", meaning "the land of the Gentiles", meaning "see you there" ! He does not say, "I will appear to you there in my glory which you failed to recognize when I transfigured for you on Mount X". He says only, "I will go there before you", which might even read "you will be expelled and you will live among the Gentiles after I have been accepted and glorified there".

Not my understanding. My reading of Mark is that his theology is essentially Pauline and his Passion then is the Pauline absolute death (mortification) of "flesh".

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united in him in a resurrection like his." (Rom 6:5)

So, I don't share your view that Jesus' death was for Mark the glory of his throne. Quite the contrary, it was the high price of his claim of the throne ! Mark believes, as Paul believed, that the excitement "peaks" culminating in OBE, and "body full of light" is Christ beckoning from beyond time. He suffered not in vain; we suffer not in vain. The resurrection is the bodily "metamorphosis" into the numinous Nothing, that convulsives experience, that they know. No one else has the right of entry into the mystery.

The idea of a risen Jesus "wearing flesh" would be an absurdity to both Paul and Mark, an anti-thesis to their very basic beliefs. Therefore, Jesus would not be putting in "appearances". Jesus post-mortem appearing in flesh to his disciples (the twelve and others) is a later formulaic articulation of faith, an artificial resolution of what essentially was cast as paradox by Paul and the early gospel mystic. When the women come to seek Jesus' body, it is not there ! This is not just a Markan way of ridiculing the thick-as-a-brick, saying to them: "own it amigos, he's gone, gone. Gone to Galilee !" I believe that this is also Mark's ultimate irony. Jesus was executed, among other things, for sacrilege and sorcery, in burying his adepts baptismally in tombs. This sometimes had effects as intended: the suppression of sleep, sensory deprivation, the dread of experiencing death (in proximity of another dead bodies), would trigger some form of temporal lobe "event", in which the Danielic Son of man arrived on clouds to announce the adept arrived in the kingdom. This cultic practice was continued after the crucifixion by Peter, John and others, but was frowned on by the Paulines who saw in it a dumb idolatry the worshippers of the "other Jesus" were naturally inclined to. Mark then plays a trick on the women, representing the dumb disciples searching for the 'soma tou Christou' (which of course only Paul's and Mark's true believers get). The fear drives them away and makes them dumb, i.e. incapable of telling a gospel.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Well let's just see what "Mark" has to say about that:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

1.1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;"

JW:
Supernatural prophecy.

1.4 "John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins."

JW:
"All" would be practically Impossible

1:5 "And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.

And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit."

JW:
Impossible.

1:9 "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased."

JW:
Sounds Impossible I know but I offer you Three Possible explanations:

1) Among his many other talents Jesus was also the World's foremost ventriloguist.

2) The voice was actually that of an extremely young George Burns rehearsing for his future role in Oh God Part Jew.

3) The voice was actually that of one of God's previously unknown silent partners who under the terms of The Agreement was required to remain silent for the first 4,000 years of The Contract.

1:12 "And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness.

And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; And he was with the wild beasts; And the angels ministered unto him."

JW:
Playing Immortal Combat with Beezelbub.

1:14 "Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.

And going on a little further, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets.

And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him."

JW:
A Heaven's door to door salesman convinces them to abandon their property and families and help him start a soul franchise. Possible you say but these are Jews he convinced with a few words and no written contract.

1:21 "And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught.

And they were astonished at his teaching: For he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.

And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.

And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about."

JW:
What exactly did Jesus teach? Guess it wasn't that important. Maybe it was the story of the guy who tied his ass to a tree and than walked three miles. There is also an exorcism in a synagogue. Could that Possibly have a Figurative meaning?

1:29 "And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

Now Simon`s wife`s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her:

and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them."

JW:
Exorcism. Apparently Simon also forgot the name of his own mother in law which is perhaps the most Impossible claim in all of the Gospel. When Simon stayed home sick from school was the excuse note he brought the next day signed "Epstein's Mother"?

1:32 "And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were possessed with demons.

And all the city was gathered together at the door.

And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him."

JW:
Exorcisms.

1:35 "And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert place, and there prayed.

And Simon and they that were with him followed after him;

and they found him, and say unto him, All are seeking thee.

And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth.

And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons."

JW:
Exorcisms.

1:40 "And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.

And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean.

And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out,

and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter."

JW:
Exorcism. It's actually somewhat difficult to go through Jesus' supposed ministry and not find an Impossible element in an individual story. You get the point. or maybe better said, you should get the point.

I will qualify here that in "Mark's" Ironically Contrasting style before Jesus receives the Christ Spirit he is a nobody who does nothing and that is why there is no mention of this period. After he receives the Spirit of God his Nature is to Serve others. This he does with Impossible actions. The Transfiguration flips the Story from Jesus Serving others to Jesus not Serving himself during his passion. Jesus does not do anything Impossible to try and Serve (Save) himself. Even "Mark's" Jesus though is subservient to "Mark's" Literary extreme contrasting style and "Mark's" Jesus does not try to Save himself because it is not in his nature to do so. It's not a choice, he is incapable of doing so. "John" especially is a reaction to this and makes it a point to grant his Jesus' the power of choice.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
You remind me of the Owen Wilson character from The Wedding Crashers. <edit>, yet intelligent and therefore capable of limited and interesting sincere conversation at times.

Writing a Narrative to make it appear that everything your Hero did was extraordinary was an accepted sophisticated Greek Literary convention of the time designed to show the quality of your Mazel Tov's character. But how would an illiterate Galilean fisherman know that?

JW:
"a near illiterate Jewish fisherman" wrote "Mark"? That would be a miracle. "Mark" has Style. It's Art. As a member of the disloyal opposition I have to confess that if there is anything potentially divine about the Christian Bible it is the artistic style of "Mark". The Style is everywhere. Take the Beginning. I've already pointed out that "Mark's" Jesus appears out of nowhere at the beginning like Clint Eastwood in one of those Kugel Westerns, A Higher Plane Drifter. What is "Mark's" point? That before Jesus received God's spirit he was a nobody and his past is unimportant. To quote the Bart, he had greatness thrust unto him (so to speak). This isn't just unusual, it's unique. Excepting for Bart Simpson, illiterates usually do not write unique, sophisticated ideas.

Ultimately Hawkin's discovery of the Evolution of the JeSpeaces will be more important than Darwin's discovery of the Evolution of the Species as it proves that none of the Gospel authors were witnesses. I have Faith that the Boys from Duke are starting to understand this and are working on The Next Generation of Apology, that "Mark" and Peter had a falling out and that is how "Mark" can be based on the witness of Peter but also be critical of him. Stephen?



Joseph

"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep." - not Nazaroo

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
You're jumping ahead of me but I think the use of "Judas" in "Mark" may be the best example of the use of a Name as evidence of Fiction in "Mark". First, the UseLyisses:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_3:19

"and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:10

"And Judas Iscariot, he that was one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests, that he might deliver him unto them."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:43

"And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders."

"Judas" would be the name most closely associated with Judah and Judea. "Mark" only uses this Name as follows in his Gospel:

1) A Brother of Jesus.

2) A Disciple of Jesus who Betrays Jesus (oh boy was he Betrayed!).

Note that most of the characters in "Mark" are not named. If "Mark's" intent was a Fictional use of Names fewer Names has the Literary advantage of making it easier for the Reader to Identify the Name connections.

As I mentioned at the start of this Thread if logical reasons for the unusual presentation of names can be identified that are consistent with Literary Themes of the author than the randomness associated with any sample is significantly reduced and we have some evidence for Fictional intent. To the extent this connection can be made for other Names, potentially the evidence for Fiction can go from "some" to "good".

Generally "Mark" has a major Theme of Jesus being Rejected by "The Jews". His use of "Judas" here fits this Theme very well as Judas was a Brother of Jesus and Disciple and Betrayed Jesus.

Specifically "Mark" has Dialogue which makes the same point:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_3

35 "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

An assertion that Judas his Brother is not his Brother and Judas his Disciple is his Brother.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_13

12 "And brother shall deliver up brother to death"

A prophecy that a Brother shall betray brother to death. Exactly what his Brother Disciple Judas did to him.

Let The Reader understand.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Nazaroo

We can work with that.

But that's not how I find Mark. If anything, at times one must suspect that Mark is written by a Jewish 'mole', who reduces the story to a parody and injects piece after piece of 'zinger' tongue-in-cheek naughtiness to ridicule the Christians while at the same time selling them a book.

I can almost hear Mark say something like:

"What suckers! They don't even know I'm an anti-Nazarene espionage agent here to derail the entire Gospel movement, by providing a quick "Cole's Notes on Christianity for Jews".

Mark often reads at times like something these people would put out:

Anti-Christian Outreach.org <--Click here.

Mark is so full of digs, slaps and backhanded 'compliments' for Christians that its hard not to think of it as a dirty little Jewish political commentary on the biggest religious movement of his day.

Mark could have been penned by an ancient day Leonard Cohen, or a not so witty Bob Dylan.


This is disappointing on the most basic 'reality check' level.

Just about every conscious near-illiterate poor person on welfare imagines himself as some kind of writer or poet or musician. It would be absurd to think that the great unwashed in Jesus' day weren't exactly the same.

And many of these semi-literate turds could put out a booklet easily as lucid as 'Mark', whether it be a 'deep and serious' political statement, a veiled underground commentary (something Jews did alot of in Jesus' day!) or just a silly-ass play on words or a theatrical piece (of which there were thousands of Greek-speaking, HELLENIZED Jews from Egypt to Rome) by some young self-important fart who thought he had some great 'Oscar Wilde' talent.

The earth is littered with the literary efforts of losers, many of which are shamelessly exploited for quick cash, like Jack Carowhack's diahorea, or Abbie Hoffman's "Steal this book" (which might be an alternate title for MARK.

But this is completely naive, and out of touch with the world of the street as it really is. You don't even have to be able to read and write to make it on the street. In fact it actually helps if you are a stupid, illiterate ethnic gangster who is willing to sell some drugs or stolen goods to spring for his DJ or musician 'rig'.

Then its just a lucky strike away from millions in record sales for insulting rap lyrics that border on illegal but are easy to memorize by teenagers.

And teenagers were the obvious target of the anti-establishment Christian movement.

People seem to think the gospels were written for aging academic twits. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody cared then or cares now whether the gospels are 'implausible' or not credible or lack 'integrity' or are 'unrealistic'.

In fact its just like you said, "art" requires deep religious or political truth, not historical truth. Anyone interpreting a political cartoon of Bush as a giant banana literally, and then denying its authenticity would be an idiot.

The cartoon is just as true as if it represented Bush with a photograph.

Teenagers and revolutionaries don't give a shiite if their hero's Magnus Opus is 'true'. The Germans didn't really care if what Hitler wrote was 'true'. It was 'TRUE' in the sense that it was what the people wanted to hear. They didn't have to be gullible or believe in its historical or scientific accuracy at all.

Mark is like Mein Camf. It is designed to start a religion or a war, not win prizes for historians.


There are leaders and followers, and those who get run over if they don't get out of the way.

RED DAVE

From Nazaroo:
Who wrote Greek?

RED DAVE