Newton's Cat

When I read the Gospel of Mark I see, clearly see, two authors - an original author, and another who altered the story, calculatedly and deliberately.

The original author seems a nice guy ... but I don't like the other one.

I wonder who they were?

The original story was a play ... meant to be seen by a sophisticated audience.

Whoever wrote it was one really smart guy ...

The character St Peter was invented by the second author.

I'm conjuring with the idea that he may have been the founder of Catholicism.

An example of an alteration to the original text:

'And they left the synagogue and entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon's mother-in-law was laid aside, fever stricken ....

Originally read:

And he left the synagogue and entered into his house, with James & John. Now his mother-in-law was laid aside, fever stricken ...

The "with James and John" bit gives it away ... "it" being that the story's been altered.

The sequence of Jesus dealing with the guy in the synagogue, the mother-in-law bit, and the healing of the leper makes more sense if it was his own mother-in-law he was dealing with.

Jesus was confronted in the synagogue directly, he was confronted by the leper, and he was confronted by his fever-stricken mother-in-law'.

I still haven't figured out who Zebedee is (he was in the original) ... can anyone enlighten me?

Mark 1, 43 is the second author's response to verses 40-42 ... he obviously didn't like what he'd just read. Verse 43 is an interpolation. Simply leave out verse 43 when you read this.

neilgodfrey

I also have sometimes wondered about a later extensive revision of Mark. But along very different tangents from yours. You will need to give more examples and detailed explanation to sway meant to your thesis.

Neil

bacht

so far Joe Wallack has reached six hands and counting ("The Tale Wagging the Dogma")

Jayrok

Hi NC,

How can we be so sure about this? What evidence is there besides speculation?


How do you know this is how it "originally" read?

I'm not trying to sound condescending... I'd genuinely like to study this further and see how people come to the confident conclusion that the author of Mark meant his piece as a play, or fiction.

Newton's Cat

'Came John, the one baptizing in the desert, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. And went out to him ALL the Judaean country and the Jerusalemites ALL, and were baptised by him in the Jordan river, confessing the sins of them.'

.... and it came to pass, in those days, came Jesus from Galilee.

It's obviously a play. The author obviously did NOT expect the audience/readers to believe it was supposed to be a true, historical story.

The scene is of a MASS conversion of the people of Judaea ... followed by Jesus coming down from ISRAEL.

mountainman

And when they wrote.
And who sponsored them.



Best wishes,



Pete

spamandham

I think it likely multiple authors were involved, but why do you think it was originally a play. It reads more like a novel.

spin

Definitely not six hands, just conflicting accounts as to who Mark was supposed to have been. Nothing directly to do with the text.


spin

Newton's Cat

Mark 6, 1 >>

And he went forth thence and comes into the native place of him, and follow him the disciples of him. And when came a sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and the many hearing were astonished saying: Whence to this man these things, and what the wisdom given to him? And the powerful deeds such through the hands of him coming about? Is not this man the young boy (I changed this from "carpenter", the words are very similar in Greek), the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not the sisters of him here with us ....

Jesus had obviously been away for a while because they remembered him as a young boy. The idea that Jesus was a carpenter is derived from this change of one letter in this word - which changed the meaning from "young boy" to "carpenter".

Now:

The original story was "split" at this point. The continuation is to be found back at Chapter 3, 31:

And come the mother of him and the brothers of him, and outside standing sent to him calling him (his sisters weren't with their mother and brothers because they were already there ... as it says in Chapter 6.

And sat round him a crowd, and they say to him: Behold the mother of thee and the brothers of thee and the sisters of thee outside seek thee (the sisters had gone out?). And answering them he says: Who is the mother of me and the brothers? And looking round at the ones round him in a circle sitting he says: Behold the mother of me and the brothers of me. Whoever does the will of God this one is brother of me and sister and mother is.

Now we go back to Chapter 6 with:

And they were offended at him

Then back to Chapter 3, 30:

Because they said: An unclean spirit he has.

... and back to Chapter 6.

And said to them Jesus: A prophet is not unhonoured except in the native place of him.

Having reconstructed what I perceived to be the "original story" I've spent a number of years trying to figure out why Jesus' mother and brothers didn't simply go into the Synagogue ... maybe they weren't allowed in?

... but why was the story chopped up? It seems to have been done deliberately. Presumably whoever altered it disagreed with something in it?

Someone will have to prove I'm not right before I let go of this one.

I noticed this the first time I read the New Testament (back around 1970).

renassault

You made your own story, which may be plausible (anyone can rearrange something and make it seem plausible), but doesn't seem to be needed. You yourself refuted your theory with two points:

1. Why didn't they go in the synangogue
2. Why would anybody do this in the first place?