JoeWallack

JW:
Witness is like Real Estate in that it has 3 important criteria to determine its value:

Source, source and source.

For purposes of this Thread it will be assumed that "Mark" is the original Gospel narrative and therefore the primary source for "John". It will also be assumed that "Mark" has a primary objective of discrediting the Disciples as witnesses while "John" has the opposite primary objective of crediting the Disciples as witnesses. We have the ironic result than that while using "Mark" as a primary source, "John" does not simply edit or just change "Mark's" primary objective, but makes it the opposite. This conclusion is useful in the raging MJ/GJ/HJ debate as it is support that "John" had no available historical witness and relatively minor alternative legends casting doubt on HJ.

What this Thread will be concerned with than is not whether "John" is a reaction and denial of "Mark's" presentation of the Disciples as witnesses because this reaction and denial is an assumption of this Thread, but rather how "John" reacts and denies.

On to the evidence:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

Compare to:

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

JW:
Note that "Mark" is interested in literary style here with pleasing language. Simon and Andrew were fishers who wanted to become fishers of men. Long on style and short on motivation.

"John" has changed the intro of the Disciples to show that they were already in the service (so to speak) and presumably actively looking for the Messiah. In other words (so to speak), they are motivated.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

The Sage and Messiah of Reason candidate, Bart Ehrman, points out that people are in the habit of reading the Gospels vertically rather than horizontally. Reading vertically you have a gradual transition from discrediting the Disciples to crediting the Disciples as follows:

1) "Mark" = Discredits the Disciples. No Disciple source for Jesus' witness. The source is the Gospel = revelation.

2) "Matthew" = Takes "Mark's" basic story with some editing to reduce discrediting and add crediting and ending which flips discrediting to crediting. Implication that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness.

3) "Luke" = Takes less of "Mark's" basic story with more editing to reduce discrediting and add crediting and ending which flips discrediting to crediting. Adds companion work (Acts) which makes explicit that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness.

4) "John" = Only takes the frame of "Mark" and completely remakes to credit the Disciples as witnesses from the start and not only make explicit that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness but also the source for the Gospel ("John"). You've come a long way baby Jesus.

Remove the middlemen/women though and the contrast between "Mark" and "John" becomes clear (or at least should become clear).




Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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

Solo

Yup. In Mark, when the ground rule for competence in the gospel is spelled out (4:10-11), the disciples (the twelve) are not spoken to by Jesus. When Jesus was alone, those with him and the twelve, asked him. He answers them. The exchange between Jesus and the Pauline gospel "knowers" is telepathic.


Both Matt and Luke, in the parallel passages to Mk 4:10-11 (Mt 13:10-15, Lk 8:9-10) remove the original koan and make the disciples (in "local" time and space to Jesus) ask the question about the parables. By having Jesus endorse them, ('to you it has been given)' they become witnesses to the gospel !

What a dirty little trick ! :huh:

Don't agree at all ! John restores the original Markan paradigm. True, he does not re-discredit Peter and Co. but puts them in status under "the beloved disciple", which I take is a compacted and extruded version of the Markan "knower" of the kingdom imported into the story. John further operates with "the paraclete" as the ultimate arbiter of truth across time zones. These kinds of props would have run counter to apostolic authority in Johanine churches.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Let he who has ears hear. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Excellent observation Jiri but you are speaking "Mark's" language so the multitudes here will not understand the secret meaning:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4:10

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=4&verse=10

καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο κατὰ μόνας ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ(the ones) περὶ(around) αὐτὸν(him) σὺν(with) τοῖς(the) δώδεκα(twelve) τὰς παραβολάς

This is not the twelve asking Jesus about the parable. It is "the ones" with the twelve.

We have the motivation than for copyists to Forge. Metzger and even Wee Willie Wielker, fail to inventory this, as my uncle used to say (referring to Washington Redskins games), "very critical" textual variation. We have to turn to Zuhl! for the answers:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=Mark+4%3A10

Note that some English translations try to avoid the problem with mistranslations:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;49;77;15;16;

What is also ReMarkable as supporting "Mark's" presentation here as not for the benefit of the disciples is the use of "ἠρώτων", the imperfect form of "ask". They were "asking", indicating this was not intended to be a historical (past) conversation. A fine example of those on the outside, without understanding of "Mark's" meaning, misunderstanding it as bad grammar rather than style.

In the big picture, notice the delicious ironic contrast sandwich "Mark" creates, better served in my Mark "I Am IronyMan". How Much Ironic Contrast, Transfer and Reversal Did He kraM? Thread, where "Mark" creates an ironic situation by itself, sticks irony in the middle and contrasts the top irony with the bottom irony:

[bread]Jesus teaches openly to the multitudes but the meaning is secret[/bread]

[meat]Jesus' teaching is about teaching[/meat]

[bread]Jesus teaches secretly to the few but the meaning is opened[/bread]

If there's anything divine about the Christian Bible its the literary skill of this author. I feel like Butch Cassidy when he was being chased by the posse and kept saying, "Who are those guys?". "Mark" is a long way from a hearer of an illiterate Galilean fisherman's teachings about Jesus writing what he remembered (but not in order).

More in line with this Thread note that "John" has to exorcise the entire parable of the Sower (the key parable of the Synoptics) because "John" is in complete and utter denial that there was any failure to understand Jesus on the part of the Disciples. The biggest enemy of "John's" Jesus is not Magus, Cerinthius or Marcion. It's "Mark's" Jesus.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

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

Note the literary style here. Jesus calls and James and John immediately follow leaving their father and their wealth behind. As Hobbes would say, "Mark" has a wonderful economy of speech."

"John" rejects "Mark's" rejection of family theme. He can not use his source's James and John calling story because it is a rejection of family story. Note that "John" never names "James" and "John" as disciples. I repeat, note that "John" never names "James" and "John" as disciples. As that great 20th century philosopher, ALF, used to say, "Look it up.". "John" does have "those of Zebedee" at the end which may be intended to refer to the James and John of his source.

"John" was likely originally written as figurative with the "beloved disciple" as a figurative source and than OCD (mis)took it as literal and claimed the "beloved disciple" was a historical source and later, specifically "John" (just as "Luke" did with his source).

Exorcising "Mark's" rejection of family theme was not enough for "John" as he felt the need to explicitly deny it via narrative at the end:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_19



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

JW:
No Messianic Secret here. Andrew and Simon immediately ID and understand Jesus is the messiah. Compare to the source:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

JW:
Here, at the end of Jesus' Ministry (and right before the Passion - The Transfiguration splits them in two Acts) Peter guesses that Jesus is the Christ but Jesus tells him to dummy up (no deal). "John" is reacting to and denying "Mark's" disciples as not knowing and understanding who Jesus was. The reaction is to place the knowledge and understanding at the beginning.

Likewise for Jesus' other role in "Mark", the son of God. In the source:

Here the disciples never ID Jesus or understand what his only important quality was, the son of god. Their lack of understanding is contrasted by an outsider's (Roman) who is the first to understand.

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

"John" immediately has his disciples ID and understand Jesus as the son of god.

Bonus material for Solo. Note that in "Mark" Jesus predicts his Passion and plainly communicates it to his Disciples:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

"Mark's" Jesus does this 3 times to make clear that it was a clear communication to the Disciples who clearly never understood the prediction.

"John's" reaction is to deny there was any clear Passion prediction for the Disciples to understand by exorcising it:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_16



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

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

JW:
A lot of information here:

1) Ironic Contrast/Balance Style - At the start Jesus comes from the dead - Nazareth was a cemetery at the time. At the end Jesus comes from the dead.

2) Ironic Contrast/Balance Style - At the start Jesus comes from nowhere out of Galilee. At the end Jesus goes to nowhere in Galilee.

3) Ironic Contrast/Balance Style - At the start the spirit is creative ("rent asunder"). At the end it is destructive (curtain "rent asunder").

4) Contrast - The baptism of men (John) is physical (water). The baptism of God (Dove) is spiritual (air).

5) Separationist - At the start the Spirit goes "into" Jesus (not "onto"). At the end the Spirit leaves Jesus. This is why the Christ, speaking through Jesus, explains that it will be hard to recognize when it returns. You have to recognize the Spirit, not the man.

6) For our purposes in this Thread Jesus is clearly baptized by John physically, with water, but as to source witness it is only Jesus who is the witness ("And straightway coming up out of the water", "he saw", "Thou" and "thee").

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

JW:
Note that "John" does not show Jesus being baptized by "John". The purpose of the baptism in "Mark" is to show the christological moment (the spiritual baptism) to the Reader. Jesus is the only narrative witness. There is no claim of any narrative witness who would subsequently be a source. "John" rents asunder "Mark's" meaning of the Spirit descending into Jesus. In "Mark", "Mark"
itself is the source which shows the christological moment of Jesus becoming Christ. In "John", John the Baptist is the source who claims that the Spirit descending merely identifies Christ, as opposed to "Mark's" creation of Christ (which "John" places at the Beginning).

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

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

JW:
The key points:

1) "Mark's" Jesus is a man of action during the First Act or Ministry. Everything is done "immediately". This will be Ironically contrasted with Jesus as a man of inaction during the Second Act or Passion. "Mark's" source for the Passion is Galatians where Paul instructs to "crucify" one's passions to be like Jesus. Paul explains here the figurative meaning of "crucify" (my guess is this was also supported by the two exorcised letters to the Corinthians). "Mark" took Paul's instruction to Paul's audience and applied it to "Mark's" Jesus.

2) In the original story the key conclusion of the audience is authority. Everyone agrees that Jesus has authority. This leaves the next and final question open. By who's authority?

3) Regarding the answer to this question only the spirit (evil) knows the answer ("I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God)". Private and sub-text knowledge.

4) As usual the story is told in pleasing language with the chiasms consistent with Aristotle's definition of Greek Tragedy.

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_2

JW:

1) "John" exorcises contrived sounding "immediately" with "the third day".

2) "John" exorcises the issue of authority.

3) Most importantly, "John" rejects and denies "Mark's" primary theme that the disciples never believed in Jesus. John asserts that the disciples believed in Jesus at the start.

4) What I find most biased about the Christians here is a denial of Markan chiasms. See what kind of chiasm you can make out of "John's" story above.

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

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

JW:
The key points:

1) "Mark's" Jesus' first sign was casting out an evil spirit.

2) "Mark's" Jesus received the spirit of God.

3) "Mark's" Jesus' Mission is to give the holy spirit.

4) "Mark's" Jesus goes through Galilee casting out demons.

5) "Mark's" Jesus instructs his disciples to cast out demons.

6) "Mark's" Jesus loses it (his spirit) on the stake.

In "Mark's" theological universe the diechotomy is good vs. evil spirit. The good spirit is God's and the bad spirit is Satan's.

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_2

JW:

1) "John's" Jesus' first sign was turning water into wine.

2) "John's" Jesus never received the spirit of God.

3) "John" has exorcised Jesus giving the holy spirit.

4) "John's" Jesus never casts out a demon. Look it up.

5) "John's" Jesus never instructs his disciples to cast out demons.

6) "John's" Jesus does not lose it (his spirit) on the stake. He does give it up though.

In "John's" theological universe the diechotomy is flesh vs. spirit. Flesh is bad and spirit is always good.

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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

JoeWallack

JW:
I've created a subcategory of Themes for the error category of Contradictions at ErrancyWiki which includes the above Thematic contradiction between "Mark" and "John". Everyone is welcome to contribute except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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

Solo

Mark dumbs down Paul's opponents, 'the enemies of the cross' (of Phl 3:18-3:21) and sets up the passion as the
allegorical moral triumph of the Pauline church over the pillars' disciples now scattered in the Diaspora.

Ahhhh......! My favourite passage from John ! Do you understand what John is saying ?

Now you see me...and now you don't....you'll be sorrowful (depressed) when you miss me and joyfully exuberant (euphoric manic) when you see me. ...........

And when you have me, you are in a marriage feast - you drink water, and I make your head spin as if it was wine. I'll even make you look drunk. Btw, the 'marriage' and 'bridegroom' cipher also appears to derive from Paul and Mark (2 Cor 11:2, Mk 2:19-20).

Now, obviously there are differences between Mark and John: John actually destroys the underlying Markan plan of the passion, as the definitive "cycling out" of the spirit. The gospel of Mark is based on a single "spirit" cycle (and perhaps that is why he leaves out the "temptation" in the desert which it appears he knows about but which allegorizes the cycling out of the manic grandeur in another way). John, I take to be a "rapid cycler" (i.e. someone who goes up and down very quickly) something best illustrated by the viscous emotions of Jesus during the Lazarus extraction scene.
As for the disciples; as in Mark they do not 'see' Jesus the same way as the one who is 'loved', i.e. chosen to know the deeper mystery. Like the knowing followers in Mark, this character is a non-local insert into the story. Ihe important departure from Mark is in that in John's community, those who do not 'know' the mystery are not being condescended to but patronized (as per the anti-Thomasian blessing of Jn 20:29) by the gospel.

Jiri

Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

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