Vinnie

Given its Resurrection Day, we stayed up late and put up a small new piece for this special occasion

Technically these errors do not directly pertain to Easter day but as being part of the canonical Passion Narratives we (accurately!) include them under that heading, none the less.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/easter1.html

Its a brief comparison of the image of Jesus in GMark and GJohn from Prayer before Arrest to Death on the Cross. Its a surface treatment that compares them horizonally.

Section points summarized for convenience:

1. In Mark Jesus --greatly disturbed-- asks that the cup be taken away. In John Jesus literally scoffs at the heretical notion of asking that the cup be taken from him.
2. In Mark Jesus is seized or captured and the disciples run. In John Jesus lets the soldiers accompany him to his glorification and lets his disciples go free.
3. In Mark, Pilate interrogates Jesus. In John, Jesus interrogates Pilate.
4. In Mark, a painfully human Jesus is granted assistance carrying his cross. In John, the serenely transcendental and always-in-charge-Jesus requires no assistance at fulfilling the cup the father poured for him.
5. In Mark Jesus is offered a drink. In John Jesus says, "I am thirsty" an someone brings him a drink.
6. In Mark, Jesus lets out a loud cry and breaths his last breath. In John, knowing that all is fulfilled, Jesus chooses to give up his spirit.

Vinnie

Dean Anderson

In which one does he die shouting "Freedom! Freedom!"?

Or is that just in the Gospel of St. Mel..?

Kosh

I must say, Vinnie, that you are one tough nut to crack.

You readily admit all the problems and absurtities with Xianity, and yet still stand by it. You seem to suffer from the most bizarre form of cognitive dissonance.

quartodeciman

I am inclined to think that it is mainly oral accounts that got passed on into the gospels, and not so much written accounts. Partly remembered exchanges and explanations passed between those paleochristians might explain divergences in details. For example, one thinks that Jesus refused a drink while another doesn't remember that.

Llyricist

Actually the only thing he stands by is Jesus' historical existance...... I think

Attonitus

No. Here the trees hide the forest. This is simply a messianic arrangement. If Jesus is to condemn, hit, spit, mistreated, whipped, crucified among criminals, if he prays for his executioners, if he is buried in a rich tomb, it is simply because the Christian scribes think in Jesus as in the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.

Chili

That's just a matter of perspective. Suffering only exists in the eye of the beholder and that is what Mark is reporting. John is reporting from inside the mind of Jesus and tells us how Jesus completes his own transformation. The common wine was the show the participation of our human will to reach this noble end and hence the "now it is finished." Ie. he was in charge of his destiny until the very end.

It's just a divine comedy folks and there are hundreds of them out there.

Vinnie

Mark made use of oral and written materials. The passion narrative must be treated separately in Mark from other material the nature of which differs considerably. I do not think variations in the passion come from the divegences of oral memory (which I think virtually non-existent here) and popular remembered passion traditions (of which we seem to have one narrative stream on--not many!). It is more possible number 6 (now the one on drinking) could be a memory (this needs to be argued not assumed of course!) but collectively, my treatment of Gethsemane, other portions of John vs the synoptics and especially these cumulative seven points shows that these are clear, meditated theological differences. They stem not from the vaguaries of memory or performance variation of oral tradition, but are conscious and deliberate formulations.

I recently expanded my paper to include another component.

For those reading this thread here are some additions:

I put this at the beginning before addressing the acts:

Crossan himself used four categories to explain [or illustrate] this [divergences between John and Mark]: ground, cup, flight, death. Here we expand this and use seven. 1. Cup. 2. Flight. 3. Ground. 4. Interrogation. 5. Cross. 6. Drink. 7. Death

I add a section (now numbering in at three) with this conclusion: "In Mark it is Jesus who is prostrate on the ground. In John it is the arresting pary (a detachment of soldiers, their commander and Jewish leaders) who all fall to the ground."

After the summary of the section points at the end I also quoted John Dominic Crossan:

"Two radically different interpretations of the same event[s]. Mark descibes the Son of God almost out of control, arrested in agony, fear, and abandonment. John describes the Son of God in total control, arrested in foreknowledge, triumph, and command." (BOC, p. 142)

Vinnie

Vinnie

I have no cognitive dissonance. I just approach "religion" in a different fashion than you. I readily admit to not being a fact-Christian or an orthodox Christian. I'm not even a "real Christian". Take your average liberal Christian (e.g. Tercel) and I probably make him look extremely conservative in comparison. I am more accurately, a theist within the Christian tradition. As religion is a communal experience, most of my experiences stems from within a Christian culture and from within Christian images of spiritualism. I cannot sever these roots and my spiritual identity is simply intertwined with Christiandom in various ways. I'll be the first to tell you that the fact claims made bu Xian dogma are either completely false, irrational, absurd or they cannot be authenticated or rejected. I think some of them capture glimpses of reality as well.

I am an agnostic theist and spiritual panentheist within the Christian tradition. I have reasons for being a "religious person" despite being largely agnostic about the existence of God even if I have theistic sympathies in regards to the ongoing argumentation of saif entities existence. None of these reasons are cognitive dissonance.

If you had been keeping up on my site you would know this:

http://www.after-hourz.net/christianchallenge.html

You are supposed to visit the main page twice a day you know. Levitical law and my obsessive compulsive desire for traffic requires it

Vinnie

Al Kafirun

Yeah, that's the Gospel of Mel. Same one where Jesus offers a mealy-mouthed denial of the holocaust and then does an impression of Curly from the Three Stooges.