the_cave

Um...[scratches head]...surely I can't be the first person to wonder how Mark can be wholly mythicist midrash, if "forsaken" is meant to be read literally as "left behind"?

Run through it: if Mark is a mythicist, and is simply making a midrash on Psalm 22, then he can't intend for Jesus to be taken as any sort of a real person. He's just some sort of representation of a heavenly, divine figure.

But...if he cries out at his cruicifixion "Why have you left me behind?", then doesn't that support a Separationist theology from the get-go?

In which case...after the divine, spiritual figure departs from Jesus, he is "left behind", on earth. But who is left behind, if Mark's Jesus is just a heavenly figure?

Toto

Mark's Jesus could have been an allegorical human. At the baptism, the Christ spirit descended on him, and at the crucifixion, the Christ spirit left him.

squiz

I agree with this, but also note that there is a spectrum of belief between fundies on the one hand and those like the Anglican Bishops from Yes Prime Minister on the other (see quote below). Christianity in almost all its forms is a religion that is based on the belief that God came to earth in human form at a specific time in the past. Some base this on a belief that God spoke to them literally through sacred texts, others put more emphasis on passed-down tradition, others have more nuanced beliefs. Purely random copying errors etc. are probably only threatening to the "crazies" and not to more liberal Christians. Nevertheless I would suggest that some of the changes that appear to have been made deliberately should affect how even more sensible and liberal Christians view the evolution of their faith.

From Yes Prime Minister - The Bishop's Gambit:

the_cave

But if Jesus is an allegorical human, then what does he represent as such?

There are lots of allegorical humans, of course. I'm just not sure they could all be described as mythical. "Folk tale" would seem to be more accurate. I realize it's not quite as catchy as "myth", but surely accuracy counts for something.

Toto

It has been suggested that he represented the Jewish nation, which was crucified when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

When skeptics call the Bible a book of fairy tales, Christians take offense for some reason.

the_cave

Yet this doesn't seem quite right--for one thing, Jesus is portrayed as in conflict with the Jewish authorities. So if he represents anything, it must be a smaller group than the entire Jewish nation.

Well, that doesn't sound quite right, either. If you called Superman a fairy tale, for example, I might take offense! (Superman is closer to myth, IMO. The difference between "myth" and "legend" might also illustrate what I'm talking about. Kind of a fine point, I admit. Is Paul Bunyan a myth? That seems wrong somehow.)

-Jay-

OK. Gotcha.

andrewcriddle

Hi Joseph

IMO Ehrman is not making a firm claim that Mark actually intended the separationist meaning of Mark 15:34. Mark after all is quoting the LXX here not composing freely and the Septuagint usage of EGKATALEIPW (to translate EZB leave/desert) is prima-facie what Mark means. The fact that leave behind is the primary meaning in secular Greek does not necessarily imply that Mark meant this, writers frequently uses words in senses other than their primary ones. (I think you may be giving too much weight to Ehrman's use of literal. To say that word X literally means Y need not imply thar the writer using X actually meant Y.)

The use of EGKATALEIPW in Acts 2:27 and 31 from Psalm 16 appears relevant. In this case abandon/forsake seems clearly the meaning. In general NT usage appears to support forsake/desert. The one clear exception is Romans 9:29 where "If the Lord of Hosts had not left us children" could be translated "If the Lord of Hosts had not left behind for us children"
However this is very different from Mark 15:34.

Two final points.

a/ My motive was quite simple; I was confining myself to the textual issue and leaving behind the question of what Mark originally meant. I was doing this because this seemed to be where the OP had misunderstood what Ehrman was actually saying. (As distinct from whether Ehrman is right or wrong.)

b/ IMHO the question as to whether or not Mark was separationist may be anachronistic. To ask the question is to regard Mark as trying to answer a question, (how are the human and divine in Jesus Christ associated with each other) , which may not have been asked until later.

Andrew Cridde

Roger Pearse

People may find this collection of notes on the manuscript traditions of various of the Greek classics useful. I'm still working on it, tho.

JoeWallack

JW:
Well who better to explain what you meant, than you. I can't help be reminded though of the classic exchange from American Pie:

"Left behind" (I think "Mark" would find it quite Ironic that the best selling series chose the name of what happened to his Jesus) is the common meaning so that is the starting point. If, in addition, we have a good reason for "Mark" to have meant "left behind" than it is Likely that "left behind" is what he meant. "Mark" as a whole is a highly structured and balanced story. Having the Christ Spirit at the End leave Jesus is balanced by having the Christ Spirit at the Beginning come to Jesus. Jesus' cry of "left behind" also fits the Ironically Transferring and Reversal style of the Passion. Jesus Christ's emotions are gradually reduced to -0- while emotion is transferred to everyone else. "Mark's" implication is that during the crucifixion, in which "Mark" literally counts the hours, as opposed to the Ministry which goes by in seconds, Jesus is silent. It is not until the Christ Spirit leaves him and he is left behind, that he shows any emotion or makes any sound. Just as he never did anything noteworthy until he received the Spirit. Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some, like "Mark's" Jesus, have greatness thrust upon them. All this equals "left behind" is likely.

All Ehrman indicates is that there was an orthodox manuscript reaction to "Mark's" use of a word with a common meaning of "left behind". Ehrman does not discuss what he thought "Mark" meant.

JW:
How you could do this without mentioning "left behind" is amazing. The Moderators have repeatedly instructed me to take it easy on you so I'll leave it at that.

JW:
You and the Moderators always make me feel like Billy Jack trying to deal with Bernardo. If "Mark" shows God's spirit as a transferable piece, which can be added to or subtracted from the human Jesus, that by definition is Separationism. That's a fact, Jack. If "Mark" shows Separationism than the question of whether he believed what he showed can not possibly be anachronistic.

The External evidence (see The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel) indicates that "Mark" is an early second century product and according to the orthodox there were Gnostics at that time. "Mark" may have been exclusively a Gnostic product until the Forged ending.

It's clear that "Mark" supports the Separationists and we can see that the major Forgeries to "Mark", the supposed Birth and Resurrection sightings, are both Reactions against Separationism. I think "Mark" is primarily Literature and not Theology so I don't he was a Separationist. The idea for God's Spirit coming and going is from the David/Saul story, where God's Spirit goes into Saul, leaves Saul and is replaced by a Bad Spirit, and goes into David. David Ironically than plays music to soothe Saul's Bad Spirit.

If "Mark" is primarily theology though than he clearly is Separationist.




Joseph

Oral Tradition. N. & V.
The process of continuing to transmit stories orally, without the use of written aids, until no one remembers what actually happened.

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