Toto

I don't see the "No King but Caesar" remark as dispositive. I think we may assume that the author of this gospel could put appropriate language in the mouths of his characters for that time. Or it could have been meant ironically.

But do we need to assume that the fourth gospel we have today was written at one time, or that Mark was written at one time?

That said, Peter Kirby's site says (I'll save him the trouble of quoting it):

However, it appears that a Gospel of John was used by the gnostics.

And how does this relate to the idea on another thread, that the Gospel of John was originally written about John the Baptist? John without Jesus

Vorkosigan

Our current form of John depends on Mark. The passage you've identified is part of a larger structure in Mark; namely, the author's use of Daniel to overwrite Jesus' Crucifixion. Much of Mark has survive in John's passion. As Crossan points out, John's passion contains other literary features brought in from Mark (intercalations).

The clincher is the Temple Ruckus, which occurs in both gospels. In Mark at every level the Temple Ruckus is a literary invention. At the highest level it is dictated by Mark's use of the Elijah-Elisha cycle. In Mark's use of the EEC, Jesus cleanses the Temple at the same time Jehu wipes out the priests of Ba'al. At the detail level the entire event is composed of either Markan redaction or quotes from the OT, two from Nehemiah and the famous "robbers" remark. It is impossible that John has, through literary invention, hit upon the exact same literary features that Mark has (he has added some as well). The Temple event is a fiction; its presence elsewhere is indicative of dependence.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I should have considered the source! You have an excellent command of NT text criticism, and I need not have asked.

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

Wasted years, my friend, wasted years. While the other kids were playing baseball and hanging out at the neighborhood pool I was reading Bultmann and Brown. Possibly that's why I was kicked out of sunday school.

P.S. I consider it high praise coming from you and undeserved at that. If my work was as prolific as yours at your age I would be a world renowned scholar by now rather than an internet message board dilletante. I've talked to several people who were shocked to learn that you weren't at least 50.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Thanks for the response.

My counterargument would be that Mark is a pretty wierd dude if he thinks Jehu killing the priests of Ba'al is equivalent to chasing merchants from the Jerusalem temple. It sounds like someone is trying to make things fit into a pattern whether they do or not.


Mark
John

My interpretation of the primary difference in the two passages is this:

John is telling us that Jesus was a Jewish fanatic who wanted to purify the Jewish Temple from foreign influences. His zeal for Judaism drove him insane to the point of beating people with a whip of cords.
Mark, horrified at the idea that John has portrayed Jesus as a rabid Jewish fanatic and madman, changes the passage to portray Jesus as an internationalist upset at the Jews for trying to make a profit off of the universal God. He modestly throws over a few tables to illustrate his lecture that God is for all people, not just the Jews. We can also imagine Mark thinking, "And Jesus whipping people. Heavens to Betsy, we can't have that." He ditches this important description also.

There is no need to interpret Jesus' remark in John about destroying the Temple as a reference to the actual destruction of the Temple in 70. It may be interpreted as a metaphorical destruction, (the merchants were destroying the soul of the Temple). The writer points out the dynamic and powerful nature of Christianity. The Christians established their spiritual religion based on the resurrection of Jesus in only three days, while the Jews took 46 years to establish their religion by building the Temple.

We may surmise that the rapidity with which Christianity grew was not an important issue later on, and therefore Mark gets rid of this and substitutes the concept that Jesus' teachings against the merchants was something the Jewish High Priests opposed. It made the people love him and the High Priests jealous of him. This is Mark continuing to revise Jesus from Jewish Zealot to popular folk hero.

John's version is First Century Christianity. Mark's version is Second Century Christianity.



Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan

Jay, the first problem here is that you are using an incorrect translation. Jesus wasn't driving "merchandise" out of the Temple, he's preventing the sacred vessels from going out. Compare Mark's Temple scene:

15 And they come to Jerusalem, and Jesus having gone into the temple, began to cast forth those selling and buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves, he overthrew,
16 and he did not suffer that any might bear a vessel through the temple,[YLT]

8 I was greatly displeased and threw all Tobiah's household goods out of the room. 9 I gave orders to purify the rooms, and then I put back into them the equipment of the house of God, with the grain offerings and the incense.
10 I also learned that the portions assigned [NIV]

(Tobiah is in violation of the edict that no Moabite or Ammonite shall ever be allowed in the Temple. Nehemiah is purifying the Temple).

Most translations incorrectly use "merchandise" for "vessels." Once you put in the correct word, the parallel between "furniture" and "tables" and of course, the presence of the "vessels" the sacred "equipment of the house of god" is clear. Someone at the NIV must have figured this one out, because they translated both passages so they don't resemble one another.

The Higher-Level structure is provided by Thomas Brodie on p93 of The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an interpretive synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a literary model for the Gospels. The reason is that the foundation of the Jesus legend is the Elijah-Elisha cycle. At the climax of the two legend cycles, both E and J cleanse Temples, Elijah in the purging of the priests of Baal with fire, and Jesus of the moneychangers. Both are annointed (2 Kings 9), accession with cloaks on the ground (2 Kings 9), waiting before taking over (2 Kings 9:12-13, Mark 11:11), challenge the authorities (2 Kings 9:22-10:27), Mark 11:11 - 12:12), and money is given to the Temple (2 Kings 12:5-17, Mark 12:41-44). As Brodie puts it (p93), ..."the basic point is clear: Mark's long passion narrative, while using distinctive Christian sources, coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

We discussed this thread in great detail.


No, John has added the extra element. John's Temple Ruckus is even more fantastic than Mark's; both in any case is a literary fiction.....

.....Unfortunately, as the scripture quotations and larger literary structures show, John depends on Mark. Whereas in John the Temple Ruckus has no particular location, in Mark it clearly relates to a whole sequence of Elijah-Elisha parallels that dominate his gospel. In John it simply makes no sense; in Mark it is integral to his retelling of the story. I am still ferreting them all out, but here is my most recent draft of the Mark 11 (the Temple Ruckus). I still have a lot to work through, though, so consider this a VERY early version.

Vorkosigan

Casper

If I may interject something regarding Johanine priority:

It seems to me that Marcion would have actually approved of most of gJohn, and, had he known of it, would have included at least parts of it in his canon (trying to be neutral here about just how original Marcion's canon was).

It could be that it coexisted or pre-existed, of course, without his knowledge.

It could also be that what little we know about Marcionism is incomplete and should actually include some of gJohn. Or that Marcion's proto-Luke was based on an early Johanine source (proto-John?).

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on any connection or lack thereof between Marcionism and gJohn. :notworthy