JoeWallack

Whosonfirst?

Costello: Allrite, who came first?

Abbey: The Father?

Costello: Right. Who came second?

Abbey: The Son?

Costello: Wrong. The Son came first.

Abbey: So the Father & Son both came first?

Costello: Correct. Who came third?

Abbey: The Spirit?

Costello: Wrong. The Spirit came first.

Abbey: So the Father & Son & Spirit all came first?

Costello: That's correct. You've got the Spirit!

Abbey: I've got the Spirit and I don't even know what I'm saying.


JW:
The purpose of this Thread will be to explore Separationist Theology in the First gospel ("Mark").

Briefly, Separationist Theology is the belief that Jesus and Christ were two Separate Entities. Jesus was human and Christ was Divine.

As a Starting exercise let's list some possibilities for the Nature of God's Spirit at the baptism of "Mark's" Jesus:

1) A Spirit of God.

2) The Spirit of God.

3) The Same Spirit of God that David received.

Let's choose 3) and search the Jewish Bible just as "Mark" may have done for possible Inspiration for "Mark's" presentation of Jesus' baptism Specifically and Jesus' relation (pun intended) to David Generally:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Samuel_16

"And Jehovah said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? fill thy horn with oil, and go: I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons.

1 Samuel 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And Jehovah said, Take a heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to Jehovah.

1 Samuel 16:3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee.

1 Samuel 16:4 And Samuel did that which Jehovah spake, and came to Beth-lehem. And the elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, Comest thou peaceably?

1 Samuel 16:5 And he said, Peaceably; I am come to sacrifice unto Jehovah: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.

1 Samuel 16:6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely Jehovah`s anointed is before him.

1 Samuel 16:7 But Jehovah said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him: for [Jehovah seeth] not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looketh on the heart.

1 Samuel 16:8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath Jehovah chosen this.

1 Samuel 16:9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath Jehovah chosen this.

1 Samuel 16:10 And Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Jehovah hath not chosen these.

1 Samuel 16:11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he is keeping the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he come hither.

1 Samuel 16:12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look upon. And Jehovah said, Arise, anoint him; for this is he.

1 Samuel 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of Jehovah departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Jehovah troubled him.

1 Samuel 16:15 And Saul`s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

1 Samuel 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, that are before thee, to seek out a man who is a skilful player on the harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

1 Samuel 16:17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me.

1 Samuel 16:18 Then answered one of the young men, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Beth-lehemite, that is skilful in playing, and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person; and Jehovah is with him.

1 Samuel 16:19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, who is with the sheep.

1 Samuel 16:20 And Jesse took an ass [laden] with bread, and a bottle of wine, and a kid, and sent them by David his son unto Saul.

1 Samuel 16:21 And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armorbearer.

1 Samuel 16:22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favor in my sight.

1 Samuel 16:23 And it came to pass, when the [evil] spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took the harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him."


JW:
How many peaces of information here can the Objective/Creative reader also find in "Mark"?

Especially note that for "Mark" who presents such an Ironically Contrasted and Balanced style he may have already found such a Style (to a much lesser degree) above:

The Significant points of the above are that God's Spirit came on David and made him Great at Anointing. At the same or almost same time God's Spirit Departed from Saul and Saul received an Evil Spirit. A troubled Saul looks for relief and Ironically the only one who can provide it is David who now possesses the Spirit that departed Saul.

Was the author's intent here that David received the exact Same Spirit that departed Saul? Was this "Mark's" understanding and if so was it "Mark's" intent to show that Jesus received the exact Same Spirit?



Joseph

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

gstafleu

I had a look of where "Christ" appears in Mark. Ignoring 1.1, the header so to speak, there seem to be only four places where "Christ" is associated with the person of Jesus.

Mark 8:29
And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Here Peter opines Jesus is the Christ. It doesn't result in a confirmation from Jesus, rather Jesus tells the disciples not to talk to anyone about him. Given that the latter exhortation comes directly after Peter's opinion, one could see a vague indication here by Jesus that he is the Christ.

Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Here Jesus actually seems to associate "Christ" with himself: if Jesus says that someone will come in his name calling himself the Christ, then Jesus must think of himself as the Christ.

Mark 14:61
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am.
Here the high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ. "And Jesus said, I am" is the beginning of the next verse, so again it seems that Jesus says he is the Christ.

Mark 15:32
Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
Here the crowd mocks him.

So of the four occasions where "Christ" is directly associated with Jesus, in two cases Jesus identifies himself clearly with "Christ," in one case he does so vaguely and indirectly. I'm not sure if we can deduce separationism from that.

Gerard Stafleu

JoeWallack

JW:
In:

The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk)



Bart Ehrman gives a Definition of Separationist Theology on page 122:

"According to separationist Christologies, Christ was one of the divine aeons of the Pleroma, who entered into the man Jesus at his baptism, through whom he conveyed salvific gnosis to the disciples during his public ministry, and from whom he departed at some time prior to the crucifixcion. The view is found in relatively pure form in Irenaeus's description of an unnamed group of heretics near the end of Book 1 of his Adversus Haereses:"

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P6676_1604194

"13. They affirm that many of his disciples were not aware of the descent of Christ into him; but that, when Christ did descend on Jesus, he then began to work miracles, and heal, and announce the unknown Father, and openly to confess himself the son of the first man. The powers and the father of Jesus were angry at these proceedings, and laboured to destroy him; and when he was being led away for this purpose, they say that Christ himself, along with Sophia, departed from him into the state of an incorruptible Aeon, while Jesus was crucified. Christ, however, was not forgetful of his Jesus, but sent down a certain energy into him from above, which raised him up again in the body, which they call both animal and spiritual; for he sent the mundane parts back again into the world. When his disciples saw that he had risen, they did not recognise him-no, not even Jesus himself, by whom he rose again from the dead. And they assert that this very great error prevailed among his disciples, that they imagined he had risen in a mundane body, not knowing that "flesh325 and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God."

14. They strove to establish the descent and ascent of Christ, by the fact that neither before his baptism, nor after his resurrection from the dead, do his disciples state that he did any mighty works, not being aware that Jesus was united to Christ, and the incorruptible Aeon to the Hebdomad; and they declare his mundane body to be of the same nature as that of animals. But after his resurrection he tarried [on earth] eighteen months; and knowledge descending into him from above, he taught what was clear. He instructed a few of his disciples, whom he knew to be capable of understanding so great mysteries,"


JW:
Ehranncyman introduces a Term I have never heard before, "Methodology", to give Weight to his Textual Variation observations. If Motivation and Provenance (Location) can be established than additional weight can be given to the Direction of Textual Change (What was Likely Original). In the Book Ehranncyman limits the Context of Textual Change to known Controversy between "Orthodox" and Non-Orthodox Christianity in the early centuries before Important Christian Doctrine was Defined and Fixed. The entire book than is a Testament that Christian Bible Textual Variation affects Significant Christian Doctrine.

In the Process Ehrrancyman Identifies Some of the basic questions concerning any Type of Evidence:

Who: "Orthodox Christianity" as a Group. A Few Individual Fathers Identified.

What: Important Doctrine. The above illustrates the Doctrine of Jesus being a Separate entity from Christ.

Where: Undetermined.

When: The early centuries. During and relatively shortly after the related controversies.

Why: To support Orthodox views.

How: Citation and Preservation of supporting manuscripts as a Group. Undetermined at individual manuscript level.


Probably the best evidence for Separationist Theology in "Mark" is Jesus' supposed baptism:

Mark 1:9-12

"1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

1:12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness. " (ASV)


JW:
Note the following support here for Separationist Theology:

1) It's "Jesus" that comes to be baptized (as opposed to "Jesus Christ"). This is mediocre support by itself as "Jesus" is the usual reference in the Gospel.

2) The Heavens open.

3) The Spirit descends from the Heavens.

4) The Spirit is described as a dove which was a common expression for God's Spirit.

5) The Spirit descends on Jesus.

6) After the Spirit descends on Jesus a Voice from Heaven declares Jesus as a son.

7) The Spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness.

From an Evidential standpoint note that the Distance between how "Mark" could have described the baptism to make it clearer that it was a Separationist event and how "Mark" described the baptism is relatively short.

The related Orthodox Anti-Separationist Corruption of Scripture is as follows:

Mark 1:10

καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν

"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him" (ASV)


And Metzger commentary:
" "


JW:
Ehranncyman points out that the Key word here is "εἰς" translated above as "upon". However, the common meaning of "εἰς" is "unto" or "into". Earlier witness tends to have "εἰς". Later witness tends to have "επἰ", "upon".

"Into" supports the Separationist view that Jesus was not Jesus Christ until God's Spirit went into him at the Baptism. Ehrrancyman gives the Background/Setting here of "Orthodox" arguing around this time that Jesus was God and other Christian sects arguing that Jesus was not God such as the "Separationists", who could use 1:10 as Ammanition that Jesus was just a man before the Baptism and it was the Spirit of God received at the baptism which gave Jesus power.

Again this helps Illustrate that there is far more Textual Variation than indicated by Standard Textual Critical Commentary and some of this concerns Significant Christian Doctrine. The standard Metzger "critical" commentary is seriously flawed as it has already been Edited to remove Textual Variation not considered significant by mainstream Christianity. There should be a comprehensive Textual Critical Commentary that includes ALL Potentially Significant variation. Bart?

I've criticized France before for what I consider to be his bias and once again
the NIGTC, probably the best available Critical commentary on "Mark", identifies the unto/upon variation but labels "unto" "nonsense" because it's supposedly unsupported by the rest of the Text. Nonsense! "Mark":

1) Has no special birth.

2) No Jesus' stories before the Baptism.

3) God declares at Baptism that Jesus is his son.

4) Is full of exorcisms of spirits.

5) Jesus loses his spirit at the end.

6) Jesus' supposed predecessor, David, also received a sudden infusion of God's Spirit.

All supporting the Separationist view that God's Spirit went into Jesus at baptism.



EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

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

gstafleu

It is interesting that Irenaeus would say "They affirm that many of his disciples were not aware of the descent of Christ into him[.]" "Christos" means "anointed" and is an adjective, not a proper noun, at least that is how it started out. A more literal reading of the baptism in Mark might then be that some unnamed spirit of god (perhaps the spirit of god) descended into Jesus, as a result of which he became anointed. Just as the annointing made a candidate king into a real one, so the descent of that spirit turned the candidate savior Jesus into a real one.

Is there any way in which this translation (of Irenaeus)) could be off? After all when one pours oil onto someone's head, the oil "descends onto" that person. But then I take it that your argument is that the oldest attainable version of Mark has "into" rather than "onto" or "upon." But perhaps translating "εἰς" as "unto" could, with a bit of good will, be seen as "upon"?

If the translation is correct this would indicate that the concept of Christ as a proper noun rather than an adjective was established by the second century. That might seem trivial in that in Mark 8:29 Peter says "Thou art the Christ." But that can still be translated as "Thou art the anointed one."

Gerard Stafleu

JoeWallack

You Put The Words Right Into My Mouth

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:34

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (ASV)

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...er=15&verse=34

καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με


JW:
Ehrancyman points out that the word ἐγκατέλιπές, which is commonly translated in Christian Bibles as "forsaken", has a more literal meaning of "left behind" (gives the "Left Behind" trilogy a holey new meaning) and explains that the Gnostics took this as solid evidence that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities. As further support Ehrancyman Lets The Reader Understand that:

1) The Gospel of Philip adds:

"It was on the cross that he said these words , for it was there that he was divided."

2) The Gospel of Peter sez:

"My power, O power, you have left me."

3) Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "lyons") confesses to us that the Valentinians used the verse to show that Jesus on the cross mirrored The Tragedy of the Divine realm where Sophia was Separated from the Pleroma (Doherty, look out!).

4) And here's something for our Reverent friend (used in a mob sense) Jeffrey Gibson whose name mysteriously ἐγκατέλιπές in Ehrman's inventory of hundreds of mainstream Christian Bible scholars. Ehrman says:
"Previous investigators have failed to recognize how this controversy over the meaning of Jesus' last words in Mark relates to the famous textual problems of the verse."

Ehrman points out that in significant elements of the Western text the Corruption:

"My God, my God, why have you reviled me?"

exists.

JW:
Here's the relevant Metzger:

"15.34 ἐγκατ�*λιπ�*ς με {B}

It is perhaps more likely that copyists should have altered ἐγκατ�*λιπ�*ς με to agree with the Matthean reading με ἐγκατ�*λιπες (Mt 27.46), than that they should have changed με ἐγκατ�*λιπες to ἐγκατ�*λιπ�*ς με to agree with the Septuagint of Ps 22.2.

The reading of Dgr (supported by a few other Western witnesses2) �*νείδισάς με (“[Why] hast thou reproached [or, taunted] me?”) may have been substituted for the usual reading by someone who could not understand how God would have forsaken Jesus on the cross.

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (or via: amazon.co.uk) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
France's X-Uh-Jesus goes on and on about what "Mark" was supposedly saying and what he supposedly said supposedly meant but Fails to consider the Separationist controversy. Strike Three and in the Words of Darth Vater, "Now his Failure is complete."

So in Summary, in the original Gospel "Mark", we have support for Separationist Theology at the Start of Jesus' career (Baptism) and at the End of Jesus' supposed career (Crucifixtion) as well as Orthodox Corruption of this support in reaction to perceived textual support for Gnostics.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

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

Loomis

How come we have to pretend that it reads Jehovah?

Is that because you believe Jehovah is a real god?