stephan huller

from the NT Mark blog - http://ntmark.wordpress.com/2011/09/...line/#comments

Solo

Hi Stephan,
I would put it even more emphatically than that. There were no Christians in Jerusalem. Outside of Acts of Apostles there is no evidence that Jesus was apprehended as Messiah in Jerusalem. There is a lot of evidence on the other hand that this was not the case. Christianity was Paul's invention and the Palestinian Nazarenes were converted to his cross Messianic theology only in the late stages or after the war of 66-72. Mark's ending is an important evidence to this startling fact.

The event of Pentecost, e.g. started as an argument against Paul`s dominance and authority (1 Cor 14:23: If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? ) asserting Jerusalem's primacy. Obviously Paul would have known that such an event not only happened but was traditioned as the inaugural founding of the whole church.

Mark is a Paulinist allegory through and through. The gospel begins by presenting an exegetical riddle: Malachi 3:1 verse is partially obscured by Isaiah 40:3 to hide the gospel's circular intent which is to illustrate the passing of the Spirit between the two baptisms: of John at the start and the attempt of the neaniskos to baptize the women into the death of Jesus Christ as per Rom 6:3-4.

The amazing thing about the riddle is how cleverly it hides the key to the gospel. Read the whole verse of Malachi 3:1:

"Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek (κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε) will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts."

You see it ? What is it that the messenger says in the tomb to the women ? Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ....You are looking for the body of the crucified Jesus, but it isn't there because he was raised (imperishable). The Lord coming to the temple, in Malachi's vision is interpreted through Paul's 1 Cor 6:19:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?...

This pun of course forms the basis of the accusation against Jesus before the Sanhendrin. Jesus predicted the destruction of himself (in the flesh), not the Temple. He declares himself the Messiah, however not the one that they expect but one Paul will create through his gospel. That's why it is a secret !

(I am really on tenterhooks as to how aa5874 will attack this: will he accuse me of spreading untruhs ? )

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

I was thinking of you when I posted this, Solo. I am still not sure that Paul knew a 'pure' version of the Gospel of Mark. I am quite convinced for instance that (a) he also knew the Prologue which is now found in John and (b) he must have also known about John's references to the Paraclete (= Romans chapter 15). But yes the gospel was written by Mark.

Solo

How nice of you...


Personally, I don't believe Paul ever knew Mark. He wrote the allegorized gospel of Paul after the chief 'architect' was gone. But if Marxsen was right on the money in that Mark's Jesus was essentially Paul's risen Lord walking on earth, the story telling diverged from Paul's mantras in some respects.

Most importantly, Mark broke Paul's injunction on speaking of the abasement of God in human incarnation (1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 11:4). Second, Mark's Jesus is socially much more engaging and has universal reach through the vehicle of 'repentance' which is unknown to Paul. You can quote me as saying that if Paul had seen his Lord dining with publicans and sinners he would have gone glossolalic. Note eg. Paul's repeated harping on ατιμια - (disgrace/disohonour), of which Mark's Jesus was thankfully liberated. Finally, and that is why Mark is dear to my heart, the gospel is playful and off-the-wall in a way that Paul, Matthew, Luke or Frank* could never be.

As for baptist adoptionism, I don't think there is a departure from Paul. Paul was a preexistentialist, or at least a predestinarian, and yet he had no issue with the revelation by God of the Son in him (Gal 1:15) in medias res. Neither, then should the activation of Jesus at the Jordan clash with the underlying Pauline ontology. As a matter of fact, Jesus supposed pre-science of his fate looks very much like Mark's play on Paul's sense that God designed this world with a fixed ending.

But all these things aside, I don't think for a minute that Mark and Paul gospels' agreement on, the defense of the cross, the primacy of faith, the disdain for idolatry, and the eschatological plan could reasonably be seen as purely coincidental or stemming from a larger common Christian tradition. If this were true Mark would be a meaningless tale.

-----------------
* A.Schweitzer's in his 1913 dissertation The Psychiatric Study of Jesus argued that GJohn was not historical under the weight of evidence that John's ego eimi pronouncements were textbook exhibits of frank paranoia.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Your statement about Paul is just total and complete absurd.

The very Paul did NOT claim he INITIATED the Christian faith.

Have you FORGOTTEN that Paul claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith he NOW preach?

Galatians 1:23 - Please refrain from making claims about Paul that can be EASILY refuted.

You cannot use the source which claim Paul was LAST to assert he was first.

Paul was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus on a LIST with OVER 500 people.

1 Cor 15Why can't you use the ACTUAL written evidence and stop PRESUMING your own history of Paul?

It is the written statements of antiquity that counts not what you imagine should have been written.

stephan huller

I think aa read your comments ...

bleubird

Right.As a dumb ass lurker that has read some stuff on the bible.Bart Ehrman in particular.It would seem that we(scholars)know that the bible is a redacted mess.Through mistake or intent the bible is not known.


stupid lurker

Solo

It sure looks that way, doesn'it ?