Solo

No, actually it's before, at Caesarea Philippi

8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

This is the point in the narrative which fixes J's identity.

The Transfigured body of Jesus IS the resurrected Christ that the women later do NOT find in the tomb.

(9:10 So they kept this word to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant.

16:8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
)

Well, here is my theory my friend: in manic psychosis, the first part is the Spirit driving you nuts with empowerment and glory. It turns (with some people after a transfiguring peak) into a depressive psychosis, and self-flagellation, in which things drag on - as if in eternity - when the Spirit suddenly turns into a persecutor ! This is a typical outline of a major episode. Ask any psychiatrist clinically familiar with the disorder.

Good ! In the psychodrama, Jesus becomes the Spirit disabled, afflicted by self-doubt, and finally abandoned (by the rationally self-serving and self-preserving disciples). That's what the original mystics meant by Jesus being 'delivered up'. Yes, of course, they are the ones now having fun. The rational, calculating, selves - i.e. Judas - ......he goes immediately to him, says Master, Master and kisses him.

So, you see now ??? The scales fell off your eyes ???

So εὐθὺς is a 'Spirit mimicking' tool (in the last three instances, a Spirit inverted and working against Jesus until both expire in an existential nightmare....no irony there BTW.).

isn't that so ?

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
This theory, to use the words of Gene Wilder in the classic Young Frankenstein, "collapses, like a bunch of broccoli" as I have demonstrated Ad Nazorean that "Mark's" emphasis is the Ironic Contrast between Action/Inaction and specifically, it was the Inaction that was important.

The question, which Christian Bible scholarship has largely ignored though, which you do refer to, is:

Was "Mark" making fun of Christianity? Was "Mark" intended as Satire?

I see plans within plans, I see two great houses feuding, House Atraitors and House Harkohen, I see London I see through RT France and I see 3 possible levels of Markan intent:

1) "MarK" is Theological and intended to promote Faith in Jesus.

2) "MarK" is Observational and intended to explain why the original Jesus' movement failed.

3) "Mark" is Satire and intended to make fun of Christianity.

In accordance with the Oracle at Delphi and the Prophet Vorkosigan, I am currently at 2). I think the intent of "Mark" was to write a really good story primarily to entertain and educate.

Getting back to the use of εὐθὺς as a stylistic tool, the use is more Natural for "Mark" because "Mark" is the original narrative. There was no background Jesus' narrative that "Mark's audience would have been familiar with. Rather than disputing this, Papias' testimony confirms it. As you move to subsequent Gospel narratives, the chronology changes to give the impression that only highlights are being given of an extended Ministry that the audience would take for granted. This of course is easiest to see in the latest Canonical Gospel, "John". Not that it's needed but this is even more evidence that "Mark" was first.

The Bible scholar who I think has the best handle on "Mark" is:



Mark's Story of Jesus by Werner Kelber

Kelber accepts that a primary theme of "Mark" was to discredit Peter and the Disciples. As a Christian though he is solidly in the 1) camp with no conception that "Mark" could have intended 2) or 3). Kelber finds the use of "immediately" specifically with the spirit and in general as reMarkable" constantly putting it in parenthesis (no wonder I like him).

By an Act of Providence I am married to a Psychiatrist (the key to surviving is to realize early on that it is impossible to lie to them since that's what they do for a living) and she points out "manic/depressive" is an obsolete term. She says in the real world it is a matter of degrees, lots of swings. large and small and usually depressive. She sees "Mark's" Jesus as a literary construct existing only in "Mark's" mind and not having a real parallel. Therefore, "Mark's" Jesus is not in need of treatment since he never existed. You on the other hand...



Joseph

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

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I think that the use of εὐθὺς is certainly stylistic and distinctive of the author of the Gospel of Mark. What we have to ask is not the effect it has on us readers today, but what it tells us about the author.

The repetition of a connective and often the word "immediately" is found today in children's literature, especially fairy tales:

"Little Red Riding Hood set out immediately to go to her grandmother, who lived in another village."

(Grimms Fairey Tales, The Soaring Lark)

This repetition is done to please the young audience.

(Kready, Laura F., A STUDY OF FAIRY TALES, HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 1916).



Now, we have to consider that children's literature is a modern phenomenon of the 18th century, more or less, in origin. So, while a modern fairy-tale writer may use repetitive connectives to please children, we can hardly expect that the author of the Gospel of Mark was doing the same. Rather we have to take it as a natural stylistic habit or wrtier's trope.

If you ask a child around the ages of 6-13 to describe a story, they have read, or a movie they have watched, they will often repeatedly use the term "and then" to describe what happens next in the narrative. This inability to vary connectives appears to be what we are encountering in the text of Mark.

Often it does not make sense to translate the term εὐθὺς as "immediately," but more sense to translate it as "And shortly".

For example, compare Mark with Luke in the healing of Peter's mother story:

Mark:
1.29And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 1.30Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her. 1.31And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.

Luke:
4.38 And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now Simon's mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her. 4.39 And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her; and immediately she rose and served them.

Luke uses the term παραχρημα for "immediately." It makes sense here as it
emphasizes how quickly the cure took effect. In the text of Mark, there is no reason for the use of the term "immediately" and we can just as well translate it as "and shortly"

1.29And shortly he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 1.30 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and shortly they told him of her. 1.31And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.

We have to consider that the constant and irritating use of of this trope indicates simply that the writer is chidlish. Given the fact the whole story is more complex than anything a 5-13 year old would tell, we have to pinpoint his age at a little above this -- around 16 years old. Anyone older would have learned to vary his connectives. Anyone younger would not have been able to tell the complex tale.

The idea that the writer is extremely young explains the repetitive connective trope very well, but it also explains another trope found in Mark. The writer constantly has Jesus warning people not to tell anyone about his miracles. We may take this as indicating that the writer himself was afraid of people finding out about his writing. The writing itself, in the eyes of its author, could be considered a miracle or an extraordinary work that nobody should find out about.

From these clues, and others, we may suggest the following about the writer: He is a young man, around 15 or 16 years old, and he is writing a text based on an original text that he is forbidden to copy. He is nervous that he is breaking rules and people will tell on him. We may suppose that he is writing a text based on a play that he is not allowed to copy and possibly not allowed to read. His audience would have been companions his age and younger.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Solo

Well, I thank you anyhow for giving it a thoughtful consideration...


Think it possible that what you perceive as satire, may well be simply a characteristic 'edginess' of a creative genius. Richard Carrier brightly observed that what happens in Mark seems to follow the rule of "opposite of the expected". Very revealing.....read any Kafka ?

I appreciate the compulsion to advertize, Joe. I only know because I am probably just as bad. At one point, during my mid-life crisis, I renamed myself 'Theo'. It was for those to whom it was not obvious that I was special. Then the Spirit calls me on the phone one day and tells me: don't you know you frigging twit, that all I's are special ? So I renamed myself back again.


Yes. This is not the later bovine faith of the ecclesiastical Christianity, but natural faith. He considers faith therapeutic - whether or not Jesus "cures" are purely symbolic.

No. Mark simply believes in the superiority of the Spirit witness of Jesus, so whatever babble issues from the cackle that betrayed him is chicken feed.

Not quite; I grant you Mark treats savagely the following of the "other Jesus". (2 Cr 11:4). I interpret that as the historical figure and his original entourage. But Mark accepts the Palestinian Jewish Jesus as adopted of God (contrary to Paul), and reports of Jesus' classicaly angry, and explosive disposition of a thaumaturgist.

....sure it was not more than that ? E.g. to demonstrate his possession of the "gospel" for the community ?

...and you have run a sanity check on this, I presume.

IOW, you are saying there is no way - because of the style Mark deploys - that there could be some traditional material in his story, material which Mark presumably would have re-molded to fit his purposes. You do not see this as a real possibility. Correct ?

BTW, there is a guy here on BC&H by the name of, I think, Tweedledee, who argues on the basis of style for the "historicist" side. Toto, Amaleq and I took him to cleaners on another thread.


I don't think the issue whether Mark did or did not refer to traditional material about Jesus, can be decided on the form of the later gospels, or what Papias was reported as saying.

I like it too.

I agree. In modern diagnostics it's called "bi-polar disorder" and it comes in two basic varieties. There are all sorts of other conditions from which similar symptoms issue.

....and yes, there many, many forms of the disorder, no doubt about it. One thing though: we would be looking at a late onset of acute bipolarity, typically male in late twenties - late thirties, and the first hyper-manic episode would be proloned but self-resolving. It would be really interesting if your wife could get refer me to some clinical data or studies on those.

Speaking as what - an exeget ? Or is that a diagnosis ?

???? I would have thought that you (and your wife by proxy) noted, that I am far more interested in the original "collective" around the gospel creativity then in any historical figure on which it was focused. Evidently, I was hoping too much.

what, Joe ? You want to tell me that my demons have incapactited me ? That I need some chemicals to make me see the world as a shrink does ? As you do ?

Best regards to both.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
As Roger Elizabeth Debris said in the classic The Producers when asked if he would direct Springtime For Hitler, "Of course! not." All of the Possible claims are possible.

Peacing together the historicity of the Christian Bible is like working with a JewSaw puzzle. You start with the Impossible claims, which are like the borders in that you know exactly where they fit historically. Nowhere. What they are able to do is create serious doubt as to whether any of the interior pieces belong in the puzzle.

And than Joseph spoke plainly to Jiri. Here's how I see the historical chronology:

1) Jesus was a Teacher and Faith Healer.

2) Jesus was memorized by his followers with Q.

3) Paul, who was not a follower of Jesus, argued based on Revelation that Jesus' followers did not understand what was important about Jesus. It was his death and not his life.

4) "Mark" used Paul's letters to write the PreQuelle to Paul. What would have happened to bring the story to Paul's time of Revelation. "Mark" reconciled the Jesus' story to Paul's teachings.

5) Paul and "Mark" agree in that they are both Negative Reaction to historical witness to a historical Jesus. This is the best evidence you can find for a historical Jesus, which is not very good evidence.

6) "Matthew" rehabilitates "Mark's" Disciples and reconciles them to Jesus. Instead of a Negative Reaction to this historical witness (Q) there is now a positive one and Q is brought back into the story.

7) "Luke" goes further and reconciles the Disciples to Paul. Note that in comparison Paul's writings are primarily Instruction = History while the corresponding Paul in Acts is primarily the Impossible = Fiction.

8) "John" goes all the way and reconciles Jesus to God. End of story.



Joseph

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

Solo

Ok, I'll bite: Teacher - yes, quite probably. Faith Healer -.....ummmm don't know about that one. There is exorcism "in Jesus name" in the traditions (including Talmud), so it could be derived. But it certainly is well within possibility that Jesus did perform healings himself (as part of his reportory of a thaumaturgist)

Yes, again partially, in sayings like "let the dead bury their dead" and "the son of man has nowhere to lay his head".

Yes.

What makes you think it was a "preQuelle to Paul" ? What is that anyhow: a pre - Quelle (as in "Q") ?

Here is the way I see it (at this stage of my understanding of the materials):

"Mark" had some contact with the "other-Jesus" folks. Some may have been part of his gatherings, or had their own churchy and competed with the Paulinist group that "Mark" was part of and probably dominated intellectually. Probably the anti-podal Pauline and Petrine takes on Jesus began to coalesce once the protagonists were gone.
The "Petrine" Jesus followers were Jewish apocalyptic gnostics like Paul but minus the moral buildup of Paul. Paul received a revelation that God predestined Jesus to suffer death in general Redemption of sin at the end of time. (What offended Paul before his conversion were likely rumours about Jesus forgiving sins and not observing, i.e. the things the Pharisee scribes object to in Mark 2. Paul's revelation told him that Jesus acted on God's orders). At a point in time, Paul started to use the cross as a polemical tool against the Petrines, who preferred not to talk about the end of their leader, or, in any case, considered Jesus death as the work of "lawless men" which would be avenged in the coming of messiah. I doubt that Jesus himself was considered messiah in the Jerusalem-based group, but if he were, the cross and the resurrection on Pauline terms would not have been part of it.
Mark obviously was influenced by some things he learned about Jesus from the successor group. Perhaps the most important one is the "adoptionist" stance which -one would think, could not relate to an abstract in neo-Platonist mid-heaven.

Can't do much about that, can we ? But you have to ask yourself why this convoluted apologia from Mark about someone who did not exist ? And why would Paul want to talk about post-mortem Jesus only ?

Besides, I hope you understand that I do not want to vouch for historical accuracy of anything in Mark. I just don't think he was making all of it up, if for no other reason than that Jesus was already established in the milieu Mark was operating.

Now, if you might want to tell me that Mark was making fun of the Christian superstitions and idolatry, I would say two things: one, there is a downside to the kind of writing that Mark (and Paul). It was not fun and games, or entertainment. The clearest sign that Mark was mentally ill is his Jesus' taboo on the Holy Spirit - in case you do not know how to read it, here is a suggestion: it was Mark's note to himself. And if you do not believe that Jesus folks were not persecuted by the Spirit, read the shorter version of the Passion in Gospel of Thomas. You'll find it all in one verse - 69. Two, there was still not much to poke fun at with the Christians. There were two few of them and the subject was too abstruse - i.e. the outsider market for Jesus would have been too small. And don't forget, the literalists, the phantasists and religious cuckoos - in short, much of the future glorious body of Christ - had not yet read Mark !

Most of Mark's quarrel with the disciples has gone out of Matthew, if that's what you want to say. Then, of course, we do not know whether Mark ignored the whole "Q", some of it, did not know it at all, or whether there was any Q .....at all.

Luke is fiction all right, and Marcion read it as the smartest fiction of the three gospels. I am not sure what you mean by "reconciling the Disciples" to Paul. Paul was dead and no doubt, he would have gone glossolalic, had he read of Jesus disporting himself after his death "in flesh". I have a hunch that Paul would have denounced the gospels as "idolatrous", but they were not really written for his time and for the spiritual needs of those on whom the heavens were precipitously caving.

Real pleasure again, Joe.

Jiri


Joseph

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

Solo

It could be that Mark was not aware of this, bur regardless, the repettive connectors of this type...you know....have a 'suggestive' function.

Again, this is a possibility. Many experts commented on the poverty of
Mark's Greek. I have a hunch though that Mark was anything but a simple fool.

The problem with this is that you assume that Mark did not know how to say "shortly (after)". But he did: in 14:70, he says και μετα μικρον.


consider Mat 11:25 as a resolution to the mystery of Mark appearing childish:

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

In terms of modern mental health, Mark would appear to have had infantile regressions, as do all who have been high on the Spirit. (Paul tells us that btw in 1 Cr 14:20)

Jiri