JoeWallack

Glory



JW:
You tell me:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_10

Mark 10: (ASV)
35 "And there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.
36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
37 And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on [thy] left hand, in thy glory.
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 but to sit on my right hand or on [my] left hand is not mine to give; but [it is for them] for whom it hath been prepared."


JW:
James and John want to be "next" to Jesus in his Glory as King (the Traditional Type). Let's look at the Key phrase here:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...er=10&verse=37

"εἷς σου ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ εἷς ἐξ ἀριστερῶν"

"one on thy right hand, and one on [thy] left hand"

Compare to:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:27

Mark 15 (ASV)
27 "And with him they crucify two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left."

and the offending phrase:

"ἕνα ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἕνα ἐξ εὐωνύμων"

Pretty much the Same phrases.

JW X-Uh-Jesus:
In "Mark" what's Important is Jesus' Suffering and Death. That's Where his Glory is. Jesus' Life of Teaching and Miracles is a Distraction as to his true Glory. Jesus' Disciples make the same mistake as everyone else in "Mark", they look for Jesus' Glory in his Life. That his own Disciples don't Understand him is the most Ironic part of "Mark" since in the Original Gospel Jesus' explains his Life by using hard to understand Parables yet only for his Disciples explains his Death (3 Times) by using "plain" language.

So, James and John are looking to be "Next" to Jesus in the Glory of his Life but are Ironically Replaced by two unknown Thieves who are Next to Jesus in the Glory of his Death. Jesus, the Ultimate Giver, who gives the ultimate Reward of Life, Ironically receives the ultimate Punishment of Death as the Ultimate Taker, not just a Thief but a Murderer, the Taker of Life.

And so "Mark's" point is that Jesus gave Life by giving his Life. Even as a Member of the Loyal Opposition I have to confess I find the idea...intriguing. If there is anything Divine about the Christian Bible it's the Literary Skill of this Author.

That being said yalla, how would describe my description of "Mark's" description of the two thieves? Personally, I Am thinking of one six letter word, starts with "I" and rhymes with "Ionic".

Does this sound like a straight forward historical account from a simple witness or Ironically Contrived Literary Skill (Fiction)?



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

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

Charles Wilson

I'm trying not to become a Chronic here but this section is fun.

Can I give another alternative? Pair the above with the section where Jesus is heading for Jerusalem and will not be swayed. He sends some disciples ahead to get some place to stay and some food and the Samaritans refuse. The disciples ask if they can bring down fire from heaven and destroy these ingrates! Jesus merely "checks" them and continues to his path.

Ask yourself: What would the ages be for these disciples who ask to be seated at Jesus' right and left? How old would someone be to ask if it's OK to rain fire from heaven onto these people?

If you said any age over about thirteen, you've missed the point. Jesus is bringing children to the Passover. These Priests are bringing recruits to the Temple to prepare the Priesthood for the coming conflagration with Rome.

They're children!

Charles

PS to Doug Shaver: Regardless of your opinion of my work, you have stated it correctly. Of course Pilate existed. The Pilate in the Gospels, however, does not align with any Roman governor I know. I don't intend to overstate the case...

yalla

"Luke"23.39
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us".
40. But the other rebuked him saying "Do you not fear god, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41. And we indeed justly for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds but this man has done nothing wrong."
42. And he said,"Jesus remember me when you come in your kingly power".
43 And he said to him "TISTY, today you will be with me in paradise"

Does this match?
OK its not "Mark" but one of his later embelishers who has taken "Mark's" ball and run with it.
But I find it "i.onic" that "The Jewish authorities can't recognize JC as Christ but a condemned criminal can.
Obviously plastic fiction.
cheers
old yalla

JoeWallack

He Was The King




JW:
What's interesting here is What exactly it means to "Mark"/"Luke" having Jesus on the Pole. Since "Luke" is Copying "Mark's" account the similarities don't tell us much. It's the Differences that do since they are what's Intentional:

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

Mark 15: (ASV)

16 "And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.

17 And they clothe him with purple, and platting a crown of thorns, they put it on him;

18 and they began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

19 And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.

20 And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments. And they lead him out to crucify him.

21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross.

22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

23 And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

24 And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take.

25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

27 And with him they crucify two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left.

28 [And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was reckoned with transgressors.]

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ha! Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,

30 save thyself, and come down from the cross.

31 In like manner also the chief priests mocking [him] among themselves with the scribes said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.

32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him."


JW:
Per "Mark" Jesus was King on the Pole. Really! Not just Ironically. Look at all "Mark's" evidence for this:

1) "And the soldiers led him away"

Accompanied by the Royal guard.

2) ""And the soldiers led him away within the court,"

This refers to The Palace.

3) "And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band."

The entire guard. The Royal treatment.

4) "And they clothe him with purple,"

The Royal attire.

5) "platting a crown of thorns, they put it on him;"

The Coronation.

6) "they began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!"

Recognition.

7) "And they smote his head with a reed"

The Sceptre.

8) "bowing their knees worshipped him."

Adoration.

9) "And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS."

The Proclamation.

10) "save thyself, and come down from the cross."

The Throne (which Jesus refuses to yield).


Going through "Luke's" copied account again, what's copied is not significant but what's not copied is. "Luke" has exorcised many of "Mark's" descriptions of Jesus being King at this point. When "Luke" Edits "Mark" as follows:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_23

Luke 23: (ASV)

39 "And one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him, saying, Art not thou the Christ? save thyself and us.

40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.

43 And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. "


in order to indicate that Jesus' Kingship was yet to come it's not because she doesn't understand when "Mark's" Jesus had his Kingship, it's because she does!

Again, count up the Fictional sounding elements in "Mark" here, the entire Roman guard has an impromptu Play about Jesus Ironically being King of the Jews. Whose benefit was this for? Pilate, The High Priest, "The Jews", Jeff Gibson or, dare I say it (dramatic music)...the Reader?



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

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







[

jeffevnz

Two easy ways out of this. 1) The word "all" might be an exagerration and 2) Maybe it's what Jesus wanted. After all, he had a prophecy to fulfill.

Gamera

A lot of confusion in this post.

Larazus appears in a parable told by Jesus (Lazarus and the rich man) -- it is illustrative and not to be taken literally. Jesus isn't purported to be reporting a real conversation between the rich man and Abraham. It's downright surprising you didn't realize that.

Jonah is purported by the text to be an historical figure. That doesn't mean the account is accurate. The point is the genre is "historical" in the broad sense (unlike, for instance, a parable, which is never historical).

The Phoenix appears in a number of texts from the mediaeval period. I'm not aware of any of them being in the historical genre (the ones I know about are in the mode of allegory). But even if a phoenix appeared in a purported historical text, such is the nature of early historiography that all kinds of fantasical creatures appear. That's different from making up an historical personage.

Gamera

You're right, as usual Ben. And I'm aware of few other historical personages appearing in the Greco-roman novel genre, though it is rare and not a trademark of the genre.

But isn't this the opposite situation of the claim about Joseph of Arimathea? The GR novel is never purportedly historical. It's fiction on its face. In a few, some historical persons are written in. The gospels appear to be purportedly historical, and the claim is that Joseph, a fictive character, was written into the history.

So the proposed structure (Hitler appears in old Superman comics) doesn't seem to apply, at least if the argument is against Joseph's historicity.

Gamera

First I would note that sometimes, oftentimes, real history is truly dramatic, and has thematic resonances beyond everyday life: Hitler vs. Rosevelt; Schmelling vs. Louis; Henry vs the Pope. So the fact that an account has dramatic and thematic elements is not evidence per se that it is ahistorical. (I'm infering that is your argument: the account is dramatic and thematic, ergo it cannot be historical and most be fiction).

Second, let's stipulate that there's a genuine dispute over whether Pilate and Joseph would have acted the way they did, given what we know of Roman and Jewish culture. The fact that the matter is unresolved suggests Joseph cannot be dismissed as a fictive element based on the extraordinary nature of his actions. If there is a dispute then the extaordinary nature of his actions has not be substantiated, and hence the conclusion (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) doesn't apply.

Gamera

By the way, yalla, let's even assume the thematic elements of the account were accreted. I don't think if follows that the account itself involves fictive characters. All historiography picks and chooses to make a narrative. I would argue that every historical account is a narrative that is of necessity crafted by the author out of the chaos of facts, and what other template can an author use except the themes he's concerned with.

So nothing "unhistorical" would be going on here if the author took historical figures -- Joseph, Pilate, theives, Jesus and disciples -- and wove a narrative from various accounts that emphasized various themes that occupied him. That's what historians do every day.

You can suspect its reliability of the account, but that's not the same as claiming the persons in the account are fictive

Ben C Smith

That is almost uncritically generous of you.

Oh, I agree that the gospels were written to be understood as history, though they (like so many histories of their, and indeed our, day) contain fictionalizations.

1. Nobody in antiquity appears to have read them as fiction in genre, not Papias, not Justin, not Ignatius, not the other evangelists, not the gnostics and docetics, not Celsus, not Marcion, not Lucian... nobody. When the opponents of Christianity attack the gospels, they attack them as thinly disguised lies and legends, not as poorly written novels. Their complaint is that the evangelists tried to pass foolish stories off as history, not that they wrote Greco-Roman novels and were immediately misunderstood.

2. Those things that can be checked against Paul come out as apparently intending history; these include the brothers of Jesus, the number of the apostles, the last supper, the crucifixion, the burial (whether Joseph of Arimathea is historical or not, Paul presumes that Jesus was buried, not left out as carrion), the resurrection, and several teachings. The evangelists, in other words, did not make these things up as fiction; they got them from tradition.

3. The evangelists appear to take their own words seriously. I am thinking in particular of Matthew 28.15; Luke 1.1-4; and John 21.23.

Ben.