Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lmbarre · 12-21-2011, 06:27 PM

I think that gMark did not intend to show that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of the blessed one. To the contray, instead of ushering in the messianic age, Jesus died, abandoned by his god. As pointed out, Jesus last words reference Jesus' statement to the high priest that he was indeed the Messiah and that the imminent messianic age will vindicate his claim. It did not became manifest, showing that Jesus was not the Messiah but rather a "son of god."

aa5874 · 12-21-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

I think that gMark did not intend to show that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of the blessed one. To the contray, instead of ushering in the messianic age, Jesus died, abandoned by his god. As pointed out, Jesus last words reference Jesus' statement to the high priest that he was indeed the Messiah and that the imminent messianic age will vindicate his claim. It did not became manifest, showing that Jesus was not the Messiah but rather a "son of god."

What you think appears to be CONTRARY to the written statements by the author of gMark.

gMark's Jesus is RECOGNISED as the Son of God by those possessed with Demons. Jews with EVIL Spirits in gMark immediately knew that Jesus was the Son of God and Honored him.

Mark 3:11 -

Quote:

And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, [Thou art the Son of God...

The author of gMark also clearly stated or implied that his Jesus was the Christ.

Mark 13:6

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many....

gMark's Jesus story is COMPATIBLE with so-called prophecy in Hebrew Scripture found in Isaiah 6.

The IDENTITY of gMark's Jesus, the Son of God and Messiah, is to be REVEALED only AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

JoeWallack · 01-06-2012, 08:45 AM

JW:
I want to start this post by issuing another refresher of:

Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

1) Recognition through reading or sound.

2) Demonstrated style of the author.

3) Contextual fit.

4) Thematic fit.

5) Lack of known literal fit.

6) Fictional story.

I've asserted in this Thread that "Mark" has a technique (involving all of the above) whereby a named character is shown negatively and an unnamed character is shown positively. Here I will demonstrate it:

Mark 1

Verse	Name/Description	Negative	Positive
1.1	Jesus	Human - nothing without the Christ
1.1	Christ		The Star
1:4	John		Exception = his career ends before Jesus' starts
1.11	A Voice		God
1.13	Satan	Christ's opponent
1:16	Simon/Andrew	Models for negative disciple behavior
1:19	James/John	Models for negative disciple behavior
1:30	Simon's wife's mother		Healed
1:40	Leper		Healed by Faith & proclaims Jesus Christ (to everyone)

Joseph of Erricawithia

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-24-2012, 08:38 AM

JW:
As a refresher, here is my criteria to help identify possible fictional use of names:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...4&postcount=73

Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

1) Recognition through reading or sound.

2) Demonstrated style of the author.

3) Contextual fit.

4) Thematic fit.

5) Lack of known literal fit.

6) Fictional story.

In the offending verse currently under the markiscope here at FRDB:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_2:14

Quote:

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (ASV)

JW:
The Legendary Vorkosigan comments:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark02.html [bold mine]

Quote:

v14: Levi follows Jesus immediately, clearly implausible. v14 is a doublet of 1:16 and in part follows it word for word (Ludemann 2001, Donahue and Harrington 2002, p100). In addition to its inherent implausibility, there is another problem: the name "Levi" is not secure. Levi has traditionally been identified with the evangelist Matthew because in Mt 9:9 it is Matthew rather than Levi of whom this story is told; in Luke (5:7) it is Levi, as here in Mark's gospel. But in Codex Bezae (D05) the name given to this tax collector is James the son of Alphaeus. Apart from the four, Simon Peter and Andrew, James and John, the lists of the disciples in the Synoptic gospels differ, not only among each other, but also in manuscripts of the same gospel.

v14: "Tax collector." Tax collectors were shunned as representatives of the hated colonial order, and were often held to be dishonest and disreputable.

v14: A tax collector named "Levi"? Perhaps a bit of irony, or a polemic against the collaboration of the priestly castes with Roman imperialism. Levites were set off from the other tribes and only Levites could be priests (see full story in Exodus 32).

JW:
I've previously indicated on these unholy Boards that I think "Mark" has a structural model for Jesus of:

Healing Ministry = Elijah

Teaching Ministry = Moses

Passion Ministry = David

As a set-up to 2:14 note that in the Prologue "Mark" invokes Elijah and than has his Jesus launch into his Healing Ministry. Jesus is described as doing Teaching to 2:14 but just generally. The emphasis up to that point is the Healing. The Catalytic/Paralytic Converter story just before is the climax of the initial Healing Ministry and per the Vorkmeister pre/fore/dark shadows the resurrection.

2:14 is introduced by 2:13:

Quote:

And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.

Now "Mark" invokes Moses:

1) Sea side = Red Sea

2) All the multitude = Israel

3) He taught them =Moses teaching career starts at the start of the Exodus

At 2:14 "Mark" than uses the name "Levi". As Vork rightly divided, this invokes the Levite priestly class who per the Jewish Bible were basically tax collectors. But in addition, the timing of the use of "Levi" looks connected to "Mark's" set-up of the Moses' model too as Moses was famously a Levite (and yes, the Passion is similarly set-up with the invocation of David, this time explicitly).

Perhaps even more important (just perhaps) than my brilliant analysis above is that the Legendary Vorkosigan is now threatening to resume The Markan Commentary sight. Let's all pray that he does because I am starting to fear that Jesus might actually return before he does.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

stephan huller · 06-24-2012, 08:51 AM

But Mark was himself a Levite according to Alexandrian tradition. Levi also appears at the end of the gospel of peter. Levi was also an exceedingly common name. There was a famous Dosithean leader named Libi (Samaritan pronunciation who could have been Christian) from the first century. I think the Gospel of Peter reference is important

stephan huller · 06-24-2012, 09:00 AM

The tax gatherer for Clement (there is only one) is named either Matthew or Zacchaeus but never Levi even though Levi is named among,the twelve (ot at least the earliest disciples)

JoeWallack · 06-29-2012, 04:08 PM

JW:
From Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

2) Demonstrated style of the author.

A common style of "Mark" is to repeat names, often in a short space.

The offending portion:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6

Quote:

Mark 6:14 And king Herod heard [thereof]; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.

15 But others said, It is Elijah. And others said, [It is] a prophet, [even] as one of the prophets.

16 But Herod, when he heard [thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.

17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife; for he had married her.

18 For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother`s wife.

19 And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she could not;

20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly.

21 And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the high captains, and the chief men of Galilee;

22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

The serious student should know by now that the first place to look for analysis is the Legendary Vorkosigan's:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GM...html#6.p.14.29

The Vorkmeister demonstrates and than some, that while the offending verse is possible, it is implausible (history, not). Of specific interest in this Thread is the extent to which "Mark" invokes the name "Herod" unnecessarily and especially improperly. Such usage will be Marked in red.

Quote:

14 And king Herod heard [thereof]; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.

Per Josephus it was Herod Antipas the Tetrarch who had John executed. Josephus does sometimes just refer to him as "Herod". Here though "Mark" uses only "Herod" without ever saying "Antipas" or "Tetrarch" thus strengthening the connection to the original Herod the Great (who was King).

Quote:

17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife; for he had married her.

Per Josephus, who presumably is recording history, Herodias had nothing to do with John's Passion. So why invoke her name? Herodias was married to Herod the Great's son Herod and not Phillip. That would seem to go against "Mark" deliberately repeating "Herod" but can be explained by "Mark" starting off here with "Herod" instead of "Herod Antipas" and not wanting to say Herod married Herod's wife. Hence Herodias hastened to the next in Lyine, Phillip.

Quote:

22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

The textual evidence supports "his daughter Herodias" meaning Herod's daughter. So Herod, husband of Herodius, has a daughter Herodius. A tightly knit family. Per Josephus, Herodius was Phillip's daughter. Another sacrifice to history.

In summary, "Mark's" overuse of the name "Herod" here:

1) Naming Herod Antipas just Herod.

2) Calling this Herod King instead of Tetrarch (connecting to Herod the Great).

3) Bringing his wife Herodius into the story.

4) Saying his daughter was Herodius and bringing her into the story.

Most would agree that all four are historical errors but this post goes beyond that to claiming that "Mark" has made all these errors intentionally in order to invoke the name "Herod". Note especially that all these Herods/Herodiasses are in close proximity in "Mark's" potential source Josephus, "Mark" is just rearranging them with style.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-25-2012, 07:51 AM

JW:
Super Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again looking at the Literary Criticism evidence that "Mark's" use of "Bartimaeus" is evidence of intentional fiction:

Mark’s (Unclean) Bartimaeus and Plato’s (Honoured) Timaeus

Quote:

I have always been shy of accepting the argument one sometimes reads that the blind Bartimaeus in the Gospel of Mark came by his unusual name (along with its unusual manner of its explanation) from the influence of Plato’s Timaeus.

But a passage in Earle Hilgert’s chapter, “The Son of Timaeus: Blindness, Sight, Ascent, Vision in Mark”, in Reimagining Christian Origins has for the first time opened my mind to the possibility that Plato’s famous work could be behind the name after all. (I’m not saying I am sure it is. Only that I am more open to the possibility.)

Points Godfree notes supporting fiction:

1) Unusual name/explanation

2) Timaeus themes that parallel "Mark" ("sight", "seeing" God)

3) Popularity/influence of Timaeus in "Mark's" time

4) The consonants can be used to get "son of the unclean" in Aramaic/Hebrew

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

12-21-2011, 06:27 PM	#71
lmbarre Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: California Posts: 138	The intention of gMark I think that gMark did not intend to show that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of the blessed one. To the contray, instead of ushering in the messianic age, Jesus died, abandoned by his god. As pointed out, Jesus last words reference Jesus' statement to the high priest that he was indeed the Messiah and that the imminent messianic age will vindicate his claim. It did not became manifest, showing that Jesus was not the Messiah but rather a "son of god."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2012, 08:51 AM	#75
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But Mark was himself a Levite according to Alexandrian tradition. Levi also appears at the end of the gospel of peter. Levi was also an exceedingly common name. There was a famous Dosithean leader named Libi (Samaritan pronunciation who could have been Christian) from the first century. I think the Gospel of Peter reference is important

06-24-2012, 09:00 AM	#76
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The tax gatherer for Clement (there is only one) is named either Matthew or Zacchaeus but never Levi even though Levi is named among,the twelve (ot at least the earliest disciples)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.