Newton's Cat

Mark 1,14 doesn't say that John was "put in prison" - PARADOTHENAI doesn't mean "put in prison" in this context. Why haven't the scholars picked up on this, its so obvious?

And why do the English translations of 1,11 read "am well-pleased" when the scholars know that the Greek really reads "was well-pleased"?

It seems to me that almost all scholars who are believers, and even many who are not, are "blinkered" when it comes to getting through to the sense of the text.

I mean - its obvious to me that the original author of Mark was an out and out atheist making an attack on religion - and that his work was calculatedly and skillfully altered and large chunks added to the text - mainly by one individual (who had bizarre sensibilities focused on sex and violence).

Toto

Young's Literal Translation has:

This is sometimes translated as "After John was arrested" or "after John was taken into custody."

If "delivered up" (to the authorities) does not mean arrested, what do you think it refers to?

I'm not clear in any case how this is significant to your thesis. Why do you think that the original of Mark was written by an atheist? How could you recover the original text? Other than the crucifixion, there is not a lot of violence in Mark, and hardly any sex (compared to the Roman and Greek works of the period.)

Newton's Cat

Mark 1,14

Kai meta to paradothhnai Iwannhn

John (Iwannhn) is the subject, the doer of the action. The sense is 'after the "handing over" by/from John' (to Jesus). The sense is a "handing over" of authority. If the sense IS the idea of being taken into custody then John is pictured as surrendering himself to custody - not being arrested. With this sense the reader is suddenly presented with an image of John being taken into custody by unspecified persons at his own instigation. The story further on in Mark of John's treatment at the hands of Herod was a later interpolation. Verse 14 existed before the text made any reference to his arrest.

S.C.Carlson

Just to clarify, the verb here is an aorist passive infinitive. In the passive voice, the subject is the recipient of the action.

Stephen

sharon45

The beginnings of mark especially are like reading a story written by an impatient child. The text just skips along not wishing to give enough details or explanations in order to make a properly structured accounting.

It combines a haphazard joining of both Isaiah and of Malachi even though these passages are clearly not in reference to the same thing and of course out of place in this newer telling. Nowhere is it mentioned as to why there is even a need for someone like john and of the supposed purposes to baptizing people. Where is this really scripturally based?

After being baptized, jesus goes to the desert and is supposedly tested by Satan, but there isn't any real reason given as to how and why this is even taking place.

There isn't even any indication that john is in danger of plots from any outside forces let alone shown to be doing anything wrong worthy of being arrested for.

Newton's Cat

Ah - someone who knows!

My question now is:

Can it be said with certainty that 'to paradothhnai tov Iwannhn' really DOES mean "the arrest of John"? Could it not mean a "handing over" of something (authority?) from John to Jesus by means of an external agency? The sudden introduction of the arrest of John presupposes that the reader already knows the general storyline (it could be, of course, that there was an introduction to the Gospel, now lost, that did indeed give this information).

Is there any scholarly doubt as to the meaning of this phrase? If the reader was not aware of the details of John's arrest as described later would the reader automatically read it as John being arrested? The reader would then wonder - arrested by who? The failure of the author to clarify this, if it does mean "the arrest of John", is puzzling. Why is paradothhnai used?

Could a slight alteration of the suffix change the meaning to something like the sense I'm suggesting?

And so on ....

Newton's Cat

The storyline describes ALL the people of Judaea and Jerusalem flocking out en mass to John and being converted. Jesus comes along from Galilee and is baptised - then - it blandly says "after John was arrested" !!!!

Like - there is something odd here!

Newton's Cat

Like in verse 40 Jesus shows a deep and moving sympathy for the leper, heals him, then - suddenly gets "heavy" with him in verse 43

Literal translation:

'And sternly admonishing him immediately he put him out'

Verses 43 onwards were, so it seems to me, inserted by someone with a negative attitude towards verses 40-42.

All the way through Mark there seems to be an interplay between two very different ways of thinking. The original story was deliberately and calculatedly altered - so it seems to me.

I even suspect it was Simon of Cyrene on the cross and not Jesus.

Vinnie

""""""""""""I mean - its obvious to me that the original author of Mark was an out and out atheist making an attack on religion - and that his work was calculatedly and skillfully altered and large chunks added to the text - mainly by one individual (who had bizarre sensibilities focused on sex and violence)."""""""""""

?????

S.C.Carlson

The latest edition of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines this verb as "to convey someth[ing] in which one has a relatively strong personal interest: hand over, give (over), deliver, entrust." When it is used for a person, it has a technical meaning of surrendering or delivering someone into custody.

In Mark 1:14, "John" is the subject of the passive infinitive, which means that he is one being handed over. It does not mean that something is being handed over from him.

The story of John the Baptist and his execution was known outside of the gospels, for example, in Josephus the Jewish historian, and even if reader weren't familiar about what happened, they'll become so at Mark 6:17 ("For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison..."), which is a lot more explicit than 1:14.

The idea that the Gospel of Mark is missing its beginning is not widely held but there are some respectable scholars who have advocated this. Clayton Croy's book The Mutilation of Mark is a good book to read if you want to learn more about it.

I would suspect that the readers' background information would help a lot, particularly since there's evidence that many of the earliest Christian leaders, including Peter, used to belong to the Baptist's sect.

As to why the bare term was used, I think it was to foreshadow the handing over of Jesus. Several words in the (surviving) beginning of the gospel get repeated later during the passion, and "to hand over" is one of them. Later on in Mark, Jesus will predict his being handed over, Judas will hand Jesus over to the chief priests, the chief priests will hand Jesus over to Pilate, and Pilate will hand him over to the soldiers to be crucified. Lots of "handing over"s in Mark.

I would expect more like instead of the bare subject Ioannen that a prepositional phrase apo Ioannou be used or possiblly an aorist active infinitive paradounai.

Stephen