JoeWallack

JW:
In considering "Mark's" Possible Replacement Theology, let's look at the other Brothers of "Mark's" Jesus: (NIV)

6:
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Footnotes:
1. Mark 6:3 Greek Joses, a variant of Joseph"

Interesting to note that by location of words it's "brother of James".

At the Exxxcellent Skeptical site:

The Rejection of Pascal's Wager

Paul Tobin makes a Nice argument that it was James, the Brother of Jesus, and not Peter who was the leader of the Early Church in Jerusalem:

James, the Leader of the Jerusalem Church

Now for Starters let's do an Inventory of "Mark's" use of "James" in his Gospel:
(and the obligatory related X-Uh-Jesus)

Results 1-13 of 13

1. Mark 1:19
When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets.

Introduction of James and Explicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers.

2. Mark 1:29
As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew.

Implicit identification of James as Brother and listed first.

3. Mark 3:17
James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder

Explicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers.

4. Mark 3:18
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot

No identification as Brother. Instead identification as "son of Alphaeus". Vork, roll the Second Frame:

2:
"Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

"Levi son of Alphaeus". Hmmm. There was a Follower "Levi son of Alphaeus" and now there's a Follower "James son of Alphaeus". Vehhy interesting. So the only time so far "James" is not ID'ed as a Brother you have lots of Figurative potential with the Replacement of "Levi" by "James", eating in "Levi's" home with sinners (after eating in Simon's) and sons of "Alphaeus" ("the first"-"the first will be last"). A little known fact here is that what is now known as 'Matthew" was originally named "Levi" after this Levi the tax collector but Subsequent Christianity decided that "Levi" sounded "too Jewish".

5. Mark 5:37
He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James.

Explicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers.

6. Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Explicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers.

7. Mark 9:2
After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.

Implicit identification of James as Brother and listed first. And talk about a Replacement Theme. That's what I'm talking about!

8. Mark 10:35
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."

Explicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers. Seems redundant for "Mark" to add "the sons of Zebedee" here unless he wants to make some Theological point.

9. Mark 10:41
When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John.

Implicit identification of James as Brother and listed first.

10. Mark 13:3
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately,

Implicit identification of James as Brother and listed first.

11. Mark 14:33
He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.

Implicit identification of James as Brother and listed first.

12. Mark 15:40
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

Explicit identification of James as Brother and listed first.

13. Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Now, after the Lord of the Sabbath is over (dead - "he's dead James"), James is no longer identified as a Brother. Jame's God is God of the Dead, not the Living and he is in Jerusalem not Believing in Resurrections like the Saduccees in Jerusalem. Understand Dear Reader?

So in Summary, of the 13 (Evil) uses of "James" by "Mark":

6 Explicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers.

5 Implicit identification as Brother and placement as the first of the brothers.

1 No identification as Brother instead Replacement of Levi, son of Alphaeus with James, son of Alphaeus.

1 No identification as Brother after Jesus' death.


Updated Framework for this Thread:

1) Jesus was Possible Jesus.

2) Jesus died.

3) Historical Disciples taught Possible Jesus in Jerusalem.

4) Peter wrote "Q", evidence of Possible Jesus. This is what Papias referred to.

5) James, as Brother of Jesus, was selected by Jesus to lead movement.

6) Paul writes in General as Reaction to the Possible Jesus of Peter and James.

7) "Mark" writes Specifically as Reaction to the Possible Jesus of Peter and James saying they didn't Understand that Jesus was Impossible Jesus.

8) The rest really is History.


He Ain't The Heavy, He's My Brother

Joseph, Brother of David

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

Amaleq13

Would you share your source for this "little known fact", por favor?

Ben C Smith

Martin Hengel famously dated Mark to Rome in 69. (That is attractive to me, but I have a lot more research to do on the issue, and would not rule out a date after 70 either.) Since the story of the Gadarene demoniac does not itself make a connection to Olivet or to Jerusalem, the parallel would be one of kind more than one of substance, and 69 would fit nicely.

The idea that the author of Mark knew Jesus personally was a late intrusion into the tradition. The earliest tradents admit that Mark did not know Jesus (Papias and his elder), or at least make no claim that he knew him (Irenaeus, the Latin prologue to Mark, Clement, Origen).

Ben.

Julian

Well, I would think that the connection between Legio X, the Mount of Olives and the destruction of Jerusalem was all too convenient to ignore. It does make me wonder about the Gadara/Gerasa issue but it does potentially explain why Mark put an exorcism scene that had to end in water so far inland that no one local to the Decapolis could take the story seriously. It makes sense when viewed in light of a connection to Legio X. People might even have forgiven Mark for the geographical blunder because the audience was shown an obvious set of metaphors. I don't wish to take the analysis any further as I think it would be quite easy to overanalyze this particular bit. I must also admit to not having spent enough time pondering the ramifications of all this.

Again, it makes more sense if we place Mark after 70. There is a marked tendency to determine a publication range for Mark, and the gospels in general, and then inappropriately moving the publication to the earliest possible year within that range without any good reason to do so other than a perceived heightened authority for the gospel in question. E. P. Sanders, my example because I read him recently although he is not singularly guilty in this context, spent considerable time and analysis establishing a range of years for Mark with reasonably located termini and then proceeded to plop Mark down at the earliest possible year. I am not impressed by such tendentious religiosity. For this reason, and others, I would tend to simply place Mark after 70 because it relieves Mark from the burden of overly accurate prognostication.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Trouble is, whichever legion Mark wished to highlight through his story of the Gadarene demoniac was pretty likely to end up in the campaign on Jerusalem at some point.

I am not sure if you were aware of my predilictions on this point, but I am indeed inclined to see a reference to Legio X in this story. What I am doubting is a necessary connection to Olivet.

Ben.

Julian

There is surely some truth to that statement.
I agree that it is a fairly weak link as is the Fretum -> Fretensis -> θαλασσα connection but it all counts, although even I can hear the menacing creaking of overly taut evidence rubber bands.

Julian

JoeWallack

JW:
I read it somewhere. [1]



Joseph

"Lip" Gloss. Verb and Noun. Just as "Bistromatics" was The Fuel for The Hitchhiker's Guide Travel so too is Lip Gloss The Fuel for the Journey of Church Tradition, the dirty holy water for Nuclear Fiction whereby in an Irony even stronger than "Mark" after the Author writes he knows more than he did before he wrote and after the Reader reads he knows more than the Author knew before or after he wrote.

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


[1] I wrote it down and than I read it

michael wellenberg

That Mark 5:1-20 is a reference to a Roman legion I have already agreed with, but that it specifically refers to a certain legion (and so substantiates Mark´s knowledge of the Jewish war) is mere conjecture. This may all be simple but it is simply not proven, and it does not amount to proof by repeating. The equation with a certain legion would clearly run counter the allegorical nature of that piece by the way.
I do not claim to be able to prove the mid-forties as the date for Mark ´s writing, on the other hand there is nothing to bolster a date around 70 either.

MW

michael wellenberg

Mark´s deliberate omission of a post-Easter appearance of the risen Christ, thus bringing his gospel to an abrupt end, does not look much like a reconciliation, but rather like a fracture that is not healed.

MW

jakejonesiv

For that matter, what would preclude a second cetury date for GMark?

Jake