Vinnie

My take on some of Mark [posted to X-Talk]:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/14307

See especially the end citation from Tolbert.

Vinnie

mike_decock

Just to clarify, by "divinity", I specifically mean an incarnation of God. I don't want to confuse that with Prophets/Saints who have reached a certain "divine" status but are less than God (Elijah, Moses, etc).

Another thought on why Mark's "Messianic secret" and the ending in which the woman "told no one" and leaving it with an open tomb:

Perhaps the disciples didn't have any post-resurrection experiences and therefore didn't tell anyone about it. Paul has a resurrection experience (along with other followers) and Mark has to explain why in his narrative. The disciples didn't "get it" (the resurrection experience, who Jesus really was, etc.) but the reader does.

I think that works with Tolbert's view (at least from what I gather in Vinnie's quote) but that may just be the homebrew talking .

Even with a resurrected Jesus, I don't see it as evidence for divinity. More like having an encounter with Elijah or some other great prophet.

-Mike...

Doctor X

Mike_Decock: [And Vork--Ed.]

Well, like my "admonishment" to Vinnie, I am not "preaching" a certainty--"I know that Mk meant this. . . ." Exactly "what" divine meant to Mk is less clear than, say, in Jn. Mk does not strike me as that Gnostic--those who "see" the secret do not so much discover it in themselves. I do think Mk's audience believed Junior was divine given how "clear" Mk makes his "specialness."

Anyways, I have my books and, when I am done with "stuff" I will post the passages that I think are relevant.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I think I have to agree with Mike here. According to Vermes, not only was the job of "miracle-performing prophet" popular, so was the title "son of God" in assocation with such a profession. When I read this author portraying Jesus taking a second shot at healing the blind man, I see him establishing Jesus as one of these prophets. I also think I tend to agree with <gasp - in an historical Jesus discussion?> Wells who notes that Mark's emphasis is on the Passion and crucifixion.

Mark's Jesus is a Jewish, miracle-performing, divinely-inspired Prophet-Messiah whose suffering death was tremendously meaningful. Paul's (and presumably the Pillars'?) Jesus is a Risen Christ whose resurrection was tremendously meaningful.

One of the alleged "Secret Mark" passages repeated by Clementine depicts Jesus raising a "young man" (in Bethany where GJn says Jesus raised Lazarus) who, later, gets a personal overnight tutoring session on "the mystery of God's Kingdom" wearing only a "linen cloth". This would appear to explain who the heck that young man wearing only a linen cloth is at the arrest.

Doesn't the fact that Mark depicts Jesus promising to resurrect and appear to the disciples in Galilee argue against the Pillars=Disciples idea? Or did the rural followers of Jesus move to Jerusalem after their resurrection experiences? James the Just appears to have already been there so is his resurrection experience the result of their influence?

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Vinnie that Mark is not as entirely opposed to the Disciples as your comment suggests. After all, he at least implies that Jesus still appeared to them in Galilee which would (assuming Pillars=Disciples) tend to suggest he didn't completely reject them.

I think I'm leaning more and more toward considering Mark's depiction of the "ignorant Disciples" as a criticism against the Pillars/Disciples for failing to include the wise teachings of Jesus in their theology of the Risen Christ.

There is ample evidence that there existed "Jesus followers" who focused primarily (exclusively?) on the teachings of the living Jesus (e.g. The Didache community, Ebionites). Perhaps they wouldn't have necessarily opposed the theology of the Risen Christ but they might have objected to an absence of any emphasis on the teachings.

This is why I tend to reject Pillars=Disciples. The Disciples appear to have been poor and rural while the Pillars appear to be urban and poor by choice.

Before I forget, something occurred to me that seems strange whether we assumed James to have been Jesus' brother or "only" a prominent Jew with a great reputation: Is there any attempt in early Christian literature to depict the conversion of James?

This seems especially puzzling if we assume James is Jesus' brother who previously rejected him as crazy. I would think somebody would have at least tried to make one up (e.g. GPeter's resurrection). What gives?

Vorkosigan

A dueced interesting question. Given the total absence of data, speculation will surely be the order of the day. Although it strikes me as strong evidence that conversion never occurred and James was always a believer, and the gospel depiction of Jesus' "family" is bogus. But then I sorta figured that anyway.

Amaleq13

What reason do we have to assume that members of the Jerusalem Church had previously been followers of a living Jesus?
According to Mark, yes. I'm asking why we should believe Mark.

Why does assuming an historical Jesus make Mark's claim more credible?

If I assume an historical Jesus, I tend to consider his followers to be more like the rural Galileans of Q than the Jerusalem-dwelling Pillars of Paul.

I get the impression that Paul only got in Torah-related trouble when he started suggesting that even Jews were no longer bound by it if they accepted Christ. They don't seem to have cared at all if he told this to Gentiles. Also, where does Paul identify a "man" with the logos? He only talks about the Pre-existent Christ and the Risen Christ in that way. He barely mentions a "man" at all.

Yes but the key word is plausible and Paul doesn't have much to say about him but what little he does say doesn't appear to suggest he considered Jesus divine while living.

I think that's the one I was trying to recall. And you even remembered to phrase your answer in the form of a question! You can move on to Final Jeopardy!

Llyricist wrote:
I replied:
Why should we assume that the Pillars' beliefs were closer to the Gospels' than Paul's? Isn't Mark criticizing them (assuming Pillars=Disciples) for not sharing his beliefs?


This entire discussion is within the context of an assumed HJ but that doesn't mean we have to leave our skeptical hats at home. I probably should have pointed out that Mark's Gospel has no depiction of the resurrected Jesus. Paul's "real person" seems to have been only a marginal necessity given the need to be executed and resurrected. Mark's "real person" fills the entire story. Your assumption that the Pillars held beliefs closer to Mark's than Paul's seems to depend on the assumption-in-question (i.e. Pillars=Disciples) being assumed true.

Are there any good reasons we should accept Mark's depiction of the Pillars as the Disciples as historical?

Amaleq13

To make things more interesting, scan back a few posts and consider the evidence that James the Just had an established reputation before converting!

How does an Always Believing James obtain an excellent reputation among his fellow Jews?

This is a guy whose death was believed by Jews (and early Christians according to Hegesippus!) to have been the reason for the fall of Jerusalem!!

<flag on the play: excessive use of exclamation points...5 yards, repeat down>

Vorkosigan

I think it once did. Are you familiar with the arguments of Streeter and also Evan Powell (The Unfinished Gospel) for John 21 being part of the lost ending of Mark redacted and inserted into John? See David Ross's site, scroll about halfway down

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Recap time:


1) Mark portrays the living Jesus as the Messiah but also the Pillars/Disciples as failing to recognize this. Mark focuses on the suffering death of the Messiah but implies later resurrection appearances to the Disciples.

2) Paul starts with resurrection appearances to the Pillars and focuses on the significance of the Risen Christ.

3) The Pillars...?


More info for the mix:

Paul's enemies

1) ...called the crucified Christ cursed (1Cor 12:3)

2) ...denied the resurrection of the dead (1Cor 15:12)

3) ...taught another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel (2Cor 11:4)

4) ...specifically identified as Jewish Christians (2Cor 11:12-23)

5) ...perverted the gospel of Christ (1Gal 1:6-11)

Number four could be a reference to the Jerusalem crowd but can we find Mark's community in here as well?

Amaleq13

I'm not familiar with this argument but the link didn't work for me (page not available).

However, two objections immediately come to mind: The mention of Thomas and the beloved disciple in this passage seem more consistent with Jn than Mk. Are these considered to be additions?