JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

46: "And they laid hands on him, and took him.

47 But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but [this is done] that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50 And they all left him, and fled. "

Verses:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_18

10 "Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest`s servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant`s name was Malchus.

11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him,"

JW:
I think "John's" version is a Reaction to his Source, "Mark":

1) "Simon Peter" is a Reaction to "Mark's" Jesus saying "Simon" instead of "Peter" right before.

2) Peter is given the sword instead of a bystander to rehabilitate.

3) The servant is named because all the anonymous characters in "Mark" sound like fiction.

4) Most important, "John's" Jesus can not be seized until he decides to be seized.

5) There's no abandonment of the Disciples. Note that "John's" Jesus quotes prophecy here to indicate the opposite of "Mark's" Jesus, that no one was lost:

"that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one."

This is a Heavy Reaction.

In the process of Reaction "John" creates an Implausible situation. Now Jesus' Enemies have a perfectly legitimate charge against him and Peter, resisting arrest. At the Trials, even though the Enemies are shown as willing to do anything to convict Jesus, no one remembers that Peter cut off the High Priest's servant's ear. Implausible. Doesn't work because "John" has made an important change to a carefully written Narrative. The problem doesn't exist in the Original, "Mark", because there it was a bystander.

The question of this Thread, Is the Passion account plausible? is a Jewdie Mind Trick. The proper question is Which Passion account, if any, is plausible?



Joseph

jules?

taking the default stance that 'Mark' wrote fiction why did he/she get the execution so wrong. Everything is wrong [i will happly be corrected], Pilate is involved in an internal crime, wrong, death by crucifixtion, wrong. A Jewish crime was met with Jewish Justice, stoning. Crimes of revolution against Rome would warrant crucifixtion but then there would be no pardon, no mercy, no quick death, it would be a slow gruesome example. It would be public, not viewable from a far.

Mark evidently had other priorities, not least to write up Isaiah's Suffering Servant {plus the psalm] complete with being ignored, humble, silent beaten and pierced, to be confusingly buried with criminals then to have riches [makes sense with crucifixtion with criminals and a richmans tomb]. Perhaps the point was not to have a plausible trial and execution which makes me wonder what the point of Mark's narrative is. Matt is reclaiming Mark's story for a jewish reader, Luke is just doing a spot of research and John takes a passion play and turns it into a religious document. Wouldn't it be funny if it just turned out that 'Mark' was a playwrite, and in the spirit of Aristotle's teachings [particularly tragidy] took a myth in circulation and made it their own.

spamandham

generally speaking, Mark is not viewed to have written 'fiction' as in making something up out of thin air, but rather, constructed fiction from the Jewish scriptures, likely pre-existing Christian documents long since lost, and possibly some actual history. Under these assumptions, he would not be free to make the story anything he wanted, but would instead be restricted to whatever he could compose from these.

joedad

The plausibility of historical Mark being a playwright certainly has more weight than that the gospel events actually happened as written. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, unless religiously.

More importantly though, HJers need to define their HJ. If one wishes to believe that some poor illiterate nameless preacher got whacked by the authorities for causing trouble, who would argue? Didn’t these types get exactly that treatment? The question is what does this fact have to do with the unbelievable and unlikely events related in these gospel stories.

If an unknown itinerant preacher who got whacked by the authorities is all that is reauired to make the gospel events likely, then someone’s trusted steed is the historical Pegasus. I just don’t see what that argument is worth.

jules?

I suppose that is the point, the HJers do need to be specific. But, they tend to set the argument. I think dating has been the biggest box the argument has been placed in yet it is surprisingly difficult to get out of the mindset. Given all the evidence [!:Cheeky: ] the best fit HJ would be ; Josephus mention of Jesus ben Pandira with the evil king not Herod but Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC). His documented execution seems to mirror the Suffering Servant very well and he may have then been 'honoured' by the DSS writers [were they Essene-were they another group!?!] and according to Allegro they had ritual practise 'last suppers' complete with twin messiahs and representatives of the 12.

HJers with faith will not like this because there is no ressurection except the big showdown when the messiah will return to battle evil complete with angelic armies [far more similar to Islam's Jesus].

'Mark' was a genius [after reading the comparisons between Homer/Mark gospel] and if xtianity never broke out into mainstream Roman life i am sure we would herald his/her literary contribution. It is such a modern telling of a plot that it is the one used to reinact. the passion is not plausible and i wonder if most early readers knew this, but in the same way James Bond movies are not plausible accounts of British inteligence operations but doesnt stop them being enjoyed. [Given all the evidence, there was an historical Q, a documented account of a female M, etc James Bond was a real person, and he had super human abilities, the case is overwhleming against the Myth Bonders:devil1: ]

I am facinated why Mark was motivated to write, but a hunch of mine wonders if it was an exercise and why it anonymous [did students sign their work?]
jules

angelo

The Q document was a sayings paper, [ if it existed ] and Mark
and possibley the other authors Luke, and Mathew had possesion of it. John's

gospel reads like the author was on magic mushrooms, as was Revelations, [ only more so ] The story behind James Bond is more believable than the NT, or OT. I am convinced that the whole Jesus myth comes from the Pagan Mystery Religions, decades before the first word was written regarding a mythical Jesus. It's to similar to the Dionysus myth or Osiris to be coincidence.

Clivedurdle

Seneca is in fact far more plausible, or if not him, a student in a very senior Roman philosophical school, possibly training future leaders, doing an exercise - how to sort out the Jews - tweak their religion. Part war gaming, part classical playwrite exercise.

One of the future Roman Emperors or someone in their entourage?

It might not be too difficult to work out who "Mark" is if we look in the right place. Someone with that level of ability could not have been anonymous!

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205276

jules?

Interesting stuff the peice that caught my attention was;

'But that's exactly the point. Christianity was imperial Rome inverted: carpenter vs emperor; heavenly king vs earthly emperor; spiritual vs material, the provinces vs the capital; rural vs urban; pacificism vs militarism; poverty vs wealth; monotheism vs polytheism; and so on. Of course, the parallels are also significant: aggressive expansionism in pursuit of world domination; an insistence on total loyalty to the central authority; a highly legalistic approach to ethics and belief, and so on. (I'm talking about early Christianity here, before the development of a structure that also mirrored that of the Roman state.)

(In fact, Rome did have a problem with the mystery cults. I can't get to my references right now, but as I recall, the Isis cult was outlawed for political reasons having to do with Egypt, and others were banned for licentiousness and "atheism.")

It seems to me that the idea of Christianity as a dialectical reaction to Augustan imperialism is a sound one, at least on its face. I'm going to reread Vork's superb survey of Mark with that in mind.

Didymus'

it has a ring of logic to imagine 'Mark' making a political point by drawing on an evidently popular 'Jesus mystery cult' [q document or Thomas, Isaiah, and inside info on cult practise]and using it as counter point particularly in view of 'Mark's' love of reversal of expectation plot device. Hitchcock was able to make a huge impact on both the public and other film makers with Psyco and the fact that Mark does ROE with such flair seems to me that it has a point.

As to the origins of the Jesus cult i am on the side of Jewish cult breaking into Roman mainstream with Julius Caesar cult having an impact on its wider acceptance.

I shall try and find Boris' book it sounds entertaining.
jules

joedad

It’s equally important for HJers to find real life historical parallels to the gospel Jesus story. Are there any?

Set aside the impossible feats reserved for fictional heroes and comic book characters. But explain this person being permitted to move about freely and draw large crowds amidst Roman occupation. There are numerous examples of popular exiled leaders returning to their countries after revolution or change, but the Jesus story lacks historical notice other than in the gospels.

The Jesus story reads like it was written for an audience, and not that it’s about this protagonist named Jesus, except Jesus as someone else, like the Cowardly Lion being William Jennings Bryan or something like that. As a work of fiction the story just makes a lot more historical sense.

Clivedurdle

So we probably will never find an hj but we may be able to find an author or authors and a good idea of who the character is modelled on - it may be an antithesis of Augustus!

Who hated Augustus? Anthony and Cleopatra? A Roman supporter of Anthony in Egypt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus