Vorkosigan

Yes. And I couldn't get the link to work either. From memory, there are numerous vocab stylistic similarities between John and Mark found only in that section. Some common themes (water and boats). Also, the things you refer to appear to be redactional additions, and much of the ending has been deleted. What's left is only a portion.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Sources of John appears to be David Ross's new web page which starts here.

The Unfinished Gospel (out of print but cheap used copies are available)

Amaleq13

I just posted this in the Why Invent Jesus? thread but I thought it was also appropriate here.

It seems to me that the "resurrection experiences"* were the inspiration for the attribution of divinity (not necessarily Christ=God, at first, but Christ+God). It makes sense to assume that the Disciples would be more likely to focus on the teachings/wisdom/behavior of the living Jesus but it also makes sense to assume they would be the ones to have "resurrection experiences" and, consequently, develop beliefs about the divinity of the Risen Christ. But that isn't how the evidence seems to read because the earliest (i.e. Paul and Q) show no such overlap. This pattern seems to require us to assume that at least three of the Disciples (Cephas, James, and John) were so overwhelmed by their resurrection experiences that they stayed in Jerusalem and completely focused on the Risen Christ while the others returned to Galilee and continued to emphasize the teachings/wisdom/behavior of the living Jesus. Our buddy Mark seems to favor this latter group as he criticizes Cephas, James, and John for failing to understand the living Jesus and ends his story with Jesus promising to appear in Galilee to the Disciples.

Whadayathink?

Doctor X

As noted, this is part of Mk's joke with respect to the Centurian. However, what Mk actually thought was quite different. Here is the textual evidence I mentioned.

The laboring scientists brought forth a mouse. . . .

Mark?s "Secret":

I contended that Mk and most likely his intended audience accepted the divinity of Junior but ridicule the disciples for not. I have discussed a number of possible motivations for this, which include the possibility that the "traditional" group--which may be the Jerusalem group or what was left of them or traditions of them--did not consider Junior a divine figure. Here I will try to provide textual support both contentions. For sources, I use Throckmorton which is based on the RSV, and the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament [NE--Ed.] which also uses the RSV as the basic English translation. I will correct [Mangle--Ed.] translations as necessary.

Mark 1:1

Well that takes care of the first part. . . . Who said criticism was difficult?

Well, a bit of textual criticism . . . two main witnesses, Codex Sinaticus and Codex Koridethianus do not contain "the Son of God"--[huiou theou--Ed.]. Nestle-Aland also lists "a few" manuscripts in the "Sahidic" tradition just to be complete. Generally, the "shortest" and "most difficult" reading is preferred in textual criticism. Thus, one can argue that this is an insertion. Indeed, if I read the more complicated NE criticus apparatus, absence of "the Son of God" was in the earlier Nestle edition.

Thus . . . this is a theological insertion that the other witnesses added and the critics wish to retain. Why would scribes "drop it?"

However, Codex Koridethianus, while a "category II" text attributed to the ninth century by Aland, has the rather interesting distinction that it was written by a scribe who apparently did not know Greek! Defending retention of "the Son of God" are a number of witnesses which include: Vaticanus--"category I." Thus, one could argue that inclusion is supported by a number of good witnesses.

However, according to NE "the Son of God" is supported by Codex Sinaticus. Apparently, one can recognize the original scribe and first, second, and subsequent correctors. If I understand NE correctly, the original scribe does not have "the Son of God," it is contained in the hand of the first corrector. Frankly, this leads me to suspect it is an addition. Since it is at least inconclusive, I will drop it as evidence. Certainly, Mk does not use "the Son of God" with "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" in subsequent passages.

Mark 1:10-11

Apparently, theological manifestations spoke with "thees" and "thous" in first century Palestine. . . .

This has a direct address to Junior to identify who he is. One can wonder, theologically, why he would need to be told, though this could just be a way of publically proclaiming his divinity. "What" a child of a deity means to Mk is a subject in and of itself--what is Mk's conception of Junior's divinity? Nevertheless, clearly he considers Junior more than a man.

When teaching at the synagogue [Mk 6:1-6a--Ed.], listeners suggest that his wisdom comes from someplace else noting his humble origins. This is merely a hint from Mk--they do not get the whole story and actually "stumble" at him. Clearer is Mk 1:21-27:

Yes . . . who could it be . . . could it be . . . SATAN?!!! There is humor in Mk. Similar to this incident, Junior casts out "many demons" and ". . . he would not permit the demons to speak , because they knew him." [Mk 1:34--Ed.] Even clearer is Mk 3:7-12:

Thus, it seems clear that Mk considered Junior divine and most likely his audience did as well. Others in the story figure it out, but not the disciples and the wandering band of scribes and Jews that conveniently follow Junior and His Merry Band. As forementioned, "divine" is an interesting concept perhaps worth a thread. Mk's "son of god" can be crushed! He can also be limited--in the teaching at the synagogue incident, because of his negative reception, ". . . he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief." So, too, would Mk's audience.

Markan incidents of the disciples' collective unconsciousness are legion. Throughout the feeding of the five thousand [Mk 6:35-44--Ed.], Junior walks his disciples through each step of the miracle. One RSV page and a taming of the elements later, the disciples gawk at the same situation. Junior seethes with astonishment:

They never do. In response to Junior's dramatic transfiguration, Peter contributes, "'. . . let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah,'" [Mk 8:18-21--Ed.] The voice from the overshadowing cloud fails to enlighten them. Such "understanding" may explain why when Jesus walks on the water to Bethsaida, "He meant to pass by them." [Mk 6:48--Ed.]

--J.D.

References:

Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. EF Rhodes, trans. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1987

Throckmorton BH. Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 4th. ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1979.

Doctor X

Now for the other objection . . . they have eyes but they do not hear. . . .

Amaleq13:

"Inspired" is not what Mk intends, as demonstrated in the text. He is a son of a god. Now, is he a "god on earth?" Not as we would understand it or as later writers would depict him. The rest is quite correct.

. . . or . . . did Mk's followers come from a different area and even claim beginnings in Galilee? Yes, Junior would resurrect and appear to the disciples in Galilee . . . but not to the ones in Jerusalem. It could be a "swipe" at the Jerusalem group. Of course, after the squishing of Jerusalem, "what" was left of the Jerusalem group could be someplace else. I do not know.

Et tu, Amaleque-e?. I am afraid the polemic against the disciples is too severe to suggest just a simple disagreement. Mk cannot re-write history, particularly if he is addressing a smaller and less-successful group who also knows the traditions. As for whether or not the disciples are the "Pillars"--well, Peter is one of both! We all know what Mk thinks of "Rock-Head!" However, he cannot re-write history. He can make him a "stumbling block," an "obstacle"--SATAN!--to Junior, however!

I think your "recap" works.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

You are making it very difficult to misunderstand the point of your argument.

First, this is consistent with a Jewish belief that the Messiah would not be known, even to himself, until he was anointed by the "Elias" figure. We find evidence of this belief placed in the mouth of Trypho in the dialogue with Justin. Second, you seem to have missed (surely not ignored) my point of agreement with Mike. The title "son of God" was commonly attributed to miracle-performing prophets ("in Hellenistic literature" should have been added there). Continuing to rely on Vermes, the title had three traditional meanings in the OT; 1)angelic beings, 2) Israelites, 3) kings of Israel. Don't get too excited about the first one because the "post-biblical" Jewish use of the title was as the prefered reference for "the just man" and, specifically, the Messiah.

"...it would appear that a first-century AD Palestinian Jew, hearing the phrase son of God, would have thought first of all of an angelic or celestial being; and secondly, when the human connection was clear, of a just and saintly man. The divine sonship of the Messiah was expected to be within a royal context. In a Hellenistic milieu -- and there alone -- the epithet would allegedly have called to mind a miracle-worker." (Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, pg.200)

That Mark attributes this title to Jesus, cannot be considered evidence that the author believed Christ to be divine. I think all the evidence you cited can be understood just as well as Mark's attempt to portray Jesus as the Messiah without any assumptions about divinity.

Take note that neither Moses nor Elijah were considered divine so even the transfiguration has done nothing more than raise Jesus to the level of these supremely respected and thoroughly human Jewish heroes.

Doctor X

I think, rather, he "explains" why others may have only seen him that way. He has Junior, himself, admit it:

Again, what does "son of god" mean to Mark? It seems more than the expression "son of god"--as the Centurian would understand it. Mark gives other hints:

Who indeed, asks Mk rhetorically. He hammers home the point by having Junior stress:

Again, "what" divine figure means to Mk is a subject of discussion. I would agree it is not the view of a "member of the Trinity" or an actual "god on earth" that would later develop. His divine figure has limitations. He argues against the more "terrestrial" conception that you describe above. This does lead me to suspect that such a conception was what early followers have and Mk--and probably Mk's audience--disagree with.

First, in my reply the wrong citation for this--"Mk 8:18-21"--was given. Apparently, even editorial powers are limited [We are legion.--Ed.]. In Mk 9:2-8, he makes a distinction between Junior and the "thoroughly human Jewish heroes" Moses and Elijah:

Junior is not "equal" to them, he is better than them.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I think I'm with you now. On the Doctor X Scale of Divinity (DXSD), Mark's Son of God is above God's Wisdom (from Q) but below the much later Trinity's Son. Paul's Risen Messiah seems to be more divine than Mark's but less than the TS, agreed?

Would Mark have approved of Paul's conception or criticized it for failing to include the living, miracle-performing Messiah?

Are the "early followers" you mention above the Disciples? That would agree with Q but seem contrary to the Disciples=Pillars idea Mark introduces.

What about my recent reconception post where only the Big Three Disciples (i.e. Cephas, James, John) embrace the Risen Christ theology while the rest return to Galilee to continue the Kingdom of God ministry?

Right, he is the End Times Messiah which apparently included some cool perks (e.g. sin forgiving)

Doctor X

Yes! The problem with "divine" and "son of god" is, today, we are awash in two millenia of assuming that meant "a god." The whole trinity problem results from trying to reconcile a god and a man. Grab a local Christian today--by the neck, preferably [Stop that!--Ed.]--and ask him if Junior can do anything? "Yes" will be the most likely response. "So, Junior is God?" "No." Et cetera.

I am not sure we can conclude exactly what Mk preached; however, his Junior has limitations. As you and others have noticed, the fact that "Da Big Voice" addresses him after the baptism may mean that he just figured out who he is! I am not sure we can conclude that, but it is a possibility. Also, he has limitations--cannot do miracles when people without faith are about--sounds like Sylvia Brown--and the wonderful spiting-cure-blind-man.

Oooo . . . here I reach the edge of my understanding--I am not a big Paul fan so I do not know him as well as I should. I think it is possible that miracle stories started and Mk used some and Paul would not have known of them--big "if." Anyways, to my recollection, Paul does not preach "the world" or obtaining glory "here" for joining the religion, and Mk may have very well agreed with that.

Well . . . we do not know where Mk came from . . . at least I do not. Since Mk identifies certain of the disciples he does not like--Peter, for example, as well as James--it seems that he plans to equate the disciples with whatever his audience would have conceived of the Jerusalem Group. You see, I do not know what is "left" after the Squishing of Jersulem. It could be just a "tradition" and Mk has to explain why his is different. He may compete with established groups.

However, these are interesting passages from Mk:

you can almost hear John whine. Notice his use of "follow us." Who the hell is "us?" Mk almost asks rhetorically. Add in the fact that Junior has to explain every parable to the Hapless Ones and it seems that he is:

1. Providing justification for the rise of leaders/groups not part of the "in" group/tradition.
2. Implies that "they" who were/are part of the "in" group did not and do not understand Junior's message.

We look at the gospels as stories . . . and they are to some extent, Mk is very entertaining . . . however I do not think Mk intended to write a "story of Junior" to give to "da flock." Methinks he wrote a document to justify his message and movement.

What about it? [Stop that!--Ed.]

Seriously, you mean:

Who started the whole "risen" thing? Trolling through Mk, we have this gem:

How difficult a concept is that? I think Mk implies the disciples--and this will include "Da Big Three"--did not understand the resurrection. This leads me against your contention that they focused on the Risen Christ. If I understand the comparison of Galatians and Act correctly--where Lk tries to Petrify Paul and Pauline Peter! and Paul tries to "spin" his defeat--the "Pillars" did not see Junior as a divine man. A bit of a stretch there because, as I admit, I do not know Paul enough. Lk thinks he is divine and portrays the disciples as helpless but probably not that helpless!

Of course, you could be right, and Mk's group could have disagreed with Peter-James-John's conception and--like calling Catholics "anti-Christian"--this is a severe polemic on Mk's part.

Someone . . . somewhere . . . hooked on the "resurrection" idea. Nothing kills a cult like the death of a leader. However, if you start the rumor that that "he will come back" you may keep the believers going.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

That is where things start getting odd, IMHO, when trying to reconstruct the "historical reality". Like I said, it only makes sense to assume that it would be the original Disciples who would have the resurrection experiences and that seems to support Mk's "pillars"=Disciples. However, we also think that the original Disciples would have been the ones most likely to continue to emphasize the living, teaching Jesus which seems to undermine the Paul beliefs="pillar" beliefs.

Within the context of an assumed historical Jesus, the only credible reason for Paul's silence seems to me to be a desire to avoid granting any hint of greater authority or legitimacy to the "pillars"/Disciples. If they weren't original Disciples, then I'm not sure how credible this remains.

Not to Monday-morning-quarterback you but I would have used "Paulinate".

As I've mentioned before, I tend to consider the resurrection experiences genuine. By "genuine", of course, I mean that they claimants really had what they considered to be a real experience of the Risen Christ after prolonged prayer, study of Scripture, and fasting (with the possible exception of the occasional fungi). Given James' reputation as a seriously pious individual (Nazarite vows even?), I can easily see him engaging in such a practice. Unless he was the follower of the HJ, though, I'm not sure why else he would do this. Who else would care enough to try to figure out what went wrong by studying Scripture/prayer except a former follower? But Paul claims Cephas was the first to witness the Risen Christ and that doesn't make as much sense if we assume he was a Galilean fisherman.

(Within the mythical context, James would be trying to figure out what went wrong with the Messiah concept in general.)