Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 06-09-2011, 07:18 AM

Nice, Vorkosigan.

JoeWallack · 06-09-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The writer of Mark had several guides for his fiction-construction. First, GMark follows the Elijah-Elisha cycle. GMark opens with a comparison of Elijah and JBap in v6:

6: Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.

Mark has presented John as an Elijah figure with a leather belt (zonen dematinen) around his waist (peri ten osphyn autou), using the same language the Septaugint uses to describe Elijah, a hairy man, girt with a leather belt (zonen dematinen) around his waist (ten osphyn autou) (Helms 1988, p35). Zech 13:4 states that a hairy mantle is the sign of a prophet.

The writer of Mark's choices are actually quite constrained, once he had chosen to use the Elijah-Elisha cycle as the backbone for the first half of his story. This is because in Hellenistic Historical Romance conventions, one source for GMark, the main character of the tale wanders around the landscape meeting famous people. In this case the EE story and convention of using historical figures and Pauline source suggest the obvious choice of someone famous for baptizing in the area of northern Judea where EE cycle begins: John the Baptist.
Vorkosigan

JW:
I think it's more contrived than that. "Mark's" model =

Teaching Ministry = Moses

Healing Ministry = Elijah/Elisha

Passion Ministry = David

Note that after the Greek Tragedy pivotal recognition scene most of the Jewish Bible allusions are to David including the overall location of Jerusalem. Jesus drives the bad spirit out of the Temple and the Temple drives the good spirit out of Jesus (they just don't write em like that anymore). I have faith that if you calculate the %s for the above it will be relatively high. This would explain why the crucifixion in "Mark" alludes more to the Psalms than 53 even though 53 is a much better parallel.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Vorkosigan · 06-09-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
I think it's more contrived than that. "Mark's" model =

Teaching Ministry = Moses

Healing Ministry = Elijah/Elisha

Passion Ministry = David

Note that after the Greek Tragedy pivotal recognition scene most of the Jewish Bible allusions are to David including the overall location of Jerusalem. Jesus drives the bad spirit out of the Temple and the Temple drives the good spirit out of Jesus (they just don't write em like that anymore). I have faith that if you calculate the %s for the above it will be relatively high. This would explain why the crucifixion in "Mark" alludes more to the Psalms than 53 even though 53 is a much better parallel.
Joseph

ErrancyWiki

That's interesting. What specific passages from Exodus are paralleled in Mark?

Vivisector · 06-09-2011, 09:44 AM

Hi Vork and Dog-On,

I agree with Dog - that's a really sensible explanation, and thanks for more to chew on. Not directly related, but do you think there is a historical connection between JtB's baptism and the Christian practice of baptism, or that maybe the practice was sufficiently widespread that the Christians could have picked it up elsewhere?

Cheers,

V.

jgoodguy · 06-09-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Nice, Vorkosigan.

Agreed. There is a limited numbers of choices for aMark, a limited storyline, no embarrassment because he is writing a mythical historical story not history(typical for the time) and he is first for that story line. It is later story tellers that have to deal with Mark as an authority because it was first.

aa5874 · 06-09-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Hi Vork and Dog-On,

I agree with Dog - that's a really sensible explanation, and thanks for more to chew on. Not directly related, but do you think there is a historical connection between JtB's baptism and the Christian practice of baptism, or that maybe the practice was sufficiently widespread that the Christians could have picked it up elsewhere?

Cheers,

V.

You mean SPECULATION and not EXPLANATION.

The claim that John baptized Jesus was either INVENTED by the author, was a story that was told to the author but was known fiction or was a story BELIEVED to be true.

If the claim that Jesus was baptized by John did NOT originate with the author himself then one can ONLY SPECULATE.

jgoodguy · 06-09-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Hi Vork and Dog-On,

I agree with Dog - that's a really sensible explanation, and thanks for more to chew on. Not directly related, but do you think there is a historical connection between JtB's baptism and the Christian practice of baptism, or that maybe the practice was sufficiently widespread that the Christians could have picked it up elsewhere?

Cheers,

V.

You mean SPECULATION and not EXPLANATION.

The claim that John baptized Jesus was either INVENTED by the author, was a story that was told to the author but was known fiction or was a story BELIEVED to be true.

If the claim that Jesus was baptized by John did NOT originate with the author himself then one can ONLY SPECULATE.

We can say instead that aMark edited any other accounts with his own material into Mark.

Vivisector · 06-09-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Unless as far as aMark was concerned, there was no contention. This seems to be the simplest position. The baptism accomplished connecting Jesus to Jewish practices, to a historical person and adoption by God. Sounds like a winner to me. Only subsequent writers were concerned and their concern may have been more with establishing Jesus' Godhood at birth and not as a adopted son that JtB.

"Contentious" was perhaps not a good word to have used. Maybe "tricky" would have been better.

I think one might read, for example, Mark 2:18 and infer that, at least in Mark's time, there were distinctions between the Jesus people and the John people. Reading Mark's references to JtB, it can almost seem that JtB people were not totally (or at all) accepting of the Jesus people and that Mark, by refusing to say anything bad about JtB or his followers, is trying to win them over while maintaining Jesus's primacy. If (a big "if") this situation is anywhere near correct, then we're again left with the question of why Mark connected Jesus's adoption to baptism by JtB. Of course, the answer could be just as Vork suggested, and Mark made a calculated decision to try to win over the JtB people as part of his creative and/or editorial process.

Cheers,

V.

bacht · 06-09-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

I think one might read, for example, Mark 2:18 and infer that, at least in Mark's time, there were distinctions between the Jesus people and the John people. Reading Mark's references to JtB, it can almost seem that JtB people were not totally (or at all) accepting of the Jesus people and that Mark, by refusing to say anything bad about JtB or his followers, is trying to win them over while maintaining Jesus's primacy. If (a big "if") this situation is anywhere near correct, then we're again left with the question of why Mark connected Jesus's adoption to baptism by JtB. Of course, the answer could be just as Vork suggested, and Mark made a calculated decision to try to win over the JtB people as part of his creative and/or editorial process.

I wonder if theses references to John's followers may be code for gnostics like the Dositheans.

aa5874 · 06-09-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You mean SPECULATION and not EXPLANATION.

The claim that John baptized Jesus was either INVENTED by the author, was a story that was told to the author but was known fiction or was a story BELIEVED to be true.

If the claim that Jesus was baptized by John did NOT originate with the author himself then one can ONLY SPECULATE.

We can say instead that aMark edited any other accounts with his own material into Mark.

You mean SPECULATE. You cannot just "say" whatever you like.

We have claims about a character called Jesus in gMark and do not KNOW how those claims were derived so we cannot just simply arbitrarily Imagine their veracity.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2011, 07:18 AM	#31
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Nice, Vorkosigan.

06-09-2011, 09:44 AM	#34
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	Hi Vork and Dog-On, I agree with Dog - that's a really sensible explanation, and thanks for more to chew on. Not directly related, but do you think there is a historical connection between JtB's baptism and the Christian practice of baptism, or that maybe the practice was sufficiently widespread that the Christians could have picked it up elsewhere? Cheers, V.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.