JoeWallack

JW:
In my model of Jesus behavior:

Historical witness was interested in Jesus' Life = Judaism

Paul was interested in Jesus' Death = Christianity

Paul explicitly presents his Jesus' policy statement in 1 Corinthians 2

The historical Jesus followed the Law and had a Teaching & Healing ministry and this is what historical witness promoted. Paul could not compete with those who knew Jesus regarding his life so his theology was that Jesus' life was unimportant and what was important was Jesus' death where he started out on equal footing with historical witness. [irony] Paul's promotion of Jesus' Death was the birth of Christianity. [/irony]

There is no evidence that there was any version of Christianity different than Paul's before "Mark" so the proper question is:

How did "Mark" present Pauline theology?

and not whether "Mark" presented Pauline theology.

Everyone here would agree that a major source for "Mark" was The Jewish Bible (TJB). The question is how was it used by "Mark"? The obvious Way is by "Mark's" use of specific stories, phrases and words from Greek translations of The Jewish Bible. But does "Mark" use TJB on a larger scale? I think he does.

Note that "Mark" is only interested in the Spirit or Christ part of Jesus Christ (per Paul). "Mark" has no interest in Jesus before Jesus Christ:

Birth of Jesus Christ:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

The model for the birth of Christ is Moses:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Exodus_2

Teaching Ministry of Jesus Christ

Moses is the Model for the Teaching Ministry.

Healing Ministry of Jesus Christ

More commonly agreed is that Jesus' Healing Ministry has a model of Elijah. Note that as a result of the Ministry everyone is IDing Jesus as Elijah. In the pivotal and obligatory Greek Tragedy Recognition scene which separates the Teaching & Healing Ministry from the Passion it is Moses and Elijah that appear.

Passion of Jesus Christ

Not as well known but with comParable evidence, the model for the Passion of Jesus from TJB is David and "Mark" likewise marks David's entrance as source in the [double entendre] proper place/Jerusalem [/double entendre]:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_10

This author likes doubling down. As always, a proper historical analysis of "Mark" indicates that the story as a whole is Fiction so this opens the door for the Type of analysis above. Note that after the Passion "Mark" literally so to speak has no interest in the Christ-less Jesus.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree has outdone himself providing a comprehensive list of "Mark" echoing earlier stories later in his Gospel:

Mark's flags for interpreting Mark?

Ref-----early stories---------------------------------------------later echoes---------------------------------------Ref

1.2-----Jesus coming to Galilee foretold by the prophets-----Jesus coming to Galilee foretold by Jesus--------16.7

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" has an interesting Literary Technique whereby he presents a supposed Jesus' story in the Present, has Jesus make a referencing anecdote to the Jewish Bible (Past), and than uses the past anecdote to foreshadow a Future story in his Gospel. I hereby label this phenomenon the TripType. Paul, a primary source for "Mark", uses two of the Tenses. He Types the supposed Past from the Jewish Bible to the supposed Present standing of dead Jesus. "Mark" than, adds the Future. An example is:

	Present	Past	Future
	Mark 2:14	1 Samuel 21	Mark 14:22
	Wine story & unlawfully eating grain	unlawfully eating consecrated bread	Eucharist = drinking consecrated wine & eating consecrated bread

The TripType is evidence enough of intentional fiction but as always, notice the balancing structure with the Past and Future tenses near the beginning and ending of the Gospel.

Bonus material for Solo. I previously explained that regarding the famous Abiathar error of "Mark" I think "Mark" deliberately used "Abiathar" instead of the correct "Ahimelech" to get the "Abba" sound in there. Of especial interest here is that a lesser related error is that Jesus' anecdote refers to David giving the consecrated bread to his men while the Jewish Bible does not say this and implies that no one was with David. In the Eucharist though, Jesus famously gives the consecrated bread to his men. So "Mark" has changed/edited/questionably interpreted the Jewish Bible to make it a better Type for his Future story! I have Faith that Paul would be very proud of his pupil here.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

Your claim is ERRONEOUS. The author of gMark did NOT use the Pauline writings at all based on the Christology of gMark.

The Short-ending gMark found in the EARLIEST EXTANT CODICES do NOT support any knowledge of the Pauline writings.

The very arguments used to show that gMark was known to the author of gMatthew and gLuke cannot be used to show that gMark.

If the authors of gMatthew and gLuke copied gMark and the author of gMark copied the Pauline writings then we would expect the Christology of ALL FOUR authors to be SIMILAR.

But, that is NOT the case at all.

The Christology of those who supposedly copied gMark are virtually IDENTICAL and is NOT compatible with the Christology of the Pauline writings.

Secondly, the author of gJohn did NOT appear to use gMark and the Christology of gJohn is NOT the same as the Synoptics.

The abundance of evidence suggests that gMark did NOT use the Pauline writings since virtually NOTHING of the biography and Christology of the Markan Jesus can be found anywhere in the Pauline writings.

JoeWallack

JW:
It's generally accepted that The Jewish Bible was a major source for "Mark". I previously identified major characters from The Jewish Bible which "Mark" used as models for his Jesus:

It's generally accepted that Psalm 22 (David) was a major source for "Mark". Not as well publicized is that I have faith that Psalm 23 (David) was likewise a major source for "Mark's" Jesus' Passion:

Subject	Psalm 23	Mark 14
God/Jesus is the Shepherd	"Jehovah is my shepherd"	"I will smite the shepherd" (27)
Passion crucified	"I shall not want"	"not what I will" (36)
SubMission	"He maketh me to lie down"	"what thou wilt" (36)
Lead before the water	"He leadeth me beside still waters"	"I will go before you into Galilee" (28)
Resurrection	"He restoreth my soul"	"I am raised up" (28)
Threat of death	"Yea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death"	"And they all condemned him to be worthy of death" (64)
God is with him	"I will fear no evil; for thou art with me"	"the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power" (62)
Meal before the enemy	"Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies"	"And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you shall betray me, [even] he that eateth with me (18)
Anointed the head	"Thou hast anointed my head with oil"	"she hath anointed my body beforehand for the burying" (8)
Cup overdose	"My cup runneth over"	"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (23/24)
God's house	"I shall dwell in the house of Jehovah"	"I was daily with you in the temple teaching" (49)

Word


Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

ErrancyWiki

Vorkosigan

'kin hell but that is an awesome insight. Thanks for this, JoeW!!!

Neil is one of the most insightful commentators on Mark.

Vorkosigan

stephan huller

I still think you guys are attacking a straw man set up by the Church Fathers. Irenaeus argues in Book Three that the 'real gospel of Mark' has all these connections with the prophets and by implication there was another gospel of Mark which was Marcionite and was understood not to have any connection to the Jewish prophets (cf. AH 3.11.7, 8, 9). Irenaeus wanted there to be a gospel of Mark that had this rooting. He says it not only about 'Isaiah' being used at the beginning but the enthronement ending too (i.e. with respect to the long ending).

The observation is valid but the use of prophetic language is deliberate and ultimately only reflective of a second century Catholic falsification of ur-Mark. What caught my eye about this statement is the fact that this another example of a yashar interest in early Christianity. While the Greek is eutheias the original Hebrew is יַשְּׁרוּ where yashar words are often translated by the Greek chrestos the Marcionite equivalent of Christ when the context supports it (it also looks suspiciously similar to ישו)

JoeWallack

JW:
The parallels between "Mark" and Josephus have come up here recently and as near as I can tell my related Thread:

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

is still clearly the best one here and possibly the best anywhere (though I confess I have not put much effort into it). Specifically there has been discussion here of the parallels between "Mark's" Jesus and Josephus' Jesus. Again, as near as I can tell, my related post is still the best:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...9&postcount=17

JW:
Neil Godfree is starting to expand his exploration/development of criteria for literary dependence here:

Discovering the Sources for the First Gospel, 3 — Criteria

At the same time Dr. Carrier wails woes on Bible Scholarship, like Josephus' Jesus, regarding the failure of supposed current methodologies to analyze historicity. Ehrman's DJE is symptomatic in that it has no formal methodology and Ehrman confesses to us that he had none to follow since everyone he respects assumes HJ. As Dr. Carrier explains, historical meth labs start with Source Criticism. Since we do not know who "Mark" was and it is more likely than not that "Mark" was not who Christianity thinks he/she was, we are left with a blank for the most important category of evidence. The next level of evidence is Literary Criticism, a level weaker than Source Criticism. This is where we are at with the parallels. In the broad context, note that it is MJ/AJ that is improving the scholarship on the subject of HJ by promoting the issue of methodology. HJ only thinks it is doing so.

Literary Criticism can't prove shit by itself without Source Criticism (that's what spin has been trying to tell you guys). It can show which is more likely though here. Whether it is more likely that Josephus was a source for "Mark" or "Mark" was a source for Josephus (for those who need points sharply explained, of course neither may have been a source for the other).

Using formal criteria for parallels, the above table shows reMarkable parallels and this is supported by the other lesser parallels between other stories of them. So which is more likely in the big picture:

1) "Mark", which is primarily fiction, used the primarily historical Josephus in a fictional way.

2) Josephus, which is primarily historical, used the primarily fictional "Mark" in a historical way.

The serious student should conclude that if you have to inventory Josephus as either evidence for MJ/AJ or HJ, while it can not prove anything by itself (or with a few other pieces), than it is evidence for MJ/AJ.

Not that it is needed but the observation that Christianity has likely added fiction to the TF, while the original, if any, is unknown, supports the conclusion.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Duvduv

I guess there is no use pointing out the differences between the two characters because of the need to see Mark rooted in the Josephus story and to have an actual story in the 1st century. And once the Jesus figure is based on the Jesus ben Ananias figure, then who is the Baptist based on in 1st century history? Who is Peter based on? Who is Judas based on? Or does one simply stop at the main protagonist?

JoeWallack

JW:
A sarcastic comment but a valid one. Differences are important. I've previously mentioned on these unholy Boards that criteria for parallels should include the extent (%) of significant points from the source that are paralleled.

Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree is getting closer to putting together formal criteria to evaluate parallels:

Discovering the Sources for the First Gospel, 3 — Criteria

and is starting to consider the Qualitative and Quantitative.

Qualitative considers the extent to which the parallels are reMarkable. Here we have Josephus combining the Temple setting with a silent hero who is a messenger of its doom. Likewise, "Mark" combines the Temple setting with a silent hero who is a messenger of its doom. The combination is otherwise unknown outside of Gospels that used "Mark" as a base/outline. Quality is high.

Regarding the Quantitative, the table of parallels indicates a likely high % of significant parallels, but just how high? What significant assertions of The Passion does "Mark" add?:

1) Betrayed by Judas.

2) Claims to be the Messiah.

3) Peter's behavior is contrasted with Jesus'.

4) Release of Barabbas.

5) Jesus crucified.

6) Signs at death (although Josephus' "sign" is the Temple actually being destroyed at death and not just foreshadowed).

What significant assertions of The Passion does "Mark" delete?:

1) Jesus comes to the Temple at a different holiday.

2) Jesus' Temple bashing takes years.

3) Jesus was a loner.

Generally a copier is more likely to add than delete and based on the above "Mark" lacks relatively little compared to the parallels. Note that regarding the few significant elements of Josephus here that "Mark" lacks, they are subsets of a larger assertion:

1) Jesus comes to the Temple at a different holiday.

Still going to the Temple for a holiday, just not Passover.

2) Jesus' Temple bashing takes years.

Jesus' career takes maybe a year and a primary purpose is to diss the Temple. The explicit Temple bashing though just takes a few days.

3) Jesus was a loner.

Jesus always has a loner attitude. He is with crowds during his Teaching & Healing Ministry, but he doesn't enjoy it.

JW:
You ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey.

Now go and study (The Archives).



Joseph