Huon

Nothing in GMatthew

These quotes show that at the time when the two Gospels were written, an "exorcist" preached Jesus, and did not follow John and his friends.

Who could be this exorcist ? Note that the gospels do not mention his name.

Very early, there were different groups of "christians".

mountainman

The name of Apollos is mentioned in Acts and the name of Apollonius is made explicit in Codex Bezae.

Toto

Apollos in Acts is often identified with the heretic Apelles whose followers were absorbed into the mainstream church. Look up Roger Parvus' work (check the archives.)

Solo

I take the story originating in Mark to be a transparent apothegm on the issue of intercommunal tolerance conteporary to the gospel time. Whether one believes in HJ or no, the existence of a separate 'Jesus worshipping' and exorcising cult during Jesus' lifetime looks extremely improbable. This is probably why Matthew chose a different parabolic 'wrapper' for the ruling.

Matthew 12:30 reverses Mark's statement, and makes anyone not explicitly "with me", as one standing "against me". This presents a much more sinister image of Jesus as an apocalyptic judge.

Best,
Jiri

Huon

One of GLuke's contradictions...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Solo and Huon,

Good catch. This has nothing to do with real exorcists, but with writers messing up simple maxims in the retelling.

The saying about "He who is not with/again me" is easily reversible and probably a pair of complimentary commonplace sayings of the day. We still have many such "duelling maxims." Here are a few:

You're never too old to learn."
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

"Actions speak louder than words."
"The pen is mightier than the sword."

"The bigger the better"
"Good things come in small packages."

Absence makes the heart grow fonder."
"Out of sight, out of mind."

"Don't micro-manage. Learn to delegate authority."
"The buck stops here."


Duelling Wisdom maxims go back at least 2300 years before the gospels to Egypt. Here are some from Ptah Hotep:

He who is dour throughout the whole day
______________________________________________

We can analyze the original maxim to see that both the writers of Mark and Matthew botched the telling of it.

The end maxim of the outsider exorcist story, "He that is not against you is with you." has nothing to do with the story of the outsider exorcist. It does not make any sense because Jesus has not proven that the outsider exorcist is actually for him.

Eliminating the last line, we see that the rest of the story belongs to a teacher correcting his students form of maxim. Here is a typical one from the Talmud:

When his wife was about to embrace him, some of his students, not knowing who she was, sought to restrain her. But Akiva exclaimed, "Let her alone; for what I am, and for what you are, is hers" (Ket. 62b et seq.).

The gospel maxim is probably derived from some rabbinical maxim of the time: Rabbi ___'s students heard a stranger using God's name to cure a patient. The students told him not to do it again. Rabbi ____ told his students not to forbid him because anybody who uses God's name and does good magic will believe in him.

Putting the two maxims different maxims in the story together just shows that the writer of the gospel of Mark didn't understand them very well. The second maxim has nothing to do with the story.

Logically it is equivalent to: Paul couldn't teach his old dog to hunt. Jesus said to him, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." Jesus added, "Never bite the hand that feeds you."

Luke makes the double maxim even worse by cutting out the original punchline that at least makes some sense and leaving in the second unrelated punchline.

Watching how both writers butcher the telling of a simple maxim is hilarious. It is like a drunk man who adds a packet of sugar to a cup of coffee and then adds ketchup. A second drunk man comes along and corrects him by just adding the ketchup.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

arnoldo

There is also the issue that in the gJohn, accounts of exorcisms have been excised! Paul Anderson, in The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) ,offers the hypothesis that the writer of the gJohn may've felt discomfort concerning the issue of exorcisms. Anderson notes that it is no other than John who objects to this other exorcist in Mark 9:38 and in Luke 9:49 . But then again, maybe the ommission of exorcism in the gJohn is just another discrepancy between the various gospel accounts.

Diogenes the Cynic

Robert Price has speculated that this was an allusion to Paul.

aa5874

An examination of gJohn shows that the author was displeased with the early Jesus stories and changed virtually everything.

1. In gJohn, Jesus is introduced as God--not found in the Synoptics.

2. The author of gJohn discarded almost all the miracles in the Synoptics.

3. Jesus in gJohn publicly admits to the populace he is the Son of God--not found in the early Canonised Gospels.

4. In gJohn Jesus hardly speaks in parables.

5. In gJohn, Jesus openly claims he is One with God.

6. In gJohn Jesus admits he was Sent by God to Die for the Sins of the WHOLE world--Not found in the early gMark..

gJohn is a good example to show how the Jesus story had evolved.

Huon

Apelles was a pupil of Marcion.
Does that mean that the Gospels GMark, GLuke and GMatt were written, or "improved" around 150 CE ?

And Acts as well ...