tanya

Thanks. Yes, I observe the abbreviations in the transcription! Maybe I have misunderstood. I thought you had indicated that the change was in the original text itself, before it left the place of creation, back in the fourth century CE....

The image of the ancient text, reveals no such modification. At the time when Eusebius himself was reading this text, it read simply:

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ

without any reference to "son of god", i.e. υιου του θεου

outhouse

I would agree with much of what your saying.

I see a legend turned into mythology, because another culture didnt know the real history behind what they found so important.

Maybe I would argue for slight historicty over zero

Sheshbazzar

It would be nice to be able to read Mark's original script before it got so diddled with. I'd bet it was a real page turner and cliff hanger.

Gordie tells a great story about Lardass ...and immediately his best buddies start trying to 'improve' on it.
That's what happened to Mark's original Jezus tale, over and over and over.
We never get to see what Mark the author really wrote, just the half-baked second, third, fourth, and fifth hand reworkings.
'The Gospel which according to John' is the Teddy Duchamp's final version.

outhouse

Dont most people think because it was so short, and the different versions we have dont really differ that much, sort of hold that it wasnt perverted as much as others? as well as the style doesnt change, the way the ending does.


I also dont pay much attention to beginnings and endings, as the scrolls often deteriorated in these places.

Chili

There never was anything special about Mark but a fore-runner of Billy Graham is all that he ever was, and they, with 'they' here as 'those in the know' stacked him to the hilt with nonsense to show that intelligence is the enemy of insight, and so Mark is a satire for sure.

The problem here now is: a satire of what? with JC not known to him, and so now these millions of theologians are all wrong and just do not have a clue what Mark was all about.

I.e. do you not see the diffence between his home in the desert as opposite to that beautiful little city called Nazareth that you are a slave to yourself: to say that there is nothing wrong with religion by way of tradition that adds character to people just as a it does the the temple itself, or the woman in the particular who should be adorned with all kinds jewels to be the pride of her man.

Collectively, I say it is good to know you as person after your own mind who is not swayed by popular opinion that is most wrong above all.

Chili

Mark is a pervert himself, and a perversion can only add color to text already in place.

thief of fire

thats an interesting point. I know that even the use of "good news" ties it to concepts in the priene inscription, but I wonder if you could expand on your ideas some more?

PhilosopherJay

I think John is the lead character in the story before he gets rewritten as Jesus for parts of it.

Thus a proper translation of the first line would be, "The birth announcement of Johnie's King."

From "Iris" in Greek Mythology: Aristophanes, Birds 574 (trans. O'Neill) (Greek comedy C5th to 4th B.C.) :
"Hermes is a god and has wings and flies, and so do many other gods. First of all, Nike (Victory) flies with golden wings, Eros (Love) is undoubtedly winged too, and Iris is compared by Homer to a timorous dove."

Iris is the dove messenger from Hera, the perpetual virgin. She takes the form of a dove and it is Hera speaking through the dove who says that she is proud of her first born son. Her first born son would be Ares, the God of War.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

JoeWallack

JW:
Starting with the Manuscript evidence which traditionally is presented first in Textual Criticism (Patristic evidence is sometimes better):

Wieland Willker's:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 2 Mark TVU 1

JW:
A few initial observations:

1) 01* = Sinaiticus which is generally considered the most authoritative extant manuscript and is in the "omit" category. This would make addition a serious candidate all by itself. Note that the "*" indicates what is written in standard placement and size for this text, and in the vast majority shows what was originally written.

2) One rule of Textual Criticism is that variation is evidence of change as copyists did not have a clear original they wanted to follow and had to choose what to use. More evidence for addition.



Joseph

Church Tradition. Noun/Verb. A mysterious entity which unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically invoked on demand by Apologetic whim as solid contemporary undisputed evidence by a credible institution or just as easily disincarnated by the same as merely the opinion of men and not Scripture.

ErrancyWiki

Chili

Hi Jay, have no problems with what you suggest and agree that 'involution' is first to bring this 'melancholy' about. So John is first and Jesus comes later.

Then let me add that 'Jesus Christ' proper is not Jesus Christ until after Coronation takes place which is post Assumption of Mary and that is not part of any of them here, and to say this I just let language speak for itself.

What troubles me is to call John the warrior, simply because in gJohn this John as Baptist here must decrease while Jesus must increase.

Then notice that Elizabeth was old when she conceived John, which inevitably rendered Zechariah speechless as an answer to his prayer (= no more prayers are needed with destiny now in the making where so doubt is no longer part of the act, = to cf with Peter's mother-in-law who did not feel quite the same, and so Mark's Jesus helped her up already in 1:29 so that 'doubt' was present again in every which way (funny Mark to call doubt to order again to show the absense of Nazareth as deserter himself).

Now notice that his John was always known as Jesus' favorite disciple and was first introduced as Mary's son by Jesus from the cross. So we now have John and Jesus as bosom buddies, wherein John was born from the netherworld or TOL, and Jesus from the present age in the TOK.

Both are personifications, obviously, wherein John must decrease and Jesus must increase to so rationalize the thousand year reign, which really amounts only to the conversion of Reason to Pure Reason without emotion, for which then the senses are finally pierced in evidence of that to finally make Thomas exclaim: "My Lord and My God."

From this, then, would I call Jesus the warrior instead of John, who willfully died on the cross (it is finished) so he could introduce John to Mary as her 'first begotton' son, which now also makes melancholy second cause in response by Joseph as Upright Jew himself, for whom, inevibably, religion will be a thing of the past having served him as a means to the end. . . . and he will just vacate his ark on a mountaintop high.

So obviously the Hera-Iris and Ares complex is a little more complicated than you present here.