spin

Checking Mk 15:32, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have συν αυτω as the complement of the verbal form συνεσταυρωμενοι.

Solo

Well obviously, he was either "in (the) house" as KJV, ASV, Darby and some others say or he was "(at) home" if you go with RSV or NASB or NIV, etc. So, about half of the translations do not see the 'en oiko' as idiomatic. If the meaning was given plainly by the text, as you want to argue, we would not have two translations.


So? You missed my point. That's not unusual.


Just what you would expect from a pug-nose wit.

The translators of King James' Version and Luther, among others, did not see that way.

....actually, I made the connection when the blind man at Bethsaida tells Jesus that he sees "men as trees, walking". Upon reading this once whilst riding a bicycle, a mighty sound came from heaven and an angel flew down through a cherry tree and knocking me to the ground, whispered in my ear that the "carpenter" in Mark was a reference to Isaiah 44:13-14. How could I argue with that ?


Yeah sure, spin, except Paul prohibited stories about Jesus alive walking on the earth. So it would take some other authority figure to break this taboo and shape his Lord into a literary figure to overlay whatever other Jesus' traditions were in circulation.

I am not sure where you get "traditions" in Mark if they were post-70 CE, which I agree they were. There are number of indications, the wicked tenants, the abomination of desolation, the torn curtain, and to me, the clever double-entendre of Jesus prophesying the destruction of the temple and rebuilding it in three days which references both, the temple destroyed in the war and the temple of his body, with the former being lost and the latter being recovered in the resurrection. To me the word "tradition" signifies that certain beliefs or practices are established in the community for some period of time. If Mark was writing very close before or after the war (which I believe he had to because of the prophecy of "this generation" in ch.13 needed to be credible to Mark's generation, ie. could not have been removed more than 40-50 years from the reign of Pilate) then none of the symbolic allegorical figures could have been "traditional". The wicked tenants, as well as the other symbolic narratives before Jerusalem and in the city were most likely invented by Mark himself because they form a part of the gospel plot of a secret Messiah who is the Pauline crucified one and not (as the disciple in the story want to believe and the Sanhendrin suspects Jesus believes himself to be) the shepherd king who will restore the ancient kingdom.

Paul presented himself as a leader who was a servant of all : 1 Cr 9:19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.

Note that Mark's Jesus articulates the same idea: 9:35 If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.

All I am saying, spin, that the passion just too much of a dramatization of Paul's cross theology (which I have good reasons to suspect was unknown in the James' community in Jerusalem) to have originated from oral traditions, and too tightly fitted into the overall design of the gospel to have been adapted from another text.


It's more like an authoritative figure who holds sway over his community. A charismatic leader.

First, I see in your other post you have found that both S & V support the συνεσταυρωμενοι. Good.

Second, I would not be the first one who argues that some of the glosses in Mark are later attempts to bring Mark in line with the later synoptics. The LE is the most dramatic illustration of that.

Now, it is evident you do not read the symbolic figures of the gospel, here the two crosses on both sides of Jesus the same way I do. You either don't see the design or you do not want see it. The two robbers most certainly relate to the request of the Zebs (10:37) to sit one on the left and one on the right "in thy glory". Jesus tell them they do not know what they are asking. It is not up to him to grant such a request, it is "for those for whom it has been prepared". Mark of course prepares the thrones of the Jesus' thorny glory for the "robbers" (based on Isaiah 53:12), which Matthew spiced with his own comment.

You are just plain wrong about that. Paul says in 2 Cor 5:16,
From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.

If Paul regarded Christ kata sarka before his revelation directly from God, his previous informing source about Jesus were other humans, ie they knew something about Jesus, whether real, imagined or historical.

Just out of curiosity, would it bother you if it turned out that Mark actually did not work "with material", ie. "traditional" stories about Jesus and his sayings but rather creatively adapted Paul's teachings for the spiritual needs, edification and entertainment of his gnostic community ? Because it seems it would.


I believe the Twelve were Mark's invention. He did not inherit the list nor did he consider Peter, Andrew and the Zebs part of the twelve. The list was created by Matthew and imported into Mark later. Study the different the verses of Mk 3:14-19. Here is my take on it:

The dative Σιμονι in Mk 3:16 makes his renaming an action unrelated to the ordination in 3:14, and thus the appended alias of Zebedees with the inventoried apostles (all accusative) immediately suspect. The ‘assurance’ of the Western text text at 3:14 και αποστολους ωνομασεν suggests that in the evolving redactions of Mark the idea of naming of the apostles came first as a license for its effectuation. Οι δεκα, in 10:41 is most likely a harmonizing gloss (Mt 20:24), to fix the numerical discrepancy which would have arisen with the inclusion of the Zebedees in the twelve.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

gMark does not have to be composed 40-50 years after the governorship of Pilate--it only requires that people BELIEVE it was composed BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Even today, 1800 years later, people still claim Jesus is coming soon which shows that it is not really necessary for gMark to have been composed within a generation of the time of Pilate.

The time when the Jesus story was fabricated most likely coincided with supposed Prophecies about the coming of the Kingdom of God in the Septuagint or similar source.

It was really the author of gMark who claimed the Kingdom of God was at hand. It was the author of gMark that preached the Gospel--the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

spin

Way to go there, Solo. Depend on old translations because newer ones don't support your nonsense. It usually goes that new indicates more recent linguistic understanding and less blatantly likely to sell tendentious understandings.

Gee, that was explanatory!

You do tend to like unfalsifiable claptrap.

:tombstone:

And if you go back far enough, you'll get people defending a flat earth as well. Old understandings need to be justified rather than assumed, as you are doing here.

Whatever. You've got no ostensible reason to be bashing Isa 44:13.

You insinuate "prohibit". He merely says he only preaches "christ crucified".

The development of traditions happen at any time the tradition is not closed. I don't know how many of the received traditions were post-War. All I know is that the ones I identified point to the likelihood that they were.

Three days, three weeks, three months, three years, three decades, three centuries....

If the Marcan writer received the "this generation" trope from tradition sources, you cannot assume anything about the relation between the "when" it applied to and the time of the writer doing his work.

If Paul was the initiator of the Jesus religion, it's not strange that his ideas have some impact.

I really don't see why you would exclude the development of post-Pauline oral traditions that would contribute to the eventual writing of a passion narrative. It has all the hallmarks of oral performance.

As with Luke, I can see a number of writing events in the gospel of Matthew that indicates multiple acts of redaction.

Perhaps you should have read my comment more closely. I referred to the Marcan text in the other post. Not only so Sinaiticus and Vaticanus support the double συν in Matt, but they use it in Mark as well! It means your case suddenly disappears. They have συσταυρωθεντες in Mt.

There is scribal cross-fertilization in many instances, eg with the lord's prayer, the confusion over Gadara/Gerasa..., Cephas/Peter in Gal., and so on. In this particular instance though, it is not well supported.

You could be right, but it takes me way past what we were talking about.

About Jesus.

Rubbish. Paul needed a human Jesus in order to be able to meaningfully die under the law without sin. To be under the law meant being born a son of Abraham, of a woman, as it was only the Jews who were under the law.

Yes, it probably would: there is too much philology supporting the bitty nature of the sources, the mildly conflicting content. To find out that it was the work of a single author wouldn't make much sense, especially when I see in the other synoptics even more evidence of source materials. They indicate manipulation of sources.

The dative is required by the verb the verb επεθηκεν, as is the case of the αυτοις after the same verb in the following verse.

I have little doubt that the list was shaped a number of times. I argue that Mark is not the work of a single writer, but reflects the sort of evolving tradition seen in the later synoptics. The complexity of the list reflects this.

Solo

Modern German translations have "im House" (in the house) as well, as does NKJV. The 16th century Czech translation by Blahoslav OTOH renders it as "home". It has nothing to do with old and modern "linguistic understanding". The double translation exists because the reference in the the verse is unclear.


Paul says in 1 Cr 2:2 that he decreed he would know nothing among his congregation but Christ crucified. If that does not suggests to you the exclusion of alternatives then we don't have a basis for a rational discussion.


Mark makes "this generation" look like the generation that lived around 30CE. Now, if by Mark's time of writing the prophecy was not fulfilled in toto, as Jesus says in 13:30 (and that includes angels gathering the elect) Jesus' prophecy would have been false. So you have to pardon me for "assuming" that Mark almost certainly did not intend that.

But I already told you why. Paul prohibited "traditions" about Christ before the cross. So it would take another "authority" to break the taboo. I say it was the ingenious idea of the writer of Mark to create an allegory out of Paul's teachings to wow and woo the Jacobite Jesus idolators (represented in the gospel by the disciples) to the cross.

I did overlook that, I fess up. At any rate, since Mark does not know the "disparaging" doublets of Matthew (the two demoniacs, the two blind beggars at Jericho, and the two donkeys) I still hold that the συσταυρω is a reference to Paul and the "reviling" of the robbers originates with Matthew and relates to Paul's persecution of the church.


Yeah, but my point is that if Mark transform Paul's teaching by creating allegorical figures out of them, or putting Paul's ideas into Jesus' mouth, it makes "traditional sources" for the events and sayings redundant.


No, this is a central point, which you don't seem to get ! Mark is creating allegorical figures and then re-references them later in the text...ergo, a number of the stories are invented by the author. One of the Twelve (representing the house of Israel) betrays Jesus and divides the house, fulfilling the earlier prophecy of Jesus. John the Baptist is later re-referenced as Elijah who has come (with martyrdom which had no tanakh tradition but was invented by Mark). With the Zebedees pining for thrones, you get Jesus' saying that is fulfilled on Golgotha, in bitter irony.

Your original argument was that there was no evidence at all that the people Paul was in contact with knew anything about Jesus before he told them of his revelation. I showed you there was evidence of that and your response to that is mouthing off and starting a new argument.

So, bud, we are done,.... thanks btw pointing out the Mark 15:32 in Vaticanus and Tischendorf. I did miss that one. :wave:

Best,
Jiri

spin

Perhaps I missed you showing evidence that the people Paul was in contact with knew anything about Jesus before he told them of his revelation. It seems to me that you've done no such thing. All you seem to have done was made a conjecture, thoughtfully prefixed with an "if" (and that if was about a "christ" not a Jesus). There's no you showing anything of the sort.

Then there's the stuff about you believing that Paul prohibited talk about Jesus before he died. You're making it up. If Paul knew nothing about a life of Jesus, then naturally he would only talk about christ crucified, so there would be no necessary prohibition at all.

And further making things up: