The incipit of Mark against the birth story

[mlinssen]

Die verjoodsching van het oorspronkelijk Gnostieke Christendom werkt met de for­ mule : „naar de Schriften”. Roomsche clericale diplomatie heeft de godsdienstige waarheid van de Gnosis tot een historische gebeurtenis verklaard; in verzonnen feiten belichaamde zij de ideeën, die aldus voor de menigte aannemelijker werden.
Sedert vormde de rotsman Petrus, met het college van Apos­ telen den grondslag van de Kerk; en toch geeft geen schrijver uit de 2de eeuw van dezen een helder beeld: zij zijn legen­ daire figuren. En wat Jezus zelf betreft: waarom zocht men in Joodsche heilige Schriften naar zijn lotgevallen, als hij in­ derdaad een geschiedkundig persoon was geweest? De feiten zijn uit het geloof, niet het geloof uit de feiten afgeleid.

That Judaisation of original Gnostic Christianity works with the formula : "according to the scriptures". Roman clerical diplomacy declared the religious truth of the Gnosis to be a historic event; in invented facts it embodied the ideas, which thus became more plausible to the crowd.
Since then, the rock man Peter, with the College of Apostles formed the foundation of the Church; and yet no 2nd century writer gives a clear picture of them: they are legendary figures. And as for Jesus himself, why did people look for his fate in Jewish holy scriptures, if he had in fact been a historical person? Facts are derived from faith, not faith from facts.

Well. I think we would have had a lot of fun together. Just a few pages, not even a handful, and Eysinga completely rips apart all of Christianity and Churchianity

[mlinssen]

Van den Christus Gods, geboren uit den H. Geest en de Moedermaagd, opgestaan uit de dooden, ten hemel ge­varen en zittende aan Gods rechterhand, wien alle macht is gegeven in hemel en op aarde, heeft men Euhemeristisch ie­mand gemaakt, die van timmermansjongen zich prachtig heeft ontwikkeld tot uitnemend leeraar of profeet. Dit wandenkbeeld vond algemeen ingang, niet slechts in de kringen van hen, die verlegen waren met het bovennatuurlijke beeld der traditie en in een menschelijken Jezus de vervulling zochten van hun godsdienstige behoeften, maar ook in den kring van de mannen der wetenschap. Wel heeft Albert Schweitzer reeds lang ge­ leden dit gevoelen tot het ongerijmde herleid, maar nog altijd beheerscht het de theologische literatuur, voor een deel door Schweitzer’s eigen inconsequentie. Want hoe vernietigend zijn critiek op anderen was, voor de zwakheid van zijn eigen hy­ pothese had hij geen oog. Z.i. moet men de geheele evangelie- geschiedenis in het licht zien van het ophanden einde der din­ gen. Jezus zal gemeend hebben, dat hij eerst van de aarde moest worden weggenomen om daarna als Messias terug te keeren; inmiddels zouden nog bij zijn leven de verdrukkingen van het einde komen en daarop zou het Godsrijk spoedig ver­ schijnen. De verdrukking bleef echter uit. Dan komt hij tot het inzicht, dat hij door in Jeruzalem te gaan sterven het Godsrijk moest dwingen te komen; hij zou dan in heerlijkheid op aarde terugkeeren. Ook hierin heeft hij zich vergist. Nog lang heeft men tevergeefs naar zijn wederkomst uitgezien. Aldus Schweit­ zer, en velen met hem. Het kost moeite te gelooven, dat men een dergelijken, door de feiten gelogenstraften fantast ooit den titel Godszoon zou hebben gegeven. De Jezus der evangeliën is geen profeet van het einde der dingen, maar de brenger van het heil, die na volbrachte levenstaak in den geest onder de zijnen Zal leven (Mt. 18: 20; 28: 20).

The Christ of God, born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, resurrected from the dead, ascended into heaven and seated at God's right hand, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, was euhemeristically depicted as someone who went from being a carpenter's boy to being an excellent teacher or prophet. This convoluted image was widely accepted, not only in the circles of those who were shied away by the supernatural image of tradition and sought the fulfilment of their religious needs in a human Jesus, but also in the circle of men of science. Albert Schweitzer long ago reduced this sentiment to the absurd, but it still dominates the theological literature, partly due to Schweitzer's own inconsistency. For however destructive his criticism of others was, he had no eye for the weakness of his own hy pothesis. He was of the opinion that one has to see the whole gospel history in the light of the imminent end of things. Jesus must have thought that he first had to be taken away from the earth and then return as the Messiah; meanwhile, while he was still alive, the tribulations of the end would come and then the kingdom of God would soon shine forth. But the tribulation did not come. Then he came to realise that by dying in Jerusalem he had to force the Kingdom of God to come; he would then return to earth in glory. In this too he was mistaken. For a long time people looked forward to his return in vain. So says Schweitzer, and many with him. It is hard to believe that one would ever have given the title son of God to such a fantasist, who is belied by the facts. The Jesus of the gospels is not a prophet of the end of things, but the bringer of salvation, who will live in the spirit among his own after completing his task (Mt 18: 20; 28: 20).

Guys ... what the hell are we all writing for?
Everything has been said and done already

[mlinssen]

Jezus’ wonderen, die een verouderd modernisme veel hoofd­ brekens hebben gekost, zijn gering in vergelijking met het wonder, dat een gekruisigde mensch onder Joden ooit als god zou zijn vereerd. Wie dit eenmaal heeft ingezien, beseft, dat het bestaan van het Christendom den historischen Jezus uit­ sluit in plaats van dezen te vooronderstellen.

Jesus' miracles, which cost an outdated modernism many a headache, are minor compared to the miracle, that a crucified man would ever have been worshipped as a god among Jews. Once you realise this, you realise that the existence of Christianity excludes rather than presupposes the historical Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

If for you it is not an excessive disturb, mlinssen, can you translate Eysinga in English?

From the other hand, I know that you are very busy on Thomas!

[mlinssen]

Een Marcion of Valentinus kwamen niet in verzet tegen de Groote Kerk uit een soort goddeloos vermaak in contradictie, voor de aardigheid of tegen beter weten in; zij hebben zichzelf de echte, rechtzinnige Christenen geacht. Als cultuurmenschen van onzen tijd behoe­ven wij geen partij te kiezen in kwesties, die de onze niet meer kunnen zijn; maar wel hebben wij iets goed te maken jegens onze medeketters uit de oudheid, die er in de geleerde wereld van de vorige, en ook nog wel van deze eeuw, slechter zijn afgekomen dan de over hen zegepralende Kerk. Martin Werner maakt de geestige opmerking, dat de wordende Katholieke Kerk niets anders is dan een haeresie. naast andere haeresieën, maar degene, die het meeste succes heeft gehad. Bij de con­currentie met alle overige heeft zij het gewonnen, mede door haar goede organisatie. In haar bestrijding van de ketters volg­de zij de tactiek, hun namen te geven en dan op grond van die namen hun den Christennaam te ontzeggen.

A Marcion or Valentinus did not rebel against the Great Church out of some godless amusement in contradiction, for the fun of it or against their better judgement; they considered themselves the true, upright Christians. As cultural people of our time, we do not have to take sides in issues that can no longer be ours; but we do have something to make up for to our fellow heretics of antiquity, who in the learned world of the past, and even more so of this century, have come off worse than the Church that triumphed over them. Martin Werner makes the witty remark, that the becoming Catholic Church is nothing but a haeresie among other haeresies, but the one, which has been most successful. When competing with all others, it won out, partly because of its good organisation. In its fight against the heretics, it followed the tactic of giving them names and then by virtue of those names denying them the Christian name.

I'm beginning to suspect that Germany and the Netherlands have long ago figured it out already, and that all of contemporary biblical academic suits nothing but the omphaloskepsis of the US, UK and AUS.
From a religious point of view, the latter merely are underdeveloped countries who aren't ready by far to emotionally and intellectually advance in a great enough way in order to let go of the pacifier. An easy way to assess it verify this is by looking at their political systems: each of them bi-partisan, either-or, black or white; strongly polarised societies and cultures, infantile in many ways, where each next government busies itself with either undoing it fixing what the previous one "accomplished"

In other words: I've done your homework, silly me, and naturally you've learned nothing
So I wish you all the best

[mlinssen]

If for you it is not an excessive disturb, mlinssen, can you translate Eysinga in English?

From the other hand, I know that you are very busy on Thomas!

It is, Giuseppe - just yank it through deepl.com and you'll be fine. Proofread the result, mark it with comments where you need them, and then send them to me and I'll help you out

Meanwhile, I'm outta here

[Giuseppe]

If for you it is not an excessive disturb, mlinssen, can you translate Eysinga in English?

From the other hand, I know that you are very busy on Thomas!

It is, Giuseppe - just yank it through deepl.com and you'll be fine. Proofread the result, mark it with comments where you need them, and then send them to me and I'll help you out

Meanwhile, I'm outta here

Ok, thank you in advance!

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

(Mark 1:1)

The emphasis on the beginning of the gospel is a polemic against the birth story.

Maar telkens vinden wij sporen van bronnengebruik; hij moet een evangelieschrijving hebben gekend, die met geboorteverhalen en geslachtsregister begon; men lette slechts op zijn polemiek daartegen al dadelijk aan den aanvang : „Begin van het evangelie van Jezus Christus” (1 : 1), waarmede de in het O.T. aangekondigde doop des Heeren door Johannes den Dooper is bedoeld.

(p. 45, my bold)
https://ia902201.us.archive.org/7/items ... %20enc.pdf

Anyone could surmise that Mark 1:1 with the alleged emphasis on the beginning is polemical against the gospel he prioritizes. There are some Markan scholars who believe that Mark 1:2-3 represents a prologue in heaven, or a heavenly script. Mark 1:1 could then also be directed against GJohn or GMarcion or whatever one personally wishes. It's all a lot more complicated than Eysinga thought, and his theory was the result of a pretty naïve reading of Mark.

Have any of these theorizing scholars ever noticed that GMark starts and ends with the same dark sound? That would be a concrete observation and not just a confused theory ... (Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ)

[perseusomega9]

Have any of these theorizing scholars ever noticed that GMark starts and ends with the same dark sound? That would be a concrete observation and not just a confused theory ... (Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ)

mbuckley stated similar but in more words and about something else but also the same same:

"For when Homer undertook [επιχειρησας] to describe the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans, he did not start at the very beginning, but at haphazard [οθεν ετυχεν]; and this is the regular way with practically all who distort the truth; they entangle the story and make it involved and refuse to tell anything in sequence [εφεξης], thus escaping detection more readily. Otherwise they are convicted by the very subject matter. This is just what may be seen happening in courts of justice and in the case of others who lie skilfully; whereas those who wish to present each fact as it really occurred do so by reporting the first thing first, the second next, and so on in like order [εφεξης]. This is one reason why Homer did not begin his poem in the natural way. Another is that he planned especially to do away with its beginning and its end as far as possible and to create the very opposite impression concerning them. That is why he did not dare to tell either the beginning or the end in a straightforward way and did not bind himself to say anything about them, but if he does make mention of them anywhere, it is incidental and brief, and he is evidently trying to confuse. For he was ill at ease with respect to these parts and unable to speak freely. The following device, too, is usually employed by those who wish to deceive : they mention some parts of the story and dwell upon them, but what they are particularly anxious to conceal they do not bring out clearly or when their auditor is paying attention, nor do they put it in its proper place, but where it may best escape notice...." ( ch.25-26, LCL tr.)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

mbuckley stated similar but in more words and about something else but also the same same:

"For when Homer undertook [επιχειρησας] to describe the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans, he did not start at the very beginning, but at haphazard [οθεν ετυχεν]; and this is the regular way with practically all who distort the truth; they entangle the story and make it involved and refuse to tell anything in sequence [εφεξης], thus escaping detection more readily. Otherwise they are convicted by the very subject matter. This is just what may be seen happening in courts of justice and in the case of others who lie skilfully; whereas those who wish to present each fact as it really occurred do so by reporting the first thing first, the second next, and so on in like order [εφεξης]. This is one reason why Homer did not begin his poem in the natural way. Another is that he planned especially to do away with its beginning and its end as far as possible and to create the very opposite impression concerning them. That is why he did not dare to tell either the beginning or the end in a straightforward way and did not bind himself to say anything about them, but if he does make mention of them anywhere, it is incidental and brief, and he is evidently trying to confuse. For he was ill at ease with respect to these parts and unable to speak freely. The following device, too, is usually employed by those who wish to deceive : they mention some parts of the story and dwell upon them, but what they are particularly anxious to conceal they do not bring out clearly or when their auditor is paying attention, nor do they put it in its proper place, but where it may best escape notice...." ( ch.25-26, LCL tr.)

It seems to me that Eysinga falls into a similar trap as Chrysostom.

The fact that the Iliad does not begin with year 1 of the war seems to be a good argument that as a literary work the Iliad was more or less conceived by an author in the form the text has been handed down to us. Maybe some interpolations here and there. Maybe there were other epics that already dealt with the Trojan War. But one has to completely ignore the literary character of the Iliad and instead demand a historical treatise in order to fall into Chrysostom's criticism. Chrysostom erroneously assumed that Homer intended to describe the Trojan War.

So does Eysinga. He apparently assumed that a Gospel must be an account of the (fictional) life of Jesus, while for Mark the term "Gospel" still had the more original meaning of "message". And if GMark wanted to describe the beginning and origin of the message by Jesus and about Jesus, it makes sense to start with the messengers, their mission and their journey (and also to end with it).