Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Charles Wilson »

Peter Kirby wrote:So, yeah, maybe Mark came before John, and maybe John is inverting or contradicting Mark.
Jay Raskin has provided linguistic evidence that Mark and John are writing from a common source. Whether or not contemporaneous in an absolute sense, Mark and John are rewriting from a literal document from which each had access. Mark is the better written Story but "John has the gun with the fingerprints all over it" - He cannot help himself. The character John "Confesses" that he is not the Savior and that the One who comes after him is. Mark writes in a Symbolic Manner and his Symbolism points to something else, the "something else" GJohn realizes but cannot hide. "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent..."

The question is, of course, on the Symbolism but I believe that a coherent, agreeable understanding of the set of Symbols may be found, given that there is a Document from which Mark and John came.
But what the hell was Mark discrediting? (Or was he just that deep of a literary author that he creates his own characters just to hang them?)
With this Document, whether a Story written in Aramaic, a PLAY (Continuing Jay's work...) or something moved from some Literary Group based in Caesarea, it is a very short step to see that Mark is discrediting the purpose of the Original Document and that Purpose is to be found in the Assertion that the Priests (Mishmarot) and the Followers (Among them the Hasmoneans) were given the Promises by God and it is to them and them alone that the Rule and the Priesthood accrue.

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

This is a Herod Story and it dates the Story in Mark. Matthew has this as well and another version that Matthew might not even realize was about Herod (Matthew 7: 7 - 14). "Why Herod?" It tells us that the Original did exist and its purpose was changed.

CW
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by JoeWallack »

Peter Kirby wrote:There's something that bothers me about this, Joe.

Nobody shoots first and claims that X, Y, and Z suck.

Before you say that Obama sucks, Obama has to be on your radar. Before you say that reality TV sucks, reality TV has to be on your radar. Someone has to pump this up a bit first, before you can try to let out the air.

So, yeah, maybe Mark came before John, and maybe John is inverting or contradicting Mark.

But what the hell was Mark discrediting? (Or was he just that deep of a literary author that he creates his own characters just to hang them?)
JW:
The "Verse" is strong in this one. Actually I accept that GMark is evidence of HJ because of your point above. GMark's primary theme is discrediting the Disciples. This theme is more important in GMark than anything else including Jesus. Therefore, I think GMark itself is a reaction to historical disciples. And if there were historical disciples...

But this is why I am trying to put a cap on all secondary discussion to the point of this Thread which is:
  • Demonstrating how and to what extent GJohn is a reaction to GMark.
As Moderator of this Thread you need to help me do that more than anyone else. Your reward will be that in one or two years someone with a religious degree and a University will write an article/book on the subject and act like it was their idea and they never heard of this Thread.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Bernard Muller »

Actually I accept that GMark is evidence of HJ because of your point above. GMark's primary theme is discrediting the Disciples. This theme is more important in GMark than anything else including Jesus. Therefore, I think GMark itself is a reaction to historical disciples.
That has been my point all along, as I stated on my website, and blog and earlier on this thread:
1) That GMark is the original Gospel narrative

2) and therefore the primary source for GJohn

3) That GMark has a primary objective of discrediting the Disciples as witnesses

4) That GJohn has the opposite primary objective of crediting the Disciples as witnesses.
If it is true (and I think it is most of the time), then we have to wonder why "Mark" would invent disciples for HJ and then would discredit them as witnesses. More so when later "John" found this was not right and changed all that: how could the Son of God on earth and his magic tricks not credited by them?
Here I explained how "Mark" "corrected" the eyewitness(es) testimony:
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
Demonstrating how and to what extent GJohn is a reaction to GMark.
That would be a very easy job to do, for there are many examples in GJohn.
"John" is not the only one who did that: "Luke" and "Matthew" went through that already, but less thoroughly.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Charles Wilson »

Joe-

Please understand that I am not trying to hijack this thread. I can accept that "Mark was first" but I am coming around to the idea that Mark and John were written almost simultaneously, if not indeed simultaneously. I do not believe that GJohn is written in reaction to GMark.

Mark 1: 4 - 8 (RSV):

[4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
[5] And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
[6] Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.
[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

There is something odd here. "John the baptizer" is preaching something that "John the baptizer, the Priest" ought not to preach: "That the "Baptism of Repentance" comes from Baptism in the river Jordan". That he is a Priest is certain: "...the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie...". This is a representation of "Bilgah", the Mishmarot Group that precedes "Immer". "Immer", in non-diacritic Hebrew, is identical to "Immar" => "Lamb". So, "John the baptizer" is built off of a word pun which carries through to "Lamb of God", which ought to be "Immar-Yah".

Again, this is proof of an Aramaic/Hebrew substrate. Now, compare with GJohn:

John 1: 19 - 30 (RSV):

[19] And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
[21] And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."
[22] They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
[23] He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said."
[24] Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.
[25] They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"
[26] John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know,
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

John is of "Bilgah", which had its ring (thong) nailed to the floor at the Altar for a transgression committed by that Group. John speaks of the "Lamb of God" who comes after him and this is "IMMER".

[28] This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'

"John" and "Jesus" are of the House of Eleazar => "Lazarus".

John "...confesses..." but what does that mean? Does it mean then what it means now? Maybe "confesses" means what it implies:

John 11: 1 - 3, 14 (RSV):

[1] Now a certain man was ill, Laz'arus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
[2] It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Laz'arus was ill.
[3] So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill."
...
[14] Then Jesus told them plainly, "Laz'arus is dead;

The "Pharisees" et.al. are looking for someone from Immer, someone who told everyone that he and his friends were coming to the Passover which begins during the Service of Bilgah. John, of Bilgah, is interrogated and beaten and eventually killed. "He confessed...". This is a Power Play for the Nation against the Herodians and the Romans. "Lazarus is dead" but he will never die.

You may be correct, Joe. John may have been written in "opposition" to Mark. The Story of John is complicated by its origins. The evidence given, however, paints a picture of greater complexity. If John is in opposition to Mark, from what Group came that opposition? How was it harmonized?

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Ulan »

Charles Wilson wrote:You may be correct, Joe. John may have been written in "opposition" to Mark.
Your excerpt is a good example:

"And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not."

Why would anyone think John the Baptist was Elijah without the detail from Mark?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ulan wrote:"And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not."

Why would anyone think John the Baptist was Elijah without the detail from Mark?
Ulan-

I was headed in another direction when I noticed something in the quoted (and nearly quoted) verses. Let's look:

Mark 1: 7 - 8 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Compare with:

John 1: 26 - 34 (RSV):

[26] John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know,
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
...
[28] This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'
[31] I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
[32] And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.
[33] I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
[34] And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

Compare the first 2 verses in just about whatever manner you like. They are VERY similar, one version swapped in order from the other. That is, right up to the point of "I baptize with water;___________." Mark is quite calm in proclaiming that the one who follows will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

John has a STORY.

In fact, it answers part of the OP's question. It gives away too much of the story. Simply stated, it is telling us that Titus (Dove) has been replaced by Domitian and it is this Superior Being who is baptizing with the Holy Spirit. That this is so is to be found in the very Non-Jewish, Non-Priestly statement: "And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." This cannot have come from the Aramaic/Hebrew Story that Mark and John wrote from. The question of "How far does does Jay Raskin's Discovery go?" tells us that "It goes very far, almost to the beginning of each of these Gospels". Mark, as stated earlier, was a Construction. Here is very direct evidence that John is a Construction also. John also redirects focus from the Holy Spirit (Domitian) to "The Person I can testify about is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit". Is this evidence of a later "correction"?

At this point we cannot determine if John is redirecting Mark or vice-versa. I still think that Mark is the better writer and John has (much) more of the Story but is at times a bit clumsy in the telling (See: The boat that "suddenly" gets to the shore with no intervening detail.). I would very much want to agree that Mark came first but John corrects. We just don't know who corrected "Sea of Galilee" with "Lake Tiberias". Mebbe Teeple knows, I dunno.

In any event, John has to pad his story with what is now seen as Gnostic material ("This stuff is piled on too thick. We're gonna have to use a Heidegger..."). This may be what we're looking for.

CW
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ulan wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:You may be correct, Joe. John may have been written in "opposition" to Mark.
Your excerpt is a good example:
"And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not."
Why would anyone think John the Baptist was Elijah without the detail from Mark?
Ulan-

I wanted to Post the above since it impinged on other material but I did want to respond to your excellent point.

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"Mucianus ordered these men to be drawn up apart, making the British, the German, and any other troops that there were belonging to other armies, take up separate positions. The very first view of their situation paralyzed them. They saw opposed to them what seemed a hostile array, threatening them with javelin and sword. They saw themselves hemmed in, without arms, filthy and squalid. And when they began to be separated, some to be marched to one spot, and some to another, a thrill of terror ran through them all. Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."

To no one's surprise, I find a Roman Solution to the problem of "Elijah" in the NT. "Mucianus" is the one who must come first and restore all things. The early reference to "John", of Bilgah, not being the Savior is true - He is not. The massive rewrite of the Aramaic/Hebrew Story cannot leave the Rulership and High Priests with those appointed by David in 1 Chronicles 24. That must be changed.

Currently, I believe that the "Signs Gospel" - in a much attenuated form that is limited to references to Titus - probably came first. Domitian took over the project which was completed after his death and the final separation from the Flavians came no later than about 110 or so. It is here that the Aramaic/Hebrew Story gets grafted in. Pliny the Younger probably gets credit for the Tomb Scene with Acts as a summary of the actions from the Destruction of the Temple to the death of Mucianus who, as the character "Paul", gets to Rome and dies in anonymity.

CW
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:Actually I accept that GMark is evidence of HJ because of your point above. GMark's primary theme is discrediting the Disciples. This theme is more important in GMark than anything else including Jesus. Therefore, I think GMark itself is a reaction to historical disciples. And if there were historical disciples...
Yes, that's the irony. Everything is "completely invented" but suggested a HJ in a blind spot.
JoeWallack wrote:For purposes of this Thread it will be assumed:
  • 1) That GMark is the original Gospel narrative

    2) and therefore the primary source for GJohn

    3) That GMark has a primary objective of discrediting the Disciples as witnesses

    4) That GJohn has the opposite primary objective of crediting the Disciples as witnesses.
Sounds interesting and exciting. Your difficulty will be to distinguish between reactions to Mark and reactions to "others". But you surely know this.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Stuart »

Mr. Wallack,

The premise you lay out is not correct. While you do lay out a few points to argue that Mark is the source which John opposes, you do not explore the other potential Synoptic Gospels, those of Matthew, Marcion, and Luke, as potential sources to compare and contrast the content of John to determine which of these had influence on John.

I have argued that Matthew is the most likely Synoptic which John was countering, at least in the original composition layers (long argument I wont make here about the multi-layered authorship of John).

Key points on why Matthew is a better "source" or I would prefer to say "target" for opposition than Mark are these:

1. Mark contains Jesus' denial of Davidic origin (Mark 12:35-37, also Matthew 22:42-45), although it shares the blind man near Jericho calling Jesus "son of David" with Marcion (Mark 10:47-48, Luke 18:38-39, Marcion per AM 4.36.9, also Matthew 9:27 ... so this story is an original Synoptic element for sure) - which is not acknowledged by Jesus, and is countered by Jesus' denial of his family.

Only Matthew explicitly declares Jesus the son of David (verse 1:1) and his father Joseph (1:20). The crowd (12:23) - representing the Christian assembly - identifies the son of David as a characteristic of the Christ (questioned by the Pharisee, who represent ecclesiastical opponents of Matthew's Christianity). The identification is extended to the Canaanite (Samaritan -- made a Greek in Mark) woman calling Jesus both Lord and son of David. The crowds again hail Jesus as "son of David" as he enters Jerusalem (21:9), and noted by the ecclesiastical opponents (21:15). In this Matthew is unique, sharing with the Catholic version of Romans the declaration that Jesus is the son of David.

Davidic descent for Christ is denied John's Jesus, as the Christian crowd split over the issue with the opponents asking about John's Christ in verses 7:41-43
Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" So there was a division among the people over him.
The emphasis on Bethlehem as the birth place comes from the passage Matthew 2:1-9 which is insistent upon that point. It is tied closely to Davidic lineage.

2. John the Baptist as Elijah, the prophet to come. While all the Synoptic Gospels, excepting Marcion, follow the formula of Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 with reference to Malachi 4:5, it is the Gospel of Matthew which most emphatically declares this theological point, having no less an authority than Jesus stating in verse 11:14

"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come."

The Gospel of John rejects this outright, with the Baptist responding to Jews (Jewish Christians) in verse 1:21

And they asked him, "Who then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not."
"Are you the prophet?" and he answered, "No."

3. No Gospel is more pro-Torah than Matthew. Chapter 5 has Jesus calls over and over for a stricter adherence. Verse 5:17 Jesus states, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." Examples follow as the core of his sermon on the mount.

But the Christians of John's Gospel are described quite differently in verses 7:48-49 by the opponents of John's Christ

"Surely none of the rulers believed in him, nor of the Pharisees? But this crowd who do not know the Law is cursed."

The rulers (ἀρχόντων) parallel Bishops, the pharisees priests in the Christian church. We are again looking at an internal division, consistent with John opposing the prior Gospel supporters.

There are other elements that point more closely to an opposition to Matthew's Gospel than Mark's. But I think that is a good start.

BTW, Aramaic phrases are used in a descriptive sense, as explanatory details. I suggest they are more likely redactional additions than original elements.
Last edited by Stuart on Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:40 am, edited 3 times in total.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

toejam wrote:I'm not convinced that the author of gJohn had a copy of Mark in front of him, but I think there are too many clues to show that he is clearly responding against many of the synoptic traditions.
That convinced me ;) Jesus anointed at Bethany

the narratives are fundamentally different

Mark: anointing of the head by a nameless woman in the house of Simon the leper
John: anointing of the foot by Mary in the house of Lazarus

matchesMark 14:1John 12:1
description of the time: days to /days beforeἮν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα μετὰ δύο ἡμέραςπρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα
place: Bethanyαὐτοῦ ἐν ΒηθανίᾳἸησοῦς ... ἦλθεν εἰς Βηθανίαν
lie down (at the table)κατακειμένου αὐτοῦἀνακειμένων σὺν αὐτῷ
oil of anointing: ointment of pure nard, very costlyμύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦςμύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου
accusation of the opponents: sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poorἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι ἐπάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖςΔιὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη τριακοσίων δηναρίων καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς
Jesus´ answer: "Jesus said, Leave her alone"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἄφετε αὐτήνεἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἄφες αὐτήν
purpose of anointing: beforehand for burialμυρίσαι τὸ σῶμά μου εἰς τὸν ἐνταφιασμόνἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου
reason (time factor): For you always have the poor with you, ... but you will not always have meπάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν καὶ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε αὐτοῖς εὖ ποιῆσαι, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετετοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε

Note that the description of the oil of "pure nard" (νάρδου πιστικῆς) was completely unknown in antiquity.
Post Reply