Cruci f i c t i o n

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Heretical
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:25 am

Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Heretical » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:31 am

Gospel of Mark is a cleverly devised myth. Probably what 2 Peter was talking about ("we did not follow cleverly devised myths") when the church began to historicize this fairy tale and pretend that all the gospels was talking about the same thing.

But Mark wasn’t fooling anyone, he just tried to keep outsiders on the outside with his parables/riddles. There’s no point of secrecy (mystery religion) if everything is in the open for everybody all the time, right? Mark and his sect could choose their insiders and explain the more sophisticated readers about the good news.

Everything is aimed at the reader. Mark is trying to teach/show the reader something when he has Jesus give Simon Peter, James and John nicknames, give them private time and let them witness the greatness so they could have the best faith ever - still they fail. Even God breaks into the narrative and tell them to listen.

The disciples are portrayed as so stupid that they just have to pay for their stupidity at the end if there ever is any good news in there at all. Their lack of faith sure is a main point in gMark (4,4: "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"). So who’s got faith? If faith can move mountains, the question “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” should be answered by someone with faith.

I believe Mark has Simon Peter crucified (instead of Jesus), with James and John on his "left and right". I don’t think there is enough reason to nail these three to the cross, but sometimes it’s the thought that counts.


Mark 1, 16-20:
Jesus called Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John.

Mark 1, 29-31:
The same four are present when Jesus does his first miracle.

Mark 13:
Again, the same four are alone with Jesus when he tells them what’s about to happen soon (Jesus message: "Don’t sleep! Be awake! Keep watch!").

So after the disciples ate and drank some Jesus, everything is set for Gethsemane. The three main disciples sleep like they never have slept before, ignoring Jesus plea to stay awake. Only Andrew could be awake and keep watch, right? (Andrew is the naked young man fleeing away in Gethsemane and reappears at the tomb)

Judas enters the scene and the action starts. Even thou Andrew was warned and awake he only escapes by the skin of his teeth, naked! This just have to be a sign to the reader which tells them that all the other disciples certainly did not escape, they where seized and taken in along with Jesus. That’s why Simon Peter is depicted "followed at a distance", "entering the courtyard and sitting with the guards and warming himself on the fire". He’s not brave.

Then Mark had some fun with Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene, so much fun that our Jesus gets away - just as he (conveniently) begged for in Gethsemane (14,35-36).

Later the women fled from the tomb and "said nothing to anyone". That’s not strange considering that the women was present at the crucifixion. They saw exactly who was crucified. So when Andrew instruct the women to "go and tell Peter and the other disciples" it’s just to much for them…

13,26-27:
“At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.“

The reader will see Andrew (Son of Man) send the women (angels) and gather the readers (the elected/insiders) that get it...?



Someone else crucified:
Bible Geek Podcast (Robert M. Price) 18 Juli 38:35 - 43:45.
Everything is aimed at the reader:
«Let the Reader Understand» - R. M. Fowler
«Sowing the Gospel» - M. A. Tolbert

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5086
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Peter Kirby » Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:42 am

Welcome to the forum! I hope you find it interesting to participate here.
Andrew is the naked young man fleeing away in Gethsemane and reappears at the tomb
Why identify him as Andrew?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Metacrock » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:13 am

Heretical wrote:Gospel of Mark is a cleverly devised myth. Probably what 2 Peter was talking about ("we did not follow cleverly devised myths") when the church began to historicize this fairy tale and pretend that all the gospels was talking about the same thing.
(1) how d0 you know not same thing:

(2) what others things are they about?

(3) pretty certain its a fairly tale, why?
But Mark wasn’t fooling anyone, he just tried to keep outsiders on the outside with his parables/riddles. There’s no point of secrecy (mystery religion) if everything is in the open for everybody all the time, right? Mark and his sect could choose their insiders and explain the more sophisticated readers about the good news.
the thing about secrets is if you are not on the inside then you don't everything interpretive is speculation. It strikes , me that you are reading it in a them and us ideological way rather than letting the?Text inform you.

I will have to do the rest latter.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:34 am

I believe Mark has Simon Peter crucified (instead of Jesus), with James and John on his "left and right".
Very interesting and suggestive implication, very thanks for this!

I am always open to consider Mark as an heretical Gospel (as a coded myth along the way you - as Parvus - well describe), but I recognize that there is an equally probable proto-catholic reading of that Gospel that indeed ''disturbs'' my anti-Catholic bias (even assuming a totally paulinized reading of Mark: see Adamczewski for that case).

Indeed, my problem with Mark - and with all the synoptics - is their exaggerated obsession with scripture.

That kind of obsession is expected only if one - and only one - of the two following mutually exclusive conditions is true:

1) You want to persuade other skeptikal Jews (and only them) that a particular recent Jewish man is truly the historical messiah, contra factum that he was not one.

2) you want to persuade your readers themselves that a man - a real man and not a mere apparition - belongs to Judaism to the extent that Judaism has predicted him in his writings, to do a scorched earth around those - a lot of ''heretics'' - who have long argued the opposite.

Therefore if Mark was the earliest Gospel, then I would be Jesus Agnostic with sincere historicist propensities.

But if Mcn - and not Mark - was the earliest Gospel, then I would be surely Mythicist beyond any reasonable doubt.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by theterminator » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:53 am

Indeed, my problem with Mark - and with all the synoptics - is their exaggerated obsession with scripture.
M Ferguson writes:


“Likewise, even when ancient historians do not identify many of their written sources by name, they often discuss their sources anonymously. For example, the historian Tacitus identifies few of his written sources by name in the first books of his Annals, with the notable exception of Pliny the Elder in Ann. 1.67; however, Tacitus still engages many of his written sources anonymously in ways that are atypical of the canonical Gospels. For example, Tacitus uses formulas like quidam tradidere (“some have related,” Ann. 1.13), diversa apud auctores (“conflicting accounts among historians,” Ann. 1.81), and secutus plurimos auctorum (“having followed the accounts of most historians,” Ann. 4.57). Such methodological statements are virtually absent from the canonical Gospels, with the exception of the first few lines of Luke (1:1-4). Likewise, the Oxford Annotated Bible (pg. 1827) notes that these few lines are atypical of the style elsewhere in Luke’s gospel: “The initial four verses of the book are a single Greek sentence that forms a highly stylized introductory statement typical of ancient historical writings … After this distinctive preface, however, the narrative shifts into a style of Greek reminiscent of the Septuagint.”

The source criterion should furthermore not be interpreted as meaning that ancient historians always cited their sources in every instance. Very frequently they do not, and there were no footnotes in antiquity. Nevertheless, discussion of sources and methodology is still considerably more present in ancient historical works, compared to the canonical Gospels in which it is virtually absent, reflecting a difference in style and genre.”


.........................................................................

I clearly discuss Tacitus’ use of sources in this section. To begin with, he does cite Pliny the Elder as a source (which means he is already interacting with historical sources more than the Gospels); but furthermore, Tacitus is also discussing many of his sources (1) anonymously, and is likewise comparing different versions of events (2). That fits perfectly with the methodological criteria that I stated above. I never stated that historical authors always name their source. Many discuss them anonymously, but the Gospels don’t even do this, with the exception of Luke 1:1, after which the author follows the style of the Septuagint.

Moreover, a point that I didn’t make in the essay, which should be made, is that, when the Gospels do include citations, they are virtually all to the Greek Septuagint. These citations take the form of fulfillment of scripture citations and Midrash. Both of these are also a blow to the Gospels’ historical accuracy. The reason why is because, when the Gospels do cite their sources, we can tell that they are literary sources from the Septuagint (rather than historical sources). That means that the Gospels’ authors took considerable liberties in making Jesus fulfill OT prophecies, in addition to shaping him based on OT characters, such as performing Midrash on the miracles of Moses. That reflects a theological, rather than historical, approach to shaping a text.


...
Last edited by theterminator on Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:20 am

theterminator wrote:
Indeed, my problem with Mark - and with all the synoptics - is their exaggerated obsession with scripture.
M Ferguson writes:


“Likewise, even when ancient historians do not identify many of their written sources by name, they often discuss their sources anonymously. For example, the historian Tacitus identifies few of his written sources by name in the first books of his Annals, with the notable exception of Pliny the Elder in Ann. 1.67; however, Tacitus still engages many of his written sources anonymously in ways that are atypical of the canonical Gospels. For example, Tacitus uses formulas like quidam tradidere (“some have related,” Ann. 1.13), diversa apud auctores (“conflicting accounts among historians,” Ann. 1.81), and secutus plurimos auctorum (“having followed the accounts of most historians,” Ann. 4.57). Such methodological statements are virtually absent from the canonical Gospels, with the exception of the first few lines of Luke (1:1-4). Likewise, the Oxford Annotated Bible (pg. 1827) notes that these few lines are atypical of the style elsewhere in Luke’s gospel: “The initial four verses of the book are a single Greek sentence that forms a highly stylized introductory statement typical of ancient historical writings … After this distinctive preface, however, the narrative shifts into a style of Greek reminiscent of the Septuagint.”

The source criterion should furthermore not be interpreted as meaning that ancient historians always cited their sources in every instance. Very frequently they do not, and there were no footnotes in antiquity. Nevertheless, discussion of sources and methodology is still considerably more present in ancient historical works, compared to the canonical Gospels in which it is virtually absent, reflecting a difference in style and genre.”

I clearly discuss Tacitus’ use of sources in this section. To begin with, he does cite Pliny the Elder as a source (which means he is already interacting with historical sources more than the Gospels); but furthermore, Tacitus is also discussing many of his sources (1) anonymously, and is likewise comparing different versions of events (2). That fits perfectly with the methodological criteria that I stated above. I never stated that historical authors always name their source. Many discuss them anonymously, but the Gospels don’t even do this, with the exception of Luke 1:1, after which the author follows the style of the Septuagint.

Moreover, a point that I didn’t make in the essay, which should be made, is that, when the Gospels do include citations, they are virtually all to the Greek Septuagint. These citations take the form of fulfillment of scripture citations and Midrash. Both of these are also a blow to the Gospels’ historical accuracy. The reason why is because, when the Gospels do cite their sources, we can tell that they are literary sources from the Septuagint (rather than historical sources). That means that the Gospels’ authors took considerable liberties in making Jesus fulfill OT prophecies, in addition to shaping him based on OT characters, such as performing Midrash on the miracles of Moses. That reflects a theological, rather than historical, approach to shaping a text.


...
Precisely. To find which was definitively the true Cause of all these ''considerable liberties in making Jesus fulfill OT prophecies, in addition to shaping him based on OT characters, such as performing Midrash on the miracles of Moses'' decides the question, at least in my modest opinion.

And note that if you accept one of the two (possible mutually exclusive) answers on the Gospels, then you should accept that same answer on the epistles, too, and vice versa.
(the reason: too often I have seen ''scholars'' be reluctant to deny that x is genuine in Paul notwithstanding x is a clear anti-Marcionite point)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:43 am

If Mcn was the earliest Gospel -- i.e.: if the 'historical' Jesus enters in the first leterature about him as an angel - then there was never as pagan reaction the denial of his existence, since the only possible (positive or negative) reactions against Mcn would be in that case:

A) ''your Jesus was really a true man and the Son of God (of the Jews)'' (the proto-catholic response)
B) ''your Jesus was really only a mere man, not the Son of God'' (the Celsus's response)
C) ''You are right: your Jesus was an angel masked as man''. (the docetical response).

The answer A implies the creation of our canonical Gospels.
The answer B explains the response a la Celsus.
The answer C explains why no man in antiquity was concerned about denying the existence of an angel. An angel, by definition, denies already himself!

What I'm saying is that the absence of real mythicists in Antiquity is 100% expected under the hypothesis of Mcn priority.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:47 pm

Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
(Mark 4:15)
Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
(Mark 14:43)

Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.
(Mark 14:16-17)
Then everyone deserted him and fled.
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
(Mark 14:51-52)

But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
(Mark 4:6)
Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.
(Mark 14:54)

Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.
(Mark 14:18-19)
But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
(Mark 15:5)
They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.
(Mark 15:17)
They crucified two thieves with him, one on his right and one on his left.
(Mark 15:27)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:58 am

Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
(Mark 14:36)

A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
(Mark 15:7)

In Greek:
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.


Question: is it possible to read the passage as meaning possibly strictu sensu that only ''the insurrectionists had committed murder in the uprising'', but not Barabbas, too ?

I see that the other Gospels didn't leave doubt about the role of Barabbas as seditious. Assuming the game rules of Heretical, can I see their emphasis on Barabbas the principal seditious as a kind of reaction against the alternative ironic reading of Mark 15:17 I would like to introduce here?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:22 am

Waiting a response to question above, I wonder about these three passages: there is a link among them?

Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
(Mark 4:5-6)

Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.
(Mark 4:18-19)

καὶ ἄλλοι εἰσὶν οἱ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας σπειρόμενοι· οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον ἀκούσαντες,
(Mark 4:18)

καὶ ἐνδιδύσκουσιν αὐτὸν πορφύραν καὶ περιτιθέασιν αὐτῷ πλέξαντες ἀκάνθινον στέφανον·
(Mark 15:17)

They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.
(Mark 15:17)

Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.
(Mark 15:23-25)

The logic would be:

The false Jesus - i.e., Simon Peter - is crucified because Peter, with the Pillars John and James, was the principal victim of ''the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things'', fulfilling the sower parable about the Word thrown in rocky places and among thorns.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bing [Bot], Charles Wilson, Iphigeneia, iskander, JoeWallack, Kapyong, lsayre, MrMacSon, Peter Kirby, Steven Avery, Thor and 65 guests