Tenorikuma wrote:Interesting idea — that never occurred to me. I have assumed that Mark was writing from a more Hellenistic perspective in which wives could divorce their husbands. (Matthew takes pains to correct this, since under Jewish law, only men could divorce their wives.)
Which is a direct reflection of the early struggles in Christianity. It was a diverse movement with wide and varied views.
While Mark is not adhering to laws near as much as Matthews communities, they were both 100% Hellenistic.
Its my opinion it would be a mistake to think because Matthew held on to the Jewish laws tighter then other groups, that he was any "less Hellenistic"
Tenorikuma wrote:And as is well known, he get wrong the detail of which of Herod's sons Herodias the mother had been married to. It's quite a spectacular mess.
probably historical
Mark's story
Herod Antipas
Herod
Tetrarch
King
subordinate to the Romans
offered half of his kingdom with an oath
feared a rebellion because of John's entourage
feared John as a righteous and holy man
wanted to kill John
arrested John, but did not want to kill, heard John gladly
thought it best, by putting him to death
was exceedingly sorry
it was his own decision
did not want to break his word because of his oaths and his guests
probably historical
Mark's story
Herodias
Herodias
his brother Herod’s wife
his brother Philip’s wife
had probably nothing to do with the murder
was the driving force of John's murder
probably historical
Mark's story
Salome
probably also named Herodias
daughter of Herodias, not of Herod
probably also Herod's daughter
was an adult woman
was a young girl
highly unlikely that the princess went in the men's symposium
danced in front of Herod's nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee
had probably nothing to do with the murder
„innocent“ murder instigator as strawman of the mother
JoeWallack wrote:John the Baptist was killed for the wrong reason. The Disciples went out on their mission for the wrong reason.
I agree with much of what you write. But it seems there are too many changes only for "a wrong reason"
Tenorikuma wrote:And as is well known, he get wrong the detail of which of Herod's sons Herodias the mother had been married to. It's quite a spectacular mess.
probably historical
Mark's story
Herod Antipas
Herod
Tetrarch
King
subordinate to the Romans
offered half of his kingdom with an oath
feared a rebellion because of John's entourage
feared John as a righteous and holy man
wanted to kill John
arrested John, but did not want to kill, heard John gladly
thought it best, by putting him to death
was exceedingly sorry
it was his own decision
did not want to break his word because of his oaths and his guests
probably historical
Mark's story
Herodias
Herodias
his brother Herod’s wife
his brother Philip’s wife
had probably nothing to do with the murder
was the driving force of John's murder
probably historical
Mark's story
Salome
probably also named Herodias
daughter of Herodias, not of Herod
probably also Herod's daughter
was an adult woman
was a young girl
highly unlikely that the princess went in the men's symposium
danced in front of Herod's nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee
had probably nothing to do with the murder
„innocent“ murder instigator as strawman of the mother
Great layout. Thanks.
JoeWallack wrote:John the Baptist was killed for the wrong reason. The Disciples went out on their mission for the wrong reason.
I agree with much of what you write. But it seems there are too many changes only for "a wrong reason"
What do you think/suspect is going on with that? Why so many changes or (probably) unhistorical details?
Tenorikuma wrote:And as is well known, he get wrong the detail of which of Herod's sons Herodias the mother had been married to. It's quite a spectacular mess.
probably historical
Mark's story
Herod Antipas
Herod
Tetrarch
King
subordinate to the Romans
offered half of his kingdom with an oath
feared a rebellion because of John's entourage
feared John as a righteous and holy man
wanted to kill John
arrested John, but did not want to kill, heard John gladly
thought it best, by putting him to death
was exceedingly sorry
it was his own decision
did not want to break his word because of his oaths and his guests
probably historical
Mark's story
Herodias
Herodias
his brother Herod’s wife
his brother Philip’s wife
had probably nothing to do with the murder
was the driving force of John's murder
probably historical
Mark's story
Salome
probably also named Herodias
daughter of Herodias, not of Herod
probably also Herod's daughter
was an adult woman
was a young girl
highly unlikely that the princess went in the men's symposium
danced in front of Herod's nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee
had probably nothing to do with the murder
„innocent“ murder instigator as strawman of the mother
Great layout. Thanks.
JoeWallack wrote:John the Baptist was killed for the wrong reason. The Disciples went out on their mission for the wrong reason.
I agree with much of what you write. But it seems there are too many changes only for "a wrong reason"
What do you think/suspect is going on with that? Why so many changes or (probably) unhistorical details?
Ben.
JW:
KK would agree with me that in general "Mark" (author) is more interested in style than history and the default position is that any individual pericope is fiction. You are not there yet but the (skeptical) spirit has moved you in that direction. Both of you would agree that "Mark" does use Intercalations and the theme of the Disciples' supposed mission is one of the most important themes in GMark.
Let's look at possible reasons for specific changes:
Can't help wondering if the context hints at "pleasured" instead of pleased. Maybe it's just me. So Herod, husband of Herodius, has a daughter Herodius. A tightly knit family. Per Josephus, Herodius was Phillip's daughter. Another sacrifice to history.
In summary, "Mark's" overuse of the name "Herod" here:
1) Naming Herod Antipas just Herod.
2) Calling this Herod King instead of Tetrarch (connecting to Herod the Great).
3) Bringing his wife Herodius into the story.
4) Saying his daughter was Herodius and bringing her into the story.
Most would agree that all four are historical errors but this post goes beyond that to claiming that "Mark" has made all these errors intentionally in order to invoke the name "Herod". Note especially that all these Herods/Herodiasses are in close proximity in "Mark's" potential source Josephus, "Mark" is just rearranging them with style.
"Mark" parallels with External sources as noted above and the above Herod banquet parallels well Internally with Jesus' banquet where evil and wicked Christian mistranslators have hidden the "reclining" connection. I have faith that our own frauline KK is about to give the sacrifices for the Kingdoms parallel as well. Note that John's sacrifice is a dead body while, as that great 20th century philosopher Joker said, Jesus' is "a live one".
Tenorikuma wrote:And as is well known, he get wrong the detail of which of Herod's sons Herodias the mother had been married to. It's quite a spectacular mess.
probably historical
Mark's story
Herod Antipas
Herod
Tetrarch
King
subordinate to the Romans
offered half of his kingdom with an oath
feared a rebellion because of John's entourage
feared John as a righteous and holy man
wanted to kill John
arrested John, but did not want to kill, heard John gladly
thought it best, by putting him to death
was exceedingly sorry
it was his own decision
did not want to break his word because of his oaths and his guests
probably historical
Mark's story
Herodias
Herodias
his brother Herod’s wife
his brother Philip’s wife
had probably nothing to do with the murder
was the driving force of John's murder
probably historical
Mark's story
Salome
probably also named Herodias
daughter of Herodias, not of Herod
probably also Herod's daughter
was an adult woman
was a young girl
highly unlikely that the princess went in the men's symposium
danced in front of Herod's nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee
had probably nothing to do with the murder
„innocent“ murder instigator as strawman of the mother
JoeWallack wrote:John the Baptist was killed for the wrong reason. The Disciples went out on their mission for the wrong reason.
I agree with much of what you write. But it seems there are too many changes only for "a wrong reason"
Good work ! I will remember that the execution of John the Baptist is probably historical.
The execution of a religious troublemaker is often a trivial event for his/ her contemporaries. As an example , Elizabeth Barton dies on page 103 of, Reformation, by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
If John the Baptist existed , his importance would consist in providing evidence of a reforming movement in Palestine , that attracted people like Jesus and others.
iskander wrote:his importance would consist in providing evidence of a reforming movement in Palestine , that attracted people like Jesus and others.
.
Well he is well known after being dead for 2 000 years.
He is said to have baptized Jesus, so the Jesus character is written that he was attracted to John.
John also was noticed buy Josephus writing some 60 ish years later.
And I don't think we have to have a reforming movement to have a vacuum that needed to be filled, hence my point of possible theological motive. And secondly a partial political movement, would not need be a reform movement.
With that said, the textual evidence is that it was in part a reform movement adopted and described after cross cultural traditions evolved and were eventually recorded.
Nice work, KK. We may add that the historical scenario surrounding John the Baptist's death (according to Josephus) puts it around 37. This is incompatible with Mark, in which Jesus begins his ministry after JBap's death, yet is crucified by Pilate (who was removed from office in 36).
JoeWallack wrote:KK, you would agree that The Disciples are primary in GMark and John the Baptist is secondary. Intercalation
enclosing or “sandwiching” one story in the middle of a different story (forming an A1, B, A2 pattern), so that each affects the interpretation of the other
...
In the Intercalation the middle part, which is secondary to the primary story, has a lesson, which needs to be applied to the outer part, which would otherwise lack it, in order to understand the significance of the outer part. It is the outer part which has the current thematic significance to the author. Here it's difficult to identify the lesson because of the relationship of the size of the middle part to the outer part, the middle part being so much bigger.
Yes, I agree.
The wording seems to indicate primarily that both stories are linked by the words "send out" (ἀποστέλλω - apostelló) and apostles (ἀπόστολοι - apostoloi).
7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out (ἀποστέλλειν) two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.
............. 17 For it was Herod who had sent (ἀποστείλας) and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias
............. 27 And immediately the king sent (ἀποστείλας) an executioner with orders to bring John’s head.
30 The apostles (ἀπόστολοι) returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught.
