Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:24 am

I should thank the prof Price because he is still able, at its venerable age, to produce great scholarship. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I am reading Holy Fable Volume 2, and it is with great surprise that I see by Price doing the same my point (with a little difference I will explain) to which entirely independently (I say this with a bit of pride :) ) I was arrived at.

I had written, de facto, about Mark 8:
27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Peter answereth and saith unto him, ''(The men say that) Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.



...the following comment:
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
...are anti-marcionite interpolations, given the fact that in the Gospel used by marcionites there was no mention of John the Baptist or Elijah. By removing these verses, the answer of Peter becomes: ''the men say that Thou art the Christ''.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3601&start=10

And still:
The problem with this view is that Jesus was "called Christ" by the people in the original answer of Mark 8:27-30 (and not only by Peter). Hence, how could God punish the same people who recognized the messianic identity of Jesus, IF Jesus was really the Jewish Messiah in the Earliest Gospel?

Therefore the point of the Earliest Gospel is that the Fall of Jerusalem happened precisely because the Jews thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3601


Now I find the same identical concept expressed by Price, and this is wonderful!


What was he getting at? The Messianic Secret, that's what. If, as evangelical apologists love to insist, Jesus had been ''claiming'' to be the Messiah, how can it be that none of the his fans thinks that's what he is? Plainly, Mark's Jesus has been leaving it to the imagination of the crowd. They are free to draw their own conclusions. That is how one faction happens to think Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist, another believes they are following the returned Elijah, while a third thinks they are listening to, say, Jeremiah [I wonder, had you been able to take a poll, would we have heard cries of ''I am of John!'' ''I am of Elijah!'' ''I am of Jeremiah!" What, is Christ divided?] or Isaiah, maybe Ezekiel. [I'm guessing nobody thought he was Obadiah or Habakkuk.] Jesus does not even seem to expect any particular estimate from his fans. When none of the disciples agrees with the crowd about Jesus, and Peter ventures, ''You are the Christ'', Jesus tells him to keep it under his turban. It is not even clear that Jesus accepts Peter's declaration, unlike Matthew's version. I'd say this is what you'd call the Messianic Secret.
One thing Jesus is clear about: he is going to be arrested, tormented, crucified, and resurrected. Is this supposed to be a clarification of Jesus' messiahship? Or a denial of it? Six-six-six of one, half a dozen of the other. How many times have you heard it piously said that Jesus did think himself the Messiah but completely redefined it. Uh, you mean, in other words, he didn't think he was the Messiah? Because that's like saying, ''Yes, I'm a Socialist, but of course I mean that in the sense that I believe in free markets and private ownership of the means of production. Are you with me, comrades?'' Because if you define ''Messiah'' as a savior who surrenders to death on a Roman cross, rises again, and gets enthroned invisibly in heaven - you're not talking about the Jewish Messiah anymore. Unless you are the Kheshire Cat.


(p. 61-62, original cursive, my bold)

I had to hear prof Price repeat these my words - introducing the fact that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah in proto-Mark as a serious possibility - and not by someone here in this forum. It's a fact that says little, but also all about the our reluctance to accept the concrete possibility that the author of the Earliest Gospel hated the God of the Jews.

To this same possibility the prof Price alludes, with the his typical irony:
Six-six-six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

lsayre
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by lsayre » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:03 pm

I would go even farther and excise Peter from these verses. The "they" in verse 28 corresponding with the "them" in verse 30.

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him: "You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

I would further think these verses make far more sense if the word "people" was originally "you", as in:

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” 28 And they told him: "You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:35 pm

lsayre wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:03 pm
I would go even farther and excise Peter from these verses. The "they" in verse 28 corresponding with the "them" in verse 30.

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him: "You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

I would further think these verses make far more sense if the word "people" was originally "you", as in:

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” 28 And they told him: "You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.
I am not close to your possibility but the point is that for the interpolator of Ant. 20:200, Jesus had to be "called Christ" (by the people) against Christians who denied that he was the Christ. And Pilate addressed the crowd about the Jesus "that you called "king of Jews".

But to this point I wonder about the blind of Betsaida and his humanoid trees.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

lsayre
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by lsayre » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:52 pm

Judas knew that Jesus was the Messiah, and by implication, the king of the Jews. Judas spilled the beans. Therefore Pilate knew, as did Caiaphas. This I believe is the essential viewpoint of Bart Ehrman.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:07 pm

lsayre wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:52 pm
Judas knew that Jesus was the Messiah, and by implication, the king of the Jews. Judas spilled the beans. Therefore Pilate knew, as did Caiaphas. This I believe is the essential viewpoint of Bart Ehrman.
Erhman may be right in an unexpected manner. The recognition of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is made by the entire people in proto-Mark and gradually it was restricted to only specific individual (now Peter, now Judas, now Pilate, now John) insofar proto-Mark evolved to become our Mark. But the later writers were embarrassed by the original point of proto-Mark: that the entire people was "Christian" against the will of Jesus himself.

So the blind of Betsaida sees a lot of trees who want their king (per the relative passage in Judges) just because the entire people wanted Jesus as their Jewish Messiah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

lsayre
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by lsayre » Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:58 pm

If Pilate executed a man whom the entire populace de facto perceived to be their King and Messiah, they would not have waited nearly 40 years to revolt.

BTW, above I should have more properly stated that: Judas (being one of the 12) knew that Jesus had proclaimed (to exclusively the inner circle of 12) that he was the Messiah.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by arnoldo » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:55 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:24 am
I should thank the prof Price because he is still able, at its venerable age, to produce great scholarship. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: . . .
Now I find the same identical concept expressed by Price, and this is wonderful!

What was he getting at? The Messianic Secret, that's what. If, as evangelical apologists love to insist, Jesus had been ''claiming'' to be the Messiah, how can it be that none of the his fans thinks that's what he is? Plainly, Mark's Jesus has been leaving it to the imagination of the crowd. They are free to draw their own conclusions. That is how one faction happens to think Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist, another believes they are following the returned Elijah, while a third thinks they are listening to, say, Jeremiah [I wonder, had you been able to take a poll, would we have heard cries of ''I am of John!'' ''I am of Elijah!'' ''I am of Jeremiah!" What, is Christ divided?] or Isaiah, maybe Ezekiel. [I'm guessing nobody thought he was Obadiah or Habakkuk.] Jesus does not even seem to expect any particular estimate from his fans. When none of the disciples agrees with the crowd about Jesus, and Peter ventures, ''You are the Christ'', Jesus tells him to keep it under his turban. It is not even clear that Jesus accepts Peter's declaration, unlike Matthew's version. I'd say this is what you'd call the Messianic Secret.
One thing Jesus is clear about: he is going to be arrested, tormented, crucified, and resurrected. Is this supposed to be a clarification of Jesus' messiahship? Or a denial of it? Six-six-six of one, half a dozen of the other. How many times have you heard it piously said that Jesus did think himself the Messiah but completely redefined it. Uh, you mean, in other words, he didn't think he was the Messiah? Because that's like saying, ''Yes, I'm a Socialist, but of course I mean that in the sense that I believe in free markets and private ownership of the means of production. Are you with me, comrades?'' Because if you define ''Messiah'' as a savior who surrenders to death on a Roman cross, rises again, and gets enthroned invisibly in heaven - you're not talking about the Jewish Messiah anymore. Unless you are the Kheshire Cat.


(p. 61-62, original cursive, my bold)

I had to hear prof Price repeat these my words - introducing the fact that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah in proto-Mark as a serious possibility - and not by someone here in this forum. It's a fact that says little, but also all about the our reluctance to accept the concrete possibility that the author of the Earliest Gospel hated the God of the Jews. . . .
FWIW, Price seems to be suggesting that the author of one of the Earliest Gospels was Marcion.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:53 am

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

hakeem
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by hakeem » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:41 pm

lsayre wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:03 pm
I would go even farther and excise Peter from these verses. The "they" in verse 28 corresponding with the "them" in verse 30.

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him: "You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

I would further think these verses make far more sense if the word "people" was originally "you", as in:

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” 28 And they told him: "You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.
It is most astonishing that you attempt to change the story just to get the result that you want.

You seem not to realise that in the Gospel story it is claimed Jesus did ask "Who do you say that I am?

CSB Mark 8:29
“But you,” he asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”
Up to today, people are doing exactly what the authors of the Gospels did--they invented their own stories of Jesus by adding or removing what they imagined.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bob Price makes the same my point about Mark 8:27-30!!!

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:49 am

I find another scholar who makes the same my point above:
Gradually the author-artist allows the main speaking subject Jesus to reveal his identity. In the narrating world the reader is led by the author-artist to listen to the hero Jesus about his identity as 'the Son of Man'. First the reader is allowed to hear the voice of the disciple Peter. In his perspective, Jesus is seen as the Messiah'/ 'the Christ'. Then at the end of v. 29 the reader hears that Jesus warns the disciples not to tell anybody about himself. There is no explicit comment from the narrator why Jesus warned his disciples not to proclaim his identity any further. What we can hear is the narrator's voice that Jesus forbids them to say about his identity. The readers are left in question whether Jesus affirms or rejects their perspectives. It resembles one of the techniques of 'classical satire' to keep the reader guessing and gasping.

http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3489/2/311807.pdf
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply