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.
Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

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

Post by Michael BG » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:02 am

Giuseppe, it is not clear from what you quoted that Robert Price is saying that the original saying was without verses 28 and 29ab:
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?
It seems to me Robert Price is also saying that Jesus didn’t see himself as the Messiah.

However, I think Tim Widowfield’s look at this passage and the related passage of Mk 6:14-16 along with what Robert Price wrote and what Gerd Theissen wrote in The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition sheds light on the issue https://vridar.org/2018/03/06/a-redacti ... -mark-828/

It seems that a case can be made that verse 28 could be based on the same saying as Mk 6:14-16 particularly what I have put in bold
[14] King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."

[15] But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
[16] But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."
However it seems reasonable to assume that the original Mark had both. It is also possible that the source only had a this with a different introduction.
Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead."

But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:05 am

Michael, you are correct on these points. And particularly about the fact that Price doesn't assume the interpolation of the references to Moses and Elijiah, even if the his emphasis about the Messianic Secret goes in that direction.

In the comment section of Tim's post I wrote:

for the sake of completeness, I should mention my source of the marcionite idea in full.

So Georges Ory (my free translation from French):

WHO IS JESUS? (Luke 9:7-9)

This passage is an insertion that interrupts the story about the Twelve’s mission.
Luke (like Mark) was expanded by verses 8-9 that Matthew does not know and which aims to make Christ and John reincarnations of Elijah. See also Luke 1:17, 4:25, 9:30.
Marcion does not contain verses 9-10. His text does not indicate Herod as Tetrarch, as Luke and Matthew do, but he agrees with Mark, who ignores this title.
The Evangelion is the only one against the three synoptics to teach us that everyone called Jesus ”Christ”, but his clumsy corrector left the phrase “some,said .. John, others Elijah, .. . or an ancient prophet” that is impossible if everyone called ”Christ” Jesus.
Marcion could not conceive the reincarnation of a prophet in Jesus. Of this story, Matthew and Mark gave a rather long continuation; the correctors added to the first episode ten verses and to the second 15 to tell the famous story of Herodias and the head of the Baptist brought to a plate. Marcion and Luke do not know this story.


(G. Ory, Marcion, my bold)
So the Messianic Secret for both Price and Ory is not, as per Wrede and Tim:
Jesus is the Jewish Christ but no people know this.
...but the following:
Is Jesus really the Jewish Christ or is he the Messiah of an Alien God?
Why would Marcion have preserved the references to Moses and Elijah, when Moses and Elijah work elsewhere again and again as mere references to the Torah?

So the merit of Ory (and of Price for that matter) is to give a different interpretation of the episode where Jesus is called Christ by the people (with Peter only reporting the opinion of the people: TU ES CHRISTUS).

What Wrede can't explain is that, even if the reader knows that Jesus in Mark is the Christ, well, even so, he (the reader) can't do sense of the real identity of Jesus "Christ". The mystery remains.

While if the reader knows in advance that Jesus is NOT the Christ, then the doubt is all for the actors in the story.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:19 am

I should admire Tim because this point made by him:

And so, ultimately, the question about whether the original Gospel of Mark (or the tradition behind the text) was really talking about the Marcionite Christ is a nonstarter, if only because we don’t know exactly what all Mark believed about the Messiah.
This is the true conclusion. We (moderns) know only from Mark that the people (what the people believed about Jesus) is 100% WRONG, 100% ANTI-CHRISTIAN.

We moderns can't never know what "Mark" (author) believed really.

So a marcionite may accept the gospel of Mark only if the people (and not only Peter) believed that Jesus was the Jewish Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:47 am

Note that according to the traditional interpretation of the episode of Caesarea Philippi: the people is more distant from the truth (about Jesus) than Peter, even if Peter himself is still far from truth. So Peter ("TU ES CHRISTUS") works someway as mediator between the two extremities.

While in the Ory's interpretation of the presumed version of proto-Mark there is a radical opposition between the people/Peter's view ("TU ES CHRISTUS") and the truth about Jesus (that he is NOT the Christ).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

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

Post by Michael BG » Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:05 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:05 am
In the comment section of Tim's post I wrote:
for the sake of completeness, I should mention my source of the marcionite idea in full.

So Georges Ory (my free translation from French):

WHO IS JESUS? (Luke 9:7-9)

This passage is an insertion that interrupts the story about the Twelve’s mission.
Luke (like Mark) was expanded by verses 8-9 that Matthew does not know and which aims to make Christ and John reincarnations of Elijah. See also Luke 1:17, 4:25, 9:30.
Marcion does not contain verses 9-10. His text does not indicate Herod as Tetrarch, as Luke and Matthew do, but he agrees with Mark, who ignores this title.
The Evangelion is the only one against the three synoptics to teach us that everyone called Jesus ”Christ”, but his clumsy corrector left the phrase “some,said .. John, others Elijah, .. . or an ancient prophet” that is impossible if everyone called ”Christ” Jesus.
Marcion could not conceive the reincarnation of a prophet in Jesus. Of this story, Matthew and Mark gave a rather long continuation; the correctors added to the first episode ten verses and to the second 15 to tell the famous story of Herodias and the head of the Baptist brought to a plate. Marcion and Luke do not know this story.


(G. Ory, Marcion, my bold)
I have huge problems with your quote from Georges Ory, he seems to read more into verses 8 and 9 than I think are there. Also he seems to think because a story or section is missing this means the author doesn’t know the story! It also seems he thinks the Evangelion came before Mark. I can agree that Mk 6:14-16 is an insertion which interrupts the story about the Twelves’ mission. However, coupled with Mk 6:17-29 it looks like a known Marcan feature to me, which Marcion’s gospel and Luke's while not including the main part has kept enough for us to see he is using the longer Marcan version.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:41 am

I would emphasize a point in Bob Price's view about an episode in Mark:
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:24 am


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)
(my yellow)

I don't think, against Price, that Jesus was "clear" about the his future death etc. Note that this is even more true if the original end of proto-Mark was just after the Transfiguration episode. The original crucifixion was the Transfiguration. It was in the same time a Crucifixion, a Baptism and an Ascension.

Hence, all that too much insistent emphasis, for 3 times, about Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection after 3 days, betrayes mere proto-Catholic interpolations meant to make it clear that Jesus died on earth and not in outer space.

This doubt is raised even if the 3 predictions of his own death were genuine in proto-Mark. If Jesus predicted really the his own death, why do you ("Mark") insist on that fact obsessively for 3 times? I know why you ("Mark") insists so much on that.
  • Because you are polemizing against who denies that Jesus predicted the his own death on earth. Really, the Transfiguration episode seems alone a prediction of his own death in outer space, on a Cosmic Cross of Glory. Even there, it is not Jesus who talks about his future death in Jerusalem. That mere presumption is put on the mouth of Moses and Elijah, two losers.
  • Or because you want to refer subtly the insider reader to the real place and time of the real crucifixion of Jesus: not ascending to the earthly Jerusalem (as the rest of story insists apparently), but ascending to celestial Jerusalem, i.e. in Heaven.
Hence Bob Price is totally wrong. The Messianic Secret is not the only enigma in proto-Mark. A even more great enigma is: did Jesus predict really his own death on earth?

Dear readers of this forum,

If there is a point of connection, a missing ring, between the "mythicist" belief of Paul and early Christians and the later Gospel "historicist" tradition, it is not only in the descending of Jesus already adult in Capernaum (=Sheol") as per the Marcion's incipit.

But it is also in these highly suspected three predictions by Jesus of his own death, precisely and not coincidentially AFTER that a Transfiguration episode had just occurred, one with all the air of being a real cosmic glorious crucifixion in Heaven.

Something of which the real embarrassing meaning had to be eclipsed with three historicist prophecies of death in Jerusalem.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am

Basically, my point above (read only the post above and ignore the rest) talks about the great weakness of Gospel "tradition".

I believed, before today, that the Christians as Mark, Luke, etc, had limited themselves to put their words on the mouth of Jesus to give them the authority they had need about only questions of identity ("who is really the Father of Jesus?") or about boring religious matters (Torah's observance, tribute to Caesar, etc).

I was incredibly wrong on this.

I would have never imagined that they would have talked via the Jesus of paper, about: even the ACTIONS that that Jesus of paper would have done on the earth. To confirm even the reality of these actions against the deniers of these actions.


It is not only question of: Jesus said x, therefore you have to believe x.

It is also question of: Jesus said that Jesus did x, therefore you have to believe that Jesus had done x.

CONCLUSION:

Today I am more mythicist than yersterday.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:27 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:41 am
I don't think, against Price, that Jesus was "clear" about the his future death etc. Note that this is even more true if the original end of proto-Mark was just after the Transfiguration episode. The original crucifixion was the Transfiguration. It was in the same time a Crucifixion, a Baptism and an Ascension.

Hence, all that too much insistent emphasis, for 3 times, about Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection after 3 days, betrayes mere proto-Catholic interpolations meant to make it clear that Jesus died on earth and not in outer space.
What I am saying is that these 3 predictions of his future death in Jerusalem are prophecies post eventum.

Which means: the readers already knew the Mark's view about Jesus: that he was crucified on earth, according to Mark.

Only, the readers were aware also of the version of the enemies of "Mark": that Jesus died in heaven and that this celestial death is referred cryptically in the original ending of proto-Mark: the Transfiguration episode.

Hence the Mark's Jesus, in the new final of the story added to proto-Mark, is made to say what the readers already know about him: that he will be crucified. Really, he does these prophecies because both the author and the readers know already that that is common knowledge of any Christian: that Jesus was crucified.

Hence, the reason "Mark" insists again and again, despite of that common knowledge, that Jesus predicts his own death, is not to persuade enemies who denied that death, but to persuade these enemies that that death happened on earth.

That is the only knowledge added by "Mark" about Jesus by introducing the final part to proto-Mark.

The readers of proto-Mark knew only:
  • 1) that Jesus descended on earth and he preached for some time;
  • 2) that Jesus predicts a great event for some of his generation;
  • 3) that that event was the his Cosmic Crucifixion in Heaven, allegorized by the Trasfiguration episode.
What "Mark" added, was only two things:
  • 4) the absolute confirmation, given by Jesus himself, that the true death allegorized by the Transfiguration episode had to happen on earth and only on earth
  • 5) the absolute confirmation, given by both Jesus and Pilate and the crowd and the titulus crucis and the two thieves, that Jesus was the "king of the Jews" (genitive possessive).
This is enough to condemn "Mark" before the history.

The accusation is: interpolation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

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

Post by klewis » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:41 pm

Dr Price has lots of insights into the construction of the Gospels. He would be happy to see that you found the same stuff he did and you took it in a different direction.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:07 pm

klewis wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:41 pm
Dr Price has lots of insights into the construction of the Gospels. He would be happy to see that you found the same stuff he did and you took it in a different direction.
true, but strangely he didn't answer to a my mail (and I don't like facebook). My problem with Bob Price is that he seems to be not much aware of the findings of the French mythicists as I do. He seems to place himself more on the line of the English and American mythicists (that is precisely the impression I had by reading his Christ myth and its problems). And he knows the French mythicists only by few English translations of their works. Unfortunately, a lot of interesting findings/interpretations are lost to us and are found in some unknown library of France, expecting that some pious person published them again.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply