Did Mark know the story of the birth of Jesus?

[hakeem]

There is no requirement for Jesus to be born for him to exist according to some who believe the gospel.

Contra Faustum 2

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly.
Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.
It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.
This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ's preaching.

gMark's Jesus did not say he was born of men.

The birth of the Gospel Jesus appears to a late invention.

[Giuseppe]

Nevertheless your argument appears to be 100% an argument from silence that is constructed by various outside sources that may or may not have influenced him.

from the only fact that Jesus came from Nazaret surely you can infer his physical birth.

But even so it is redundant by Mark to add the Baptism as a second birth.

Just as the direct mention of Elijah is redundant given the presence already of John the Baptist in the role of Elijah.

And to repeat two times the binomy John/"you are my son" is extremely redundant by Mark.

So my point is that there is a particular obssessive insistence by Mark on the binomy "born by woman/born under the Law", by the occurrence for two times of that binomy.

[TedM]

Nevertheless your argument appears to be 100% an argument from silence that is constructed by various outside sources that may or may not have influenced him.

from the only fact that Jesus came from Nazaret surely you can infer his physical birth.

But even so it is redundant by Mark to add the Baptism as a second birth.

no more so than for Matthew and Luke.

And to repeat two times the binomy John/"you are my son" is extremely redundant by Mark.

So my point is that there is a particular obssessive insistence by Mark on the binomy "born by woman/born under the Law", by the occurrence for two times of that binomy.

I don't know what you are saying here.

[Giuseppe]

don't know what you are saying here.

I allude to the possibility that the Baptism episode in Mark is a midrash from "born by woman, born under the Law" of Galatians: the "woman" is the dove/holy spirit and the representative of the Law is John/Elijah. So the deliberate "embarrassment" is that Jesus is "under" the Law while he is baptized under John.

The Transfiguration episode would repeat the same point with another occurrence of Elijah and the voice from heaven.

[TedM]

don't know what you are saying here.

I allude to the possibility that the Baptism episode in Mark is a midrash from "born by woman, born under the Law" of Galatians: the "woman" is the dove/holy spirit and the representative of the Law is John/Elijah. So the deliberate "embarrassment" is that Jesus is "under" the Law while he is baptized under John.

The Transfiguration episode would repeat the same point with another occurrence of Elijah and the voice from heaven.

Thanks. I have little interest in this kind of creative pattern-seeking which can make nearly anything possible, so will exit the thread at this point.

[Joseph D. L.]

Where are you getting the idea that the baptism is a 'second birth'? Nor from Mark. So you can't make that claim without acknowledging that it is a theory without supporting evidence from Mark, it appears to me. I do not agree that there is a'at least a sense of a birth of Jesus for Mark'. That is a fabrication in your own mind. You are just making things up, it appears. There is basis of course but not from Mark - that I'm seeing.

I think you're somewhat missing the point Giuseppe is making.

First, Jesus in Mark (I would argue all of the Gospels) is not an actual person but an allegory. With allegories you can make them do what you want and mean what you want because they are not restricted by causality. The clearest proof of such allegorical back projecting is with the crucifixion. ("If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.")

But in regards to Mark, whom I think Giuseppe is arguing follows Paul, the baptism would be considered a rebirth because that's what Paul thought of it: as partaking in Christ's own death and resurrection. (I can't remember if that particular portion of Romans is present in the Marcionite recension.)

Follow that up with this.... how is baptism, the act of purification bathing, or mikvah... how or why is this practice changed because of Christ? Certainly Paul is not suggesting it is Christ's baptism that is being emulated, and it's doubtful his Christ did have a baptism. Instead it is the death and resurrection that is being invoked in this baptism.

And if Mark is following Paul, and has Paul's own thought about baptism, then the scene that appears therein is strictly allegorical; and thus for Giuseppe to argue it is allegorizing the advent of Christ's birth is completely reasonable.

Indeed, this further serves to understand why Matthew--assuming that he follows Mark--included the birth narrative: so as to give Christ an actual birth instead of an allegorical one. Meaning that even he understood it to be allegorical.

Of course the actual order may be Paul -> Matthew -> Mark, but I'm arguing with Giuseppe's comments in mind.

[TedM]

And if Mark is following Paul, and has Paul's own thought about baptism, then the scene that appears therein is strictly allegorical;
and thus for Giuseppe to argue it is allegorizing the advent of Christ's birth is completely reasonable.

It sounds like you are saying Giuseppe is assuming Mark follows Paul so it is reasonable for him to allegorize Jesus' baptism as being his birth. That's what I call "making things up".

Indeed, this further serves to understand why Matthew--assuming that he follows Mark--included the birth narrative: so as to give Christ an actual birth instead of an allegorical one. Meaning that even he understood it to be allegorical.

In addition to there being no argument that Mark sees it as allegorical, I also see no argument here that Matthew understood it to be allegorical.

These things are possible, but I'm not seeing evidence - just pattern seeking and assumptions...it leads me to wonder what the point is.

[Giuseppe]

I see that the Jewish Gospel of Hebrews links the Baptism with the Transfiguration episode, via the idea of a genuine ''birth'':

But if any should admit the gospel according to the Hebrews, where the savior himself says: Just now my mother, the holy spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me to Tabor, the great mountain, he will be confused as to how the holy spirit can be the mother of Christ, born through the word.

http://www.textexcavation.com/jewishgospels.html

Curiously prof Price says that he is persuaded by William Wrede about the fact that the Messianic Secret is secret until Mark 9:9, when only then Jesus became the Messiah, to mean that he was not Messiah before then.

So my point is that:

1) the Baptism episode in Mark may be a midrash from Galatians 4:4: the birth of the Son in this world.

2) the Baptism episode may allegorize not the adoption of Jesus as Messiah, but only his spiritual birth as recipient of the Christ.

2) the Transfiguration Episode may be the real ''birt'' of Jesus as Messiah via Mark 9:9.

So, what if in a previous proto-Mark, there was neither a baptism nor Mark 9:9 ? We would have a Gospel where the Messianic Secret is never broken, for the simple reason that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah.

This, obviously, if Bart Ehrman is right in considering ''born by woman, born under the Law'' an anti-marcionite interpolation.

[hakeem]

But in regards to Mark, whom I think Giuseppe is arguing follows Paul, the baptism would be considered a rebirth because that's what Paul thought of it: as partaking in Christ's own death and resurrection. (I can't remember if that particular portion of Romans is present in the Marcionite recension.)

Follow that up with this.... how is baptism, the act of purification bathing, or mikvah... how or why is this practice changed because of Christ? Certainly Paul is not suggesting it is Christ's baptism that is being emulated, and it's doubtful his Christ did have a baptism. Instead it is the death and resurrection that is being invoked in this baptism.

The baptism in gMark has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of the character called Jesus and nothing to do with the teachings of Paul [the Epistles were not yet invented].

gMark's baptism appears to be lifted from the writings attributed to Josephus which mention the baptism carried out by John the Baptist.

Antiquities of the Jews 18

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness..

Unlike the Epistles, in gMark the resurrection of Jesus was of no importance for preaching of the Gospel.

In gMark the disciples did not even understand what Jesus meant when he told them he would be raised from the dead.

Mark 9

31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

32 Butthey understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

[Joseph D. L.]

The baptism in gMark has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of the character called Jesus and nothing to do with the teachings of Paul [the Epistles were not yet invented].

That doesn't seem right. All the Gospels are aware of Paul (or at least, Pauline Christology), and Paul, or the one rescinding Romans, makes it explicit that Christian baptism is emulating Jesus's death and resurrection.

Indeed, as I argued above, the baptism of Jesus in the Synoptics appears to be anachronistic. Originally, it was Christ issuing the baptism with his death on the cross. John only served as a witness to Christ.

gMark's baptism appears to be lifted from the writings attributed to Josephus which mention the baptism carried out by John the Baptist.

Antiquities of the Jews 18

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness..

John the baptist in Josephus appears to be yet another interpolation. The original figure was Theudas.

So that means that the interpolator was aware of the Synoptics, who in turn were aware of Paul. This makes your above argument redundant.

Unlike the Epistles, in gMark the resurrection of Jesus was of no importance for preaching of the Gospel.

That's not true at all. The resurrection is still in Mark. What isn't immediately clear is if a post-resurrection appearance to the disciples was included.

In gMark the disciples did not even understand what Jesus meant when he told them he would be raised from the dead.

But would not that serve Paul's claim of being the sole Apostle whom Christ made himself known? As you quote:

Mark 9

31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

32 Butthey understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

[/quote]

So how is Mark not aware of Paul and his epistles?

It seems you're taking the text at face value, not understanding that it is an allegory meant for those who are already in the know, i.e. the reader.