Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But why is that a reasonable assumption other than it squares with your prejudices?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:54 am But why is that a reasonable assumption other than it squares with your prejudices?

do you deny that the original author of John 1:17 read an antithesis between Moses and Jesus? Do you realize that at least in that case you are going against the evidence?

I am not sure it is entirely adversarial. For one the previous line "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace upon grace." I think it is saying that Jesus is better than Moses not that Jesus opposed Moses.

(10:8)



He says "all"; he doesn't exempt persons, not even the prophets, not even Moses.

The reaction obviously was to call that Jesus so much anti-Moses as Jesus Bar-Abbas: he was the robber not Moses.

Ok. So now we're jumping around the Gospel of John trying to prove there is an antithesis? Our original discussion pertained to 1.17

It is amazing how much your behavior resembles that of a religious zealot.

The point of me citing my long essay was to bolster my argument that Secret Mark makes more sense as the original 'Joshua' baptism - given the context of where the 'mystery of kingship' - took place.



The mystery of kingship are revealed approximately where Joshua crossed the Jordan:

And they come into Bethany ... And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan. And James and John come to him ... And he comes into Jericho ...

In other words, the narrative takes place where you would expect a Joshua redivivus would physically appear and in the 'Joshua section' of a sixfold divided gospel narrative.

I think the point of Secret Mark was that Daniel's expectation of the messiah's death - a messiah identified as 'Joshua' in Deuteronomy - was fulfilled. Mark's interest in Danielic prophesies remains in canonical Mark. But it is interesting that Christians never identify 9:26 as having any messianic portent which is odd given the overall interest in Daniel and 9:26 as the only explicit use of the term 'messiah.' The 'mystery of the kingdom of God' has something to do with the first king of Israel = Joshua.

In rabbinic lore there is a recognition that there is no explicit reference to Joshua as a king. The line that authorities pointed to:

Write this (as) a memorial in the book and place (it) in the ears of Joshua

R. Joshua understands that the 'ear' reference is a reference to royal anointing:

"this teaches that on that day Joshua was anointed" https://books.google.com/books?id=9rKvD ... 22&f=false

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:18 pmBut it is interesting that Christians never identify 9:26 as having any messianic portent which is odd given the overall interest in Daniel and 9:26 as the only explicit use of the term 'messiah.'

Do you mean merely that the earliest Christians do not do this? Later Christians certainly do: Tertullian, Eusebius, and others.