"Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: "Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Post by klewis »

Charles,
Thanks, I must agree with you that Mark and John seem opposites.
  • Mark, Jesus tries to quite others from telling about him. In John, it is the opposite.
  • Mark, Jesus became the Son of Man somehow. In John, Jesus is the pre-existing God.
  • In Mark, Jesus died after Passover, in John, Jesus was the Passover Lamb.
So at the worse, my idea has been destroyed, which is okay with me. At the least, John used Matthew or Luke because they don't talk about when Jesus died.
Ethan
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: "Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Post by Ethan »

New Testament best understood as a plagiarism of Hebrew scripture.
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Post by Charles Wilson »

klewis wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:07 amSo at the worse, my idea has been destroyed...
Not exactly and give yourself some credit. If Jay Raskin's Theory has merit - and it does - John IS filling in some blanks, the blanks that the Markan Author created. There is a War between these Authors of the Markan Story and the rewritten remains of the Original.

It is conceivable that "Our Mark" was written by one person, a person who composed with a Literary Chiastic Structure. Indeed, the Redactions to Mark are painfully obvious in many places since the Redactor(s) abandon the Chiastic Structures when they overwrite the material to bring Mark into later Orthodoxy.

John is a product of many hands. Again, see Howard Teeple, Literary Origins.... You don't have to agree with him but do notice that there are identifiable differences in Text.
Mark, Jesus became the Son of Man somehow. In John, Jesus is the pre-existing God.
Very important point. As soon as the Prologue in John is finished, the entirety of the New Religion changes. Period. It is not the Story of a person challenging the Authorities or a Wandering Preacher. It is the Story of GOD. The Gospel Stories of the wandering "Jesus" don't matter in the least anymore. Even the prattling of Pauline "Christ Jesus" don't matter except that there must be some tying of the boat to some dock somewhere. The Prologue in John shows evidence of a particular Author among several. The New Religion is changed.
In Mark, Jesus died after Passover, in John, Jesus was the Passover Lamb
Here is the War. There are two Passover Stories and John corrects Mark as to which Crucifixion was the "Real" one. This may be the Central Cause of Division between the Markan and Johannine Groups although we may never be completely sure. John corrects but then shows a crucial misunderstanding. "Jesus" is now an Eternal God but by misunderstanding "Lamb of God", John re-institutes human sacrifice and this ties everything in Early Christianity in knots, to say nothing about Jewish Sensibilities.

John doesn't even have the Last Supper but has "Jesus" telling of drinking blood and eating flesh (See: Dio, Epitome 64). The Authors of John know the Story of the Ascension of the Flavians but are less concerned with the Judaic History they attempt to present.

Good Stuff, Klewis.

CW
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: "Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Post by klewis »

Charles,
I just ordered Teeple's book and as soon as I finish Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I will plow through it.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: "Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Post by davidmartin »

Very important point. As soon as the Prologue in John is finished, the entirety of the New Religion changes. Period. It is not the Story of a person challenging the Authorities or a Wandering Preacher. It is the Story of GOD. The Gospel Stories of the wandering "Jesus" don't matter in the least anymore. Even the prattling of Pauline "Christ Jesus" don't matter except that there must be some tying of the boat to some dock somewhere. The Prologue in John shows evidence of a particular Author among several. The New Religion is changed.
That is one theory, and it is a good one
But you can also put forward the alternative, that the high Christology of John was more original than what is found in Mark and Matthew - that Paul is not innovating half as much as is thought. This is the position I take.
In this view Mark and Matthew represent Jesus more as as a messiah or new Moses but this community had cold feet about his divinity, so they fell back on more traditional roles.Paul's innovation of making the earthly life way less important, is not an original feature but a direction he went in (as did most Gnostics even more). John is trying to put forward the more original beliefs although i will grant you that the prologue itself is a development of these
This view avoids having to write Paul off as a total innovator which is problematic, he's an exile from the earlier community and doesn't go along with the Nazarene direction. A bit like a first century Marcion in a way

PS The 'eating blood / flesh' thing in John i doubt is original but one of Paul's things that got into John when it was accepted into the Pauline Catholic church later on. The original might have just been a communal meal or similar!
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "Who is...?" No! WHAT is John-Mark?

Post by Charles Wilson »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:22 amThe 'eating blood / flesh' thing in John i doubt is original but one of Paul's things that got into John when it was accepted into the Pauline Catholic church later on. The original might have just been a communal meal or similar
Dio, Epitome 64:

Now they would all shout together on one side the name of Vespasian and on the other side that of Vitellius, and they would challenge each other in turn, indulging in abuse or in praise of the one leader or the other. Again one soldier would have a private conversation with an opponent: "Comrade, fellow-citizen, what are we doing? Why are we fighting? Come over to my side." "No, indeed! You come to my side." But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since."

Thanx davidmartin. I quote this passage from time to time, perhaps too often, but it does focus on the Roman Thesis. It's the Eucharist - "But it can't be, it's not Holy, it's about soldiers and Caesars."

Yes, exactly.

CW
Post Reply