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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

I request some help, please.

1. In another Thread - "Who is John-Mark?" (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5812) - there are a number of listings of locations and travels listed in the Acts 15:36 - 41 Section quoted.

Q: Do the listings remind anyone of any Travel Itineraries written in the Histories of that time?

BTW, I realize that any travels listed may be pure Bunkum. I can trace the travels in later Acts to, for ex., Polybius, Histories 151 for the Shipwreck and the Bay Inlet of Chapter 28 to Tacitus, Histories, Book 3. Nonetheless:

2. I reproduce the Post I made in the other Thread, in edited form:

Acts 15: 36 - 41 (RSV):

[36] And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.
[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work.
[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,
[40] but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
[41] And he went through Syria and Cili'cia, strengthening the churches.

Look at our ol' Friend and Poster Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities, ISBN-10: 1413497918 ISBN-13: 978-1413497915, p. 149:

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."

This may be Historical Reference.

[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark


So, Bar-n-Abba[s] wants to take John-called-Mark. Eventually, Barnabas takes Mark:

[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,

That is, this is describing the Time Frame when the Original Story was split into Mark and John. Also, with Jay's thesis here, the Empty Tomb Motif is also being generated at this time. It MUST be there in some Form since "Spices-Without-Rock" and "Rock-Without-Spices" are separate between Mark and John. The Empty Tomb Motif still awaits Matthew and Luke so the Editorial Board still has Work to do.
***

3. *IF* any of this is True, what Time Frame are we looking at for the events? Remember, we are asserting that "Mark" and "John-called-Mark" are NOT names of people but rather the first Proto-Divisions of a Document that became Mark and John, and then possibly the Synoptics and John with a Four-Way Division of the Story of the Empty Tomb.

I have Recognizable-Mark as no earlier than around 110. Domitian, dba "The Holy Spirit", has died and has had "Damnatio Memoriae" applied to him (or whatever term the Senate used...). Tacitus and Pliny the Younger have delivered Eulogies for Verginius Rufus. Somewhere in this Time Frame, someone begins to see a solution to "The Jewish Problem". Manuscripts are found and reworked. PLZ reread Jay Raskin at this point again. So, "Mark" appears. Call it around 110. We have a fragment of John that goes back to 125. To me, John corrects Mark and Jay shows that they were taken from a common Document.

So, the Time Frame for this is a "Fuzzy" 110 (maybe a few years earlier but not much earlier), with John put together from what was left. See Teeple for a very fine Analysis of the Editing of John. Plz note that the quoted Section from Acts states that:

[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark

This is astonishing if it indeed is History of the composition of Mark and John.

[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work

Pamphylia?

There are problems with John, or, John-called-Mark. We have little idea concerning how recognizable this version of Mark is. The fact that it is John-called-Mark hints that there are severe divisions between the loyalties of the Authors. Which is the "True" Version to be Promulgated? "Mark" [though maybe not "our Mark"] appears to be the entirety of the Original Document that was Sub-Divided into "Mark" and "John. (Ben: You are correct on your assertion that "our" Mark is a Story of Peter. How much of this was re-edited to minimize the Judaic Story of Peter is intensely important.). "John-called-Mark" then must refer to what was left of the Original, after "Our Mark" had been cut out from the Original Story. The entirety of the Original Story must have been called "Mark". The name Mark came through as "Our Mark" from the Original Cuts and what was left was named "John-called-Mark".

4. So, Paul says to Barnabas that they should visit all of the cities they had visited previously. This is...ummm...not realistic, shall we say. This is indirection, perhaps a Command given by Someone Important that the New Religion needs Direction from a Functionary - "One of them New-Fangled Priests that we done created". Something.

So Barnabas doesn't take John-called-Mark but takes the Book of Mark instead. He "sails away" to Cyprus. He may have taken the ONLY Book of Mark in existence, since no copies appear to have the Original Ending (Chiastic ending: "They all returned to their homes after the Feast" - Turton)


[41] And he went through Syria and Cili'cia, strengthening the churches

You have to sail away to Cyprus from where Paul and Barnabas are and then you travel through Syria and Cilicia while you visit "Churches", plural. Quite an Organization in so short a time, Yes?

5. To Do LIst:

Check the Empty Tomb Stories to see if there are further visible distinctions that would provide evidence for parts of the Story being sub-divided into two more parts for Matthew and Luke from an Original 2 Fold Division.

Check the Histories to find Candidate Itineraries for travels of someone who could have written the locations. Mucianus provides a splendid example of a possible since he in fact was a "World Wide Traveler" and detailed his travels in books since lost (Remembering that "Acts" and "Truth" are often strangers to each other).

Any Help?

Thanx,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."
this is interesting
some say about John that despite being published late it has early sources in it. i agree
it's also most believable that Mark (itself relying on various sources) used a same source as John did

It connects Mark at least a bit to the Johnanine community in some way, with maybe that community providing the source Mark used? Because Mark comes across as narrating events personally unfamiliar to the author. someone must have actually been there in the original sources, which is the impression you get from John, right?

you could go further - because the pericope adulterae in John is said to have originated in the Gospel of the Hebrews
could John be based on this gospel, or a common source behind all of them long since lost
So the idea G. Hebrews is Ebionite could be faulty?

Either way it could point to major sources of Jesus gospels not being the 'Pete' Ebionite' / Nazarenes but the John community
I suspect this because the Clementines is the one chance these folk have to prove their connection to Jesus and they blow it :) No new information just quotes from a Matthew like source and lack of distinct familiarity with Jesus, just a load of pre-existing theology

There are some things in John but not in Luke that are in Mark/Matthew, maybe a pattern could emerge i expect this has already been done though

Events in John and Synoptics from http://www.gospelparallels.com/index.html
John the Baptist
John's Messianic Preaching
The Baptism of Jesus
Ministry in Galilee
The Healing of the Paralytic
The Centurion of Capernaum and his Servant
The Coming Fate and Persecution of the Disciples
The Woman with the Ointment
Feeding the Five Thousand
walking on water (not in Luke)
healings at Gennesaret (not in Luke)
Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi
“If Any Man would Come after Me”
Forgiving others sins
“He who Hears You, Hears Me” (Luke and John and Matthew only)
The Anointing at Bethany
The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem
Washing the Disciples' Feet
Jesus Foretells His Betrayal
Peter's Denial Predicted
jesus mocked by the soldiers (not in Luke)
Passion narrative
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:52 am
"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."
this is interesting
some say about John that despite being published late it has early sources in it. i agree
it's also most believable that Mark (itself relying on various sources) used a same source as John did
"This is interesting" is understated...
It connects Mark at least a bit to the Johnanine community in some way, with maybe that community providing the source Mark used? Because Mark comes across as narrating events personally unfamiliar to the author. someone must have actually been there in the original sources, which is the impression you get from John, right?
I have it as someone from the Priestly Community (Zakkai, for ex.) or Nicholas of Damascus ("Nicodemus" in John?). There are huge disagreements among the Authors who have the Original in their possession. Mark has telescoped two Stories into one (See: "The Woman with the Twelve Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter" where the Key usage of Symbolism is "twelve years"). The Focus of Mark is on the Symbolic "Crucifixion" of Immer at the Passover of 4 BCE. In other words, Mark realizes that there are two Crucifixions twelve years apart, one Symbolic, one actual. He has telescoped these events into one Story describing the death of a Priest, whose character gets renamed into that of the savior/god "Jesus". John's Crucifixion is a literal one where the return of the Priest who Survived the Atrocity at Passover in 4 BCE finds him intercepted on his way back to Jerusalem and murdered (Possible first Scene in the Story of the March back to Jerusalem and the "Second Crucifixion": Luke 9). The later attempts to smooth over the different times of the two crucifixions are not entirely successful and in fact give away the hidden secret that there ARE two Crucifixion Stories.

John must simply be in a different Form from "The Scraps that were Left" from the Original. Howard Teeple goes a long way to showing the lengths of the Rewrites of John, even if you don't accept everything he writes. Nonetheless, the Trail is trackable, "Within Reason".
https://openlibrary.org/authors/OL59262 ... rle_Teeple
you could go further - because the pericope adulterae in John is said to have originated in the Gospel of the Hebrews
could John be based on this gospel, or a common source behind all of them long since lost
So the idea G. Hebrews is Ebionite could be faulty?
That's your PhD thesis. I don't know that much.
Either way it could point to major sources of Jesus gospels not being the 'Pete' Ebionite' / Nazarenes but the John community
I suspect this because the Clementines is the one chance these folk have to prove their connection to Jesus and they blow it :) No new information just quotes from a Matthew like source and lack of distinct familiarity with Jesus, just a load of pre-existing theology
It is, however, Recent Pre-Existing Theology and the trick is to tease out "How much did they know"? My guess is that many of them knew the entire Story and, even though they HAD TO HIDE the story of what they knew, they wanted to leave Clues, a Trail. That's why this Passage in Acts is important.
There are some things in John but not in Luke that are in Mark/Matthew, maybe a pattern could emerge i expect this has already been done though
No. You're doing that Work right now.
Events in John and Synoptics from http://www.gospelparallels.com/index.html
Thanks for this. It's easier to read than the version I was using.

Super-Nice, davidmartin. Thank you.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

There are some deeper points to be made that become apparent ("to me...") as the thesis begins to sink in.
I quote the Acts Passage again as well as the Jay Raskin Work - with a different Set of Hi-Lites:
Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:46 pm
Acts 15: 36 - 41 (RSV):

[36] And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.
[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work.
[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,
[40] but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
[41] And he went through Syria and Cili'cia, strengthening the churches.

Look at our ol' Friend and Poster Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities, ISBN-10: 1413497918 ISBN-13: 978-1413497915, p. 149:

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."

This may be Historical Reference.

[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark

So, Bar-n-Abba[s] wants to take John-called-Mark. Eventually, Barnabas takes Mark:

[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus
It is important to note that Mark and John have already been divided and split from the Original by the time of verse 39. BTW, the entirety of Acts 15 is more open than before. It needs to be examined in light of the last verses of the chapter. Note:

[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
[29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

The "Holy Spirit" is the disembodied and featureless Lord God Domitian [Hat Tip to Joe Atwill! Thnx]. After his death, all mention of Domitian, statues, markers, etc., are removed. That is the Roman "marker" here. These verses - 28 and 29 - imply that Domitian is aware of what is happening at this point in the creation of the New Religion. Domitian has murdered his brother Titus and knows of the Mucianus inspired Deification of Titus. He is changing the Trajectory of the New Religion. The created savior-god may be seen as a God Fearer but not much more. As Colonel Cathcart stated in Catch-22:

"Zion? Let's forget about that one right now. I'd like to know how that one even got in there. Haven't you got anything humorous that stays away from waters and valleys and God? I'd like to keep away from the subject of religion altogether if we can."

"The chaplain was apologetic. "I'm sorry, sir, but just about all the prayers I know are rather somber in tone and make at least some passing reference to God."

"Then let's get some new ones..."

The Sycophants and Suck-Ups agree with the Holy Spirit. As always, there is a very vicious, sarcastic Joke: Abstaining from unchastity. Sure.

We are doing a bit of Cut 'n Paste. Notice the transition from the time of Domitian to "And after some days...":

[36] And after some days Paul said to Barnabas...
That is, this is describing the Time Frame when the Original Story was split into Mark and John. Also, with Jay's thesis here, the Empty Tomb Motif is also being generated at this time. It MUST be there in some Form since "Spices-Without-Rock" and "Rock-Without-Spices" are separate between Mark and John. The Empty Tomb Motif still awaits Matthew and Luke so the Editorial Board still has Work to do.
I place the Authorship of the Empty Tomb Motif with Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. They know of the Death of Otho and the Tale(s) of the Empty Tomb: Otho had a Mausoleum built in his honor at Brixellum (Curiously, it is implied to be empty but...) and Verginius Rufus, who was to be "Declared" Emperor by the Soldiers after the death of Otho. Rufus high-tails it out the back door and lives another day. Empty Tomb indeed.

The Empty Tomb is written as a Comedy, with people coming and going as the rising sun marks the passage of time [h/t 2 to JA. Brilliant Analysis]. Remember, Otho stabs himself on an early Sunday morning, Roman Time. The story is seen as a good piece to include into the New Religion. It is divided as well, apparently at first into two pieces, then four, about which more in a moment.
Somewhere in this Time Frame, someone begins to see a solution to "The Jewish Problem".
There is a Two-Fold recasting of the Story. The main purpose of the New Story is legitimize the Ascension of the Flavians. What is new about this is that the gods confer legitimacy on the Flavians using the Religion of a conquered people. It is, however, the advantage of Theft over Honest Toil. There were seven Legions in the Judean/Syrian/Egyptian Theater at the time approaching the death of Vitellius and besides raw Power, there are some very smart people who have known the Judaic History for a long, long time. Means, Method and Opportunity.
Manuscripts are found and reworked.
I assert, without much Proof, that at least one Document was the Story of Peter and the Priest and that this Story was held in the Captured Documents carried back to Rome from the Spoils of the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Alternatively, the Original Story possibly came from Priests such as Zakkai [Edit Note: Probably from Post-70 Yavneh for Zakkai, if from him] or Roman records kept by Nicholas of Damascus [Edit Note: NoD is the Roman Political Control Officer keeping tabs on Herod, in the Herodian Court through the disastrous ...Reign...of Archelaus, to around 6 CE-ish].
PLZ reread Jay Raskin at this point again. So, "Mark" appears. Call it around 110. We have a fragment of John that goes back to 125. To me, John corrects Mark and Jay shows that they were taken from a common Document....[T]his is a "Fuzzy" 110 (maybe a few years earlier but not much earlier), with John put together from what was left. See Teeple for a very fine Analysis of the Editing of John.
[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark
[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work
A reason is required for the actions of verse 38. Verse 37 tells us that the Markan Sections are already separated from the Material that becomes John. This is important. Already there is tension between the advocates for the two newly-formed documents. Note the "One" has been withdrawn from them at Pamphylia. Paul and Barnabas still have possession of it but it is "antagonistic" to the material that makes up Mark. Mark is being 'Pushed", John-called-Mark is already Politically Awkward.
There are problems with John, or, John-called-Mark. We have little idea concerning how recognizable this version of [The Original] Mark is. The fact that it is John-called-Mark hints that there are severe divisions between the loyalties of the Authors. Which is the "True" Version to be Promulgated? "Mark" [though maybe not "our Mark"] appears to be the entirety of the Original Document that was Sub-Divided into "Mark" and "John". "John-called-Mark" then must refer to what was left of the Original, after "Our Mark" had been cut out from the Original Story. The entirety of the Original Story must have been called "Mark" [[or was identified by a name with "Mark" predominating]]. The name "Mark" came through as "Our Mark" from the Original Cuts and what was left was named "John-called-Mark".
Paul says to Barnabas that they should visit all of the cities they had visited previously. This is...ummm...not realistic, shall we say. So Barnabas doesn't take John-called-Mark but takes the Book of Mark instead. He "sails away" to Cyprus. He may have taken the ONLY Book of Mark in existence, since no copies appear to have the Original Ending (Chiastic ending: "They all returned to their homes after the Feast" - Turton)
With a nod to people who insist on studying "Communities", we reach the moment when Mark sails away from what became John. Tensions increase as John appears on the scene and with it come Rationalizations: "We must Unify the Crucifixions into one ." "We must explain why there appear to be two Ministries". At some point, the Rulers-Behind-the-Scenes begin to let the new believers figure it out for themselves: "What does it mean, 'You must turn as a child'"? The Original Meaning is completely lost. It is the Triumph of Transvaluation.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:24 pm, edited 8 times in total.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

CW what do you make of Paul's correspondence with Seneca?
People say it's spurious but when i read it, it struck me as very curious indeed http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2220
SENECA TO PAUL, greeting

I have arranged some writings in a volume, and given them their proper divisions: I am also resolved to read them to Caesar, if only fortune be kind, that he may bring a new (an interested) ear to the hearing. Perhaps you, too, will be there. If not, I will at another time fix you a day, that we may look over the work together: indeed, I could not produce this writing to him, without first conferring with you, if only that could be done without risk: that you may know that you are not being neglected. Farewell, dearest Paul.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

I'm going to come back to this but the letters appear to be Fictions. "Paul" => "Mucianus" convinced Vespasian to throw the Philosophers out of Rome. Further, any talk of Uplifting, Chaste Living is preposterous if mentioning Mucianus in the same breath.

Mucianus wrote Acta and Epistolae, since lost. I'm sure that someone could have found something in those tomes that might have mentioned Seneca and tried to create some mischief but that would be the purest of speculations and, though my Standards are quite low here, there are Standards nonetheless.

Kwik Vote: Fake as CNN and MSNBC...and the NYT and...

FAKE.

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

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

Post by klewis »

Paul's correspondence with Seneca has more to do with absence of evidence requires evidence from absence. Paul, is a pillar of the Christian faith, prominent scholar, philosopher, and all things to all people. The only problem was that no one ever heard of him, and thus evidence of that lack of hearing was devised.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

1. klewis --

You are correct. I am reminded of a similar argument that states there are ~ 72 writers around the Roman Empire at the time(s) when "Jesus" was to have been alive and no one mentions him.
Nice pick-up.

2. davidmartin --

Another thing to examine is the individual item that is important yet not found in a Cross-Reference.
"Mark" cut from an Original Document and John had the rest, correct?
Not so fast.

Look for a moment at the "Narrow Door" - "Narrow Gate" verses.

Matthew 7: 13 - 14 (RSV):

[13] "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

I have this as being a Herod Story. It is found in Josephus and it tells the Tale of when Herod made a Safe Harbor by dropping giant slabs of stone at what became Caesarea. Notice the verse in Mark:

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

Did this come from that Original Story or did Josephus use it in his descriptions of the Safe Harbor?
It is found in "Cross-Reference" in Matthew:

Matthew 18: 1 - 6 (RSV and Moffatt):

Segment 1:
[1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the Realm of heaven?"
[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Realm of heaven.
***
Segment 2:
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Realm of heaven.
***
Segment 3:
[5] "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;
***
Segment 4:
[6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Verses 1 - 3 are most certainly from the Original. This is not a "Jesus" Miracle Story. It is a Story of the Priest who survived the 4 BCE Slaughter. There is mischief here. Many Translations have "...unless you CHANGE...".

Luke 13: 23 - 24 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Combine with Segment 1:

[1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the Realm of heaven?"
[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Realm of heaven.

This is a Single Story. It is "Paralleled" but the verses are fragmented on being broken up. The Narrow Gate is about Herod. The Narrow Door tells of Peter saving the Priest at the 4 BCE Passover Atrocity. Peter is himself a child here and he knows of the Narrow Door that is so small that you must "humble yourself and turn as a child". After the fragmentation, the original meaning is lost and it becomes another of the "Jesus Miracle Stories".

[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you Turn and become like children, you will never enter the Realm of heaven.

This is correct. It is a "Parallel" across Matthew and Luke but the verses have been separated and the Story has been lost.
***
Section 2 is a continuation of the Scene but it carries an important "Marker". This is from 12 years later, 9 CE, looking back at the 4 BCE Passover.

[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Realm of heaven

This is the character Peter speaking from the Original Story. He is 12 years older, probably a Priest himself. The doors to Antonia have been shut and the soldiers have been ordered in. 3000+ die. There is no way out for the Priest. Except that Peter sees the Priest. He knows of the Narrow Door.

Mark 6: 48 - 49 (RSV):

[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out

Section 3 is Cross-Referenced in Luke where some detail is left out and and an important datum is added:

Luke 9: 46 48 (RSV):

[46]And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest.
[47] But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side,
[48] and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great."

This is from the Peter Character (or the Priest) and it is from the Original.:

"Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great."

This may be slightly corrupted though the intent is still apparent. The Priest received Peter as 3000 died. The Priest lived. Who sent this person out? Vespasian? God? How about Jairus?

Whoever receives this child in my name receives me...

Twelve years ago, a child saved the Priest. Peter is Priestly and John Proves it to you when Peter is allowed into the Chamber of the Flames.

...whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great

If you receive the Priest, you receive the one who sent him. Or is it Peter here? "..for he who is least among you all is the one who is great..."
***
Which leads to the last Segment. The New Subject becomes the children. Again, it is a Herod Story. There is severe famine. Herod sells everything and buys grain from Egyptian Procurator Petronius. He builds the Safe Harbor at Caesarea and gives the grain away to any who are hungry:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 15, 9, 2:

"Now it happened that this care of his, and this seasonable benefaction, had such influence on the Jews, and was so cried up among other nations, as to wipe off that old hatred which his violation of some of their customs, during his reign, had procured him among all the nation, and that this liberality of his assistance in this their greatest necessity was full satisfaction for all that he had done of that nature, as it also procured him great fame among foreigners; and it looked as if these calamities that afflicted his land, to a degree plainly incredible, came in order to raise his glory, and to be to his great advantage; for the greatness of his liberality in these distresses, which he now demonstrated beyond all expectation, did so change the disposition of the multitude towards him, that they were ready to suppose he had been from the beginning not such a one as they had found him to be by experience, but such a one as the care he had taken of them in supplying their necessities proved him now to be..."

[6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Again, from the Original or from Josephus (by way of Nicholas of Damascus)?
***
The are Parallel Texts and there are Parallel Texts. Sometimes individual Fragments end up split and divided. It is not simply that Mark took a Document that tells the Noir Story of a Priest, dismembered it and left the rest to be rewritten by the Redactors into what we have as the Book of John.

What about this?:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."


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

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

Post by klewis »

I see the the construction of the Gospel of John as a fill in the gaps approach. John knew of all the events, and probably had one or more of the synoptic gospels in front of him. He then wrote stories around them. John went a step further though, he clustered the stories to illustrate a thematic point that conformed to his prologue. He did not care about putting them in chronological order nor did he , not by the chronology of Mark but by the story line found in his prologue*. As everyone who produce a harmony of the Gospels know, the Gospel of John is all over the map when it comes to the synoptic. This would exclude Mark and John having half of the same story, but rather John growing the story.

An example of how later gospel writers wrote a story between the cracks of prior written gospels can be found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas depicting Jesus as a boy (see http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm). Since no one wrote about young Jesus, the author took the readers on a ride.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Declaring a Second Crucifixion, however, isn't filling in a gap, it's opening up a canyon between the Synoptics and John. Giving a Second Ministry is not filling in a few blanks. To me, the most simple explanation is that the Literary Command to "correct" Mark ended up creating a different "Holy Book".

Similarly:

John 2: 20 - 21 (RSV):

[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

This is a hiding of Meaning, similar to Matthew (Compare "Are we to drown, for all you care?" in Mark to "Master, we are perishing...").
John is not filling in the blanks. He is hiding the Priestly Story (What happened in 37 BCE? Why count back 46 years from 8/9 CE? The meaning has been lost.)

BTW, I agree with you that Mark and John did not simply each get half the Story - The End. That was the point of the previous long Post. There was enough material left over even after Mark and John to seed Matthew and Luke - and Acts 15 for that fact. The very helpful Table offered by davidmartin - http://www.gospelparallels.com/index.html - that compares and Cross-References the Stories does not take care of all of the Stories of the NT. There are Fragments that are split across several books:

"Are there only a few who are saved?"
"Enter through the Narrow Door. This Door is so small that you must compress yourself, appearing as small as this humble child. If you are a fat rich man, you will never get through this opening and into the Realm of Heaven (which is in Antonia...). You will be run through with a sword and murdered by the Herodian Troops" - or words of similar effect.

The Priestly Story has been almost completely suppressed. The Thrust of the Re-Write is of such import that several people fought over what the constructed New Story should actually be. In their War to create the New Religion, they leave Clues to show that THEY triumphed over the others.

All the Best,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply