Mark is first, give him his due then.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Martin Klatt » Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:51 am

The gospel according to Mark is known for more than a hundred of years to be the first gospel about Jesus written, subsequent gospels are plagiarist and corrupt and both worthless and even contra-expedient as sources to attempt to understand the original story Mark wrote.
I have serious problems about the fact that non whatsoever attempts have been undertaken to translate and interpret Mark on it's own merits. Current translations and following interpretations are still based on the old adagio that Mark is only the abbreviated version of Matthew, thus interpretations tend to be erroneously based on Matthew like in all the ages before the primacy of Mark was established.
Methodologically the whole community of experts, the ones stressing method to be their craft on anything New Testament, is to blame for this oversight, it only takes a humble lay person to spot this abomination. :cheeky:
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5397
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:06 pm

Martin Klatt wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:51 am
The gospel according to Mark is known for more than a hundred of years to be the first gospel about Jesus written, subsequent gospels are plagiarist and corrupt and both worthless and even contra-expedient as sources to attempt to understand the original story Mark wrote.
I have serious problems about the fact that non whatsoever attempts have been undertaken to translate and interpret it on it's own merits. Current translations and following interpretations are still based on the old adagio that Mark is only the abbreviated version of Matthew, thus erroneous like in all the ages before our time.
Methodologically the whole community of experts, the ones stressing method to be their craft on anything New Testament, is to blame for this oversight, it only takes a humble lay person to spot this abomination. :cheeky:
So, what would it look like to give Mark its due and to interpret it on its own merits?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:10 pm

What happened to my posts?

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5397
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:11 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:10 pm
What happened to my posts?
Here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=407&start=600
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:11 pm

Wait, I can still view them from my page. What's happening?

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:16 pm

None this matters anyway. He'll just delete his posts in a few days anyway.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:43 am

Peter Kirby wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:06 pm
So, what would it look like to give Mark its due and to interpret it on its own merits?
"Disharmonization" may be tedious, but it's straightforward.

An easy example is Jairus' daughter (5:35-43). "If we had only Mark," then it wouldn't even occur to anybody that Jesus raised her from the dead.

Jesus says otherwise as clearly as is possible in human language (but as with all human utterances, the listener can always say, "Oh, he was speaking figuratively."). It is a major plot point in Mark that the disciples do not understand what the phrase "raising from the dead" might mean ("Oh, but Mark wants to make the disciples into cartoon characters - morons who can't figure out what the phrase means, which is reasonably WYSIWYG, even when the three brightest among them witness a worked example first-hand").

We pretty much know the problem lies in the interpretation, not on the page, because of the "difficult exorcism" at 9:14-27, expecially the last three verses:
When Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!” After crying out and convulsing him greatly, it came out of him. The boy became like one dead, so much that most of them said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and raised him up; and he arose.
The textual evidence favoring the boy having briefly been dead is at least as good as for the girl. The three disciples who witnessed Jesus with the girl have arrived on the scene with Jesus just before this exorcism. Wow, Peter James and John must really have been morons to fail to understand death-raising when they've seen not merely one but two examples!

Another major disharmonization opportunity is the young man in white in the tomb at 16:1-8. Of course that's >wink-wink, nod-nod< an angel. Why? The only evidence for an angel being intended is that the other three canonical tellings of this tale put one or more angels in the corresponding position. And of course Mark doesn't write that well anyway, poor dear can't get the hang of Koine to save his soul ...

It may be challenging completely to scrape away the influence of some other works you're read, especially when it may help sometimes to take other works into account. For example, let us return to Jairus' daughter. Pliny in his Natural History, written near in time to Mark, observes (in Book 7, part 53) on the topic of "Persons who have come to life again after being laid out for burial,"
The female sex appear more especially disposed to this morbid state, on account of the misplacement of the womb ; when this is once corrected, they immediately come to themselves again. The volume of Heraclides on this subject, which is highly esteemed among the Greeks, contains the account of a female, who was restored to life, after having appeared to be dead for seven days.
This may have some relevance to our inquiries, as Richard Feynman once said in another context.

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Martin Klatt » Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:20 am

Certainly Paul...

To understand the deceptive story of Jairus' daughter's "death" you only have to read this book:

"First Blood" by Sally Dammery: http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=628132
Thus after a bogus death, a bogus healing!

The fun thing about your Pliny quote is that it even seems to hint the female period might be involved too in his occurrences, but maybe that coincidence is only, ahem coincidental. :)
I am starting to smell a running gag here, because this theme is widespread. In "Apollonius of Tyana" Philostratus tells how his hero presumably brings a young maiden back from the dead while her betrothed walked mourning behind the bier. It already was thought to be similar to the gospel account but the added detail of the intended bridegroom following the ritual procession, eager to consummate as soon as the menarche ritual comes to a close, makes it extra funny. Just like in the Jairus story the healer sort of blunders into a ritual, spoiling it.

The story of the epileptic is just another joke: How can a dumb and deaf spirit obey a vocal command and go out screaming? How can you order an affliction, that even the ancient Greeks knew was chronic and incurable, to not come back, unless it was part of the joke? :lol:

If we take a look at the account of Hippocrates http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Morb.+Sacr. of what he surmises about this disease and how charlatans try to dupe the afflicted with some sort of holy hocus pocus cure, I can only suspect Mark has some medical knowledge and read it too:

"They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then, using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the disease is sacred, adding suitable reasons for this opinion, they have instituted a mode of treatment which is safe for themselves, namely, by applying purifications and incantations,"

Another bogus healing!
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Thu Mar 19, 2020 2:50 am, edited 11 times in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Martin Klatt » Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:57 am

Well, what do you know? I just found an interesting article on the net, even from a staunch Christian apologist academic scholar; most unexpected support for my thesis concerning the menarche of Jairus' daughter coming from that corner.

https://www.academia.edu/6829303/Transi ... rk_5_21-43_
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Mark is first, give him his due then.

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:32 am

Howdy, Martin

Thanks for those links.

I tried to keep my reply responsive to Peter's reasonable and narrow question,
So, what would it look like to give Mark its due and to interpret it on its own merits?
Maybe it's the girl's very first menstruation, maybe not, According to Pliny, some ancients recognized apparent death as a possible gynecological complaint, even if we moderns don't. There's nothing in Pliny that associates apparent death specifically with menarche. Would it really alter the interpretation if it were her second menses?

Not a "disagreement" between us as much as something I'd rather not be on the hook for. I get into enough trouble sticking with what's on the page :)

Post Reply