Two Squalls: Mark and John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Post by davidmartin » Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:39 pm

this incident could have been inspired by the odes of solomon, if pre-existing the gospels, by combining their poetic narrative with the psalm 107?
that psalm could be argued to have inspired the relevant odes.. but inserting the odes as a stepping stone to the gospel story could make more sense
"And His footsteps stand firm upon the waters"
"And the Way has been appointed for those who cross over after Him"

one interesting thing this implies, is a limited number of sources available to the gospel writers which is also evident from the cross fertilization in the gospels, use of Q and so on. Also if one takes the early part of Luke as drawn from the infancy gospel of James, or of Thomas for the teaching in the temple which no-one seems to consider for some strange reason. Anyway, this would argue against an early 'miracle' source if they based some things on the odes taken out their poetic context and couldn't just pull out the miracle source! So there's a bit of a separation in time/distance evident in the gospels from the events, although earlier sources existed.

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Post by Stuart » Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:45 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:45 pm
Charles Wilson wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:45 pm
5. ... It is easy to state that John was (much) later than Mark and written in a far different locale but there is another possibility. Matthew didn't have to add the Peter Section with Jesus walking on water - The Symbolism of the boat was already there - unless the Original told the Tale in an important manner.
Isn't it Peter that walks on water, for a moment, at least?, -

Matthew 14: 28 - 31 (RSV):

[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
[31] Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?"

...
He does, but he's not the equal of Jesus (a disciple is not as great as his master you know). Matthew elevates Peter as much as he can. This element I am certain was added later. While not inconsistent with his theme, it is a digression rather than seamlessly integrated element woven in throughout the story (say a little precursor of the act to follow, a comment by a disciple ... but nothing), which makes me think it's secondary.

My model also says that John used and countered Matthew, as he knew it, point by point. However, later material in Matthew he would not know, nor text revisions that deviated from Mark (the common source of Mark and Matthew) he would not know. That element would have appeared in some form in John's story, perhaps as Philip or another disciple or even some oblique reference about how a disciple can never leave the boat. But nothing.

Mark on the other hand strips the disciples of authority. They fall away and Peter is lumped in with them, his denial the last appearance of the disciples. They miss the crucifixion and resurrection entirely, and the women fail to tell them, and so closes the gospel. So they know nothing of Jesus being raised from the dead; it reminds me of Acts 18:25 only for the disciples rather than Apollos.

Matthew by comparison, with this passage, shows Peter the most earnest, the disciple who most closely approaches Jesus, but falls short yet not for want of trying. His denial is thus seen in that context, as one who tries, has his heart in the right place, but cannot overcome his fear. Seeds of his rehabilitation are present, unlike Mark.

But that is only my observational opinion of the content, nothing more. Just how it strikes me.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:31 pm

Hello everyone --

I'm trying to finish a large Post on all of this but, for now, a few comments:
davidmartin wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:39 pm
this incident could have been inspired by the odes of solomon, if pre-existing the gospels, by combining their poetic narrative with the psalm 107?
that psalm could be argued to have inspired the relevant odes.. but inserting the odes as a stepping stone to the gospel story could make more sense
"And His footsteps stand firm upon the waters"
"And the Way has been appointed for those who cross over after Him"
Compare with Revelation 10: 1 - 2 (RSV):

[1] Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.
[2] He had a little scroll open in his hand. And he set his right foot on the sea, and his left foot on the land

I have this as a reference to Pompey, who poisoned Aristobulus 2. He had to leave "...across the sea" with his followers to escape Julius Caesar. I don't know if this helps or not...
Anyway, this would argue against an early 'miracle' source if they based some things on the odes taken out their poetic context and couldn't just pull out the miracle source!
If "Jesus" then Yes. If a Text has been rewritten as a Transvalued Story, however, then we may have one: The Story in Josephus of the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE and its aftermath. The Priest - not "Jesus" - is saved "by a Miracle" by the child Peter. Twelve years later, the Priest is Crucified anyway. That's what I look at.
So there's a bit of a separation in time/distance evident in the gospels from the events, although earlier sources existed.
Yes. Josephus writes almost 100 years later and his History of the death of Herod and the ascension of Archelaus is based on the writings of Nicholas of Damascus. Other Priestly Survivors such as Zakkai may have added a Semitic Orientation to the NT. There are, I contend, other Sources but these Sources were rewritten and Transvalued.
***
Stuart wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:45 pm
He [Peter] does [walk on water], but he's not the equal of Jesus (a disciple is not as great as his master you know). Matthew elevates Peter as much as he can.
The problem here is that the Story of Peter should be the Original Story and it has been rewritten into the story of a savior/god.
This element I am certain was added later...which makes me think it's secondary..
Here, I disagree. Peter is a child and he saves "Jesus", who is actually a Priest.
While not inconsistent with his theme, it is a digression rather than seamlessly integrated element woven in throughout the story
I believe that in the Original, this is the Primary Point! This is Peter's Story!. Oh, well...
My model also says that John used and countered Matthew, as he knew it, point by point. However, later material in Matthew he would not know, nor text revisions that deviated from Mark (the common source of Mark and Matthew) he would not know. That element would have appeared in some form in John's story, perhaps as Philip or another disciple or even some oblique reference about how a disciple can never leave the boat. But nothing.
Point me to a Thread on this or start one. Fascinating ideas.
Mark on the other hand strips the disciples of authority. They fall away and Peter is lumped in with them, his denial the last appearance of the disciples. They miss the crucifixion and resurrection entirely, and the women fail to tell them, and so closes the gospel. So they know nothing of Jesus being raised from the dead
Good points and it may go to the Core of "Why is Mark the Way it is?"
Matthew by comparison, with this passage, shows Peter the most earnest, the disciple who most closely approaches Jesus, but falls short yet not for want of trying. His denial is thus seen in that context, as one who tries, has his heart in the right place, but cannot overcome his fear. Seeds of his rehabilitation are present, unlike Mark.
If by "Denial' you are referring to "Peter's Denial" then I invite you to examine the entire episode and where it takes place. It occurs at the door of the Passage between the Chamber of the Hearth to the Chamber of the Flames and it illustrates the Original: If 3000 were being murdered on the other side of this door, would you go into the Death? That's what Peter does.
But that is only my observational opinion of the content, nothing more. Just how it strikes me.
You are being "struck" with some nice ideas.
***
So, I have a Post on all of this. Should be up in a day or two.
THANX for all Comments!

CW

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:57 am

I am seeing my way to a solution:

A. Mark has split a single Story into two.
B. John may not be aware of Mark at this point. Indeed, John may be looking at a Problem that predates what we have today as "Mark".
[Edit Note: Plz see Stuart's Post above. "Was John not aware of Mark yet aware of Matthew?"]
C. John's Problem is as stated: He knows of the Epistemological Conundrum of "Many Boats, No Boats save one". His Solution, however, shows little knowledge of the Texts that were ripped out of the Original. He inverts the Story as best he can to show "One Boat, then Many Boats".

Mark 4: 35 - 38 (RSV):

[35] On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side."
[36] And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him.
[37] And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.
[38] But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?"

Mark 6: 45 - 56 (RSV):

[45] Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while he dismissed the crowd.
[46] And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray.
[47] And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land.
[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;
[50] for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[51] And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded,
[52] for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
[53] And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennes'aret, and moored to the shore.
[54] And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized him,
[55] and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.
[56] And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

John 6: 21 - 24 (RSV):

[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22] On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.
[23] However, boats from Tiber'i-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
[24] So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Caper'na-um, seeking Jesus.

Mark is much easier to figure out than John:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 17, 8, 4:

Now Archelaus paid him so much respect, as to continue his mourning till the seventh day; for so many days are appointed for it by the law of our fathers. And when he had given a treat to the multitude, and left off his motoring, he went up into the temple; he had also acclamations and praises given him, which way soever he went, every one striving with the rest who should appear to use the loudest acclamations. So he ascended a high elevation made for him, and took his seat, in a throne made of gold, and spake kindly to the multitude, and declared with what joy he received their acclamations, and the marks of the good-will they showed to him...

Paralleled in Acts:

Acts 12: 21 - 23 (RSV):

[21] On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them.
[22] And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!"
[23] Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.

Verse 22 shows deep relations to several Gospel Passages in regards to Archelaus, esp. "What must I do to obtain Eternal Life?" The very Cynical answer to Archelaus is given to the young Ruler as he falls at the feet of Caesar (Caesar being referenced in the phrase, "There is one alone who is good...")

Continuing, there is the all important Time Line to consider here. Archelaus addresses the crowd, finishes his admonitions to them and, after sacrificing, goes off with friends to party...Feast, that is.

J, War, 2, 3, 5:

He also reproached him [Archelaus] further, that his mourning for his father was only pretended, while he put on a sad countenance in the day time, but drank to great excess in the night; from which behavior, he said, the late disturbance among the multitude came, while they had an indignation thereat. And indeed the purport of his whole discourse was to aggravate Archelaus's crime in slaying such a multitude about the temple, which multitude came to the festival, but were barbarously slain in the midst of their own sacrifices; and he said there was such a vast number of dead bodies heaped together in the temple, as even a foreign war, that should come upon them [suddenly], before it was denounced, could not have heaped together..."

(A side note, and I am desperately trying not to get side tracked: "Heaps of corpses" is a Semitic Phrase, going back to Ebla (2400 - 2500 BCE) and possibly earlier - Pettianato, Archives of Ebla, ISBN-10: 0385131526, ISBN-13: 978-0385131520)

So Archelaus would not be rip-roaring drunk as he addressed the crowd. Things then get a little vague for awhile.

J, Ant..., 17, 9, 1:

The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's determination about him...

"Alright, class, name one Group who would, as Whiston translates, have 'greater piety and purity' to furnish High Priests...Yes!!! That's correct:
The Hasmoneans!.. Good answer!!"

We're almost there. Things are getting hot.

J, A..., 9, 1, 2:

So when the king had suggested these things, and instructed his general in what he was to say, be sent him away to the people; but they made a clamor, and would not give him leave to speak, and put him in danger of his life, and as many more as were desirous to venture upon saying openly any thing which might reduce them to a sober mind, and prevent their going on in their present courses, because they had more concern to have all their own wills performed than to yield obedience to their governors; thinking it to be a thing insufferable, that, while Herod was alive, they should lose those that were most dear to them, and that when he was dead, they could not get the actors to be punished. So they went on with their designs after a violent manner, and thought all to be lawful and right which tended to please them, and being unskillful in foreseeing what dangers they incurred; and when they had suspicion of such a thing, yet did the present pleasure they took in the punishment of those they deemed their enemies overweigh all such considerations; and although Archelaus sent many to speak to them, yet they treated them not as messengers sent by him, but as persons that came of their own accord to mitigate their anger, and would not let one of them speak..."

Here is the split. Unless the Swerve is greater than I could imagine (This is all about Archelaus => Jesus!), there is a break in the action. It would take time for generals, troops, hangers-on to maneuver into their positions for the Final Bloodbath. Archelaus is probably sober at sundown. He's not so sober at the "Fourth Watch". at "Cock's Crow"

Matthew 25: 1 - 13 (RSV):

[1] "Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
[2] Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
[3] For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;
[4] but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
[5] As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
[6] But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'
[7] Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps.
[8] And the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
[9] But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.'
[10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.
[11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
[12] But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
[13] Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

We now have a reason for "Are we to drown, for all you care?" and "...the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling":

J, War..., 2, 1, 3:

"And indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover, and used to he celebrated with a great number of sacrifices, an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship..."

Again, here is the Split. The Priest, rewritten as "Jesus", is sleeping. He is a Leader of the Coup. He is of Immer. The character "John" is of Bilgah. Bilgah is in control of the Sacrificial Apparatus since this Passover falls in Mid-Week, during Bilgah's Week of Service. That is what the Math of the Mishmarot Service tells us of the Passover of 4 BCE. Immer will rededicate the Temple on the Sabbath in three days ("Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up").

This, BTW, marks a change for me. I had the "sleeping on a cushion in the stern" phrase attached to the child Peter who would have been awakened at the Slaughter around 4/5 AM and then saved the Priest.

Here, the Priest is awakened and goes to the Temple area.

J, Ant..., 17, 9, 3:

"so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands..."

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."

There should be a Transition Passage from the Original showing the Priest leaving the Temple area. He is NOT returning to Antonia through the tunnel - perhaps he was one of those who should have been arrested as being violently seditious?

Jewish Encyclopedia, "Nicholas of Damascus":

"The history of Herod, which Josephus recounts in detail in his "Antiquities" (xv.-xvii.), is doubtless based on the work of Nicholas; for where Nicholas stops, during the reign of Archelaus, Josephus also curtails his narrative. Detailed proof of the dependence of Josephus on Nicholas is due especially to A. Büchler, according to whom Josephus did not himself read the works of the other authorities which he so frequently quotes, but took what he found in Nicholas; and in like manner the stereotyped formulas which Josephus uses in referring to other portions of his own work are the same as those which are employed by Nicholas for a similar purpose. Josephus took Nicholas as his source not only for the history relating to Herod, but also for his account of the Hasmoneans..."

The question is, "Does Josephus quote Nicholas of Damascus completely or does he rewrite certain sections for effect?" I believe it is the latter and the first reason is found in a simple fact: Josephus will not even tell you who conducts the sacrifices in the Temple:

J, Ant..., 17, 9, 3:

"...so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands..."

J, War, 2, 1, 3:

"At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief..."

So, Josephus is hiding the Subject Matter for effect. Why? Here is the Thesis: This is the Story that was dismembered and rewritten as the story of a savior/god. In Josephus, there must be hours between the sending of generals by Archelaus to quiet the Priests and the actual sending in of the troops to clear the Temple area. See again: Matthew 25.

Mark 4 tells of the first stage of the Coup attempt. The Priest tells the crowd that the Priestly Group will overthrow the Romans and the Herodians - "What is the Realm of Heaven like?" People are streaming in from everywhere for they expect the Coup to be successful. Herod was in Jericho (Conveniently!) and cannot affect the outcome ordained by Leviticus 26.

Only, Herod dies a week too soon. Nicholas of Damascus' brother, Ptolemy, carries Herod's Seal and LO!, a few days before his announced death, Herod's Will is changed in favor of Archelaus, who just so happens to be in Jerusalem at the time! What a coincidence!!!

Continuing with the Story, It is now after Archelaus talks to the crowd. He leaves the Temple area to go party. The Priest is finishing Business and perhaps is in the Temple as the stoning of the troops begins - again, see the Lukan Fragment: "The very stones would shout". This is from the very floor of the Temple as the troops are about to hack through the worshipers.

The Priest escapes into the Melee. He should have been murdered along with the rest.

Except, Peter, a child, sees him and runs finds a way out of Antonia. He pulls the Priest to the "Narrow Door". It is so narrow that you must "Turn as a child" to get in. Did Nicholas of Damascus know this? Or Zakkai?

There are a few others who make it. John did not. Irony: The Realm of Heaven is only for those without blemish. Here, better to lose an eye and live, if you can get into the Realm of Heaven than to be burned in the never quenched fires of Gehenna. Better to lose a foot than to be lost out in the Death.

GJohn is either entirely Cynical or does not know the all of the details. He must invert the Sequence and have "Jesus" be alone first and then have all of the "Boats" find him.

In short, the Two Squalls are one longer Story, with an increased Tension coming between the ordering of the generals into the crowd in an attempt to try to calm them down to the ending of Passover and the coming seven days of the Feast. The cancellation of the Festival renders the Nation Unclean and provides the Motivation for what comes later.

This is what HAD to be rewritten, in order to provide a Fiction for continued Roman Rule.

Thanx all,

CW

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Post by Stuart » Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:21 pm

Charles,

I really like the quality of your posts. But I am going to disagree that Peter was the original story of walking on water. I know it is fashionable to follow Robert Price and his Brand X theory of baptism, that is of many saviors or many Christs.[1] But the textual evidence runs against this, as Matthew and Mark are working from a common source, and John chapter 6 drew from this common sequence in Matthew and Mark (I argue he only saw Matthew, which I'll give an example of below). Neither the gospel of Mark nor of John has any hint of the Peter's water walking story.

And the evidence I think is strong that John did not know Mark, nor need to. He only needed know the Marcionite gospel and Matthew. In this sequence we see a reference in John 6:2 to Jesus doing signs to those with diseases, while Matthew 14:14 mentions Jesus healing the sick, as also the Marcionite version preserved in Luke 9:11, although John is following Matthew. This element is not in Mark's version. Also σταδίους is in Matthew 14:24 and John 6:19, but not found in Mark, who uses what I think is more original ἐν μέσῳ "in the middle" of the Lake, which is all one need say. Matthew's specifics here are added, answering that snarky guy in the 3rd row how said "how far exactly, I mean, if it's just a small Lake you could easily swim for it; I think he's just being a wuss" by saying, "uh, well, they were like, uh, around 600 meters" another voice "three to four stadia", back to the respondent, "it's deep out there and the water swirly" -- visions of Monty Python skit in action.

So if John is following Matthew, and Mark is using a common source shared with Matthew, why would these lines be missing? This points to Peter's walk on the water being a later element added by either Matthew himself or by a scribe in a revision of the text. And Matthew has a number of elements, such as guards at the tomb, which seem to be scribal additions to the original, some answering questions that arose in later eras. But this is no surprise, as all the gospels were Catholicized to some extent before the text was Canonized. Peter's walk is certainly a candidate to be one of those additions.

I would also argue that you are attempting to argue that a later element represents a reflection on an earlier version of the story, and that Matthew picked up this early version having Peter save a disciple on the water from some lost apocryphal Acts and incorporated it.

**************************

As for my view on John being written in response to Matthew, I have some blog posts. I discuss in PM. Note, Turmel proposed John was first written as a heretical gospel, and he outlined what elements he thought belonged to it. I have attempted a reconstruction, on my terms not Turmel's, where it is my opinion that not only was Thomas not present (no shock) nor the beloved disciple (also not a radical position), but Peter was not in the original.

Diversity is present in the earliest texts of Christianity. That has consequences. I came to my view on the gospels, that is their composition, by asking the question, why would you spend the time and resources to write another gospel? And it's not cheap in time or money. You only do so if the existing one(s) are so offensive to your sect you can't explain away the differences. Rather than look for external sources for motivation, I looked for internal. The gospels essentially intensified sectarian competition.

- Stuart


Notes:
[1] With Price, I too see a conflation of John the Apostle, John the evangelist and John the baptizer/baptist. What seems most likely to me is a great teacher, who in legend is named John, taught "the way" in a proto-Christian sect, and that his message had great resonance in Asia Minor especially. This is reflected in Acts 18:24-19:7 as well as the John the Baptist elements in the Gospels. The literature in the NT in his name is meant to invoke his legend for authority. John, like Paul, was a legendary hero of the heterodox, and was incorporated into the orthodox pantheon, along with their own champion Cephas/Peter. But this does not mean they taught themselves as Saviors, unlike say Mani in the 3rd century or Siddhartha Gautama in the 5th century BC -- although it's likely his elevation to a God was something that came about long after his days. The evidence for Peter in this role of Savior is scant, far less than John.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:50 pm

Stuart wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:21 pm
I really like the quality of your posts.
Thank you very much for that. I "grew up" Philosophically with A J Ayer and he is a tough act to follow. Extreme clarity in writing. I was told by a friend to put everything, every note and scrap, into the book and my Posts and sometimes that clutters things up exponentially. "It all makes sense to me." Thnx.
But I am going to disagree that Peter was the original story of walking on water.
Yes, and I don't know if we could bridge this chasm between us.
I know it is fashionable to follow Robert Price and his Brand X theory of baptism
Robert Price who?...
Matthew and Mark are working from a common source, and John chapter 6 drew from this common sequence in Matthew and Mark (I argue he only saw Matthew, which I'll give an example of below). Neither the gospel of Mark nor of John has any hint of the Peter's water walking story.
'N here is where GJohn is fascinating:

John 6: 1 - 2 (RSV):

[1] After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as.
[2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.

Verse 1 leads me to believe that the Authors of John knew everything. Later, I start to think, "They didn't know anything!" Verse 2 leads me to believe that "the diseased" was a common theme in the early Construction of the NT. Compare with the last verses of Mark 6 again. Mark details the aftermath of the Slaughter at the Temple in 4 BCE - Transvalued in Symbolism.

[3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples

GJohn is completely on board with the Symbolism. They are in Antonia.

[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand

Passover. Here is an alien hand at work. No mention or knowledge of what follows Passover. This is astounding considering that later, we will hear from John that the first Day of the Feast is a High Sabbath. Mark thinks that Passover is the first day of a seven day Passover Week. Astonishing.

[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.

Internal States Alert!!! Teeple has this verse as coming from an Editor and I believe him. See Again: "But he was talking about the Temple of his body". Someone has to "Explain Away" Textual Problems. This is the best the Editor could come up with.

[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

After the Set-Up for the feeding, we find an interesting Marker: There is a lot of grass on which people may sit. There is a drought beginning in the middle of Herod's reign and thereafter Jerusalem may not have much of anything growing, especially for a NT composer. Yes, there is much time between the recorded event and the writing about the event. BTW, writing from Rome or Jerusalem?

[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.

Symbolism is an acquired taste and the best I can do with 5 Nourishing Loaves and 2 Fish is the Pentateuch and the 2 who axed the Eagle over the Temple. As for the 12 baskets...I suspect a Roman Note addition here, foreshadowing the Legions who will minister the New Word. YMMV.

[15] Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Here is confirmation - "to me" - of the Analysis I have offered:

Josephus, Ant..., 17, 9, 3:

"And as Archelaus was afraid lest some terrible thing should spring up by means of these men's madness, he sent a regiment of armed men, and with them a captain of a thousand, to suppress the violent efforts of the seditious before the whole multitude should be infected with the like madness; and gave them this charge, that if they found any much more openly seditious than others, and more busy in tumultuous practices, they should bring them to him..."

The Kingship and HIgh Priest Apparatus has been stripped from the Mishmarot Priesthood. At this Passover, they will take it all back. Only, the Counter-Revolution has been started. The Priest will make a run for it. He leaves the Temple. Evidently the Tunnel has been blocked off. He begins to look at Antonia, trying to find an entrance. There is none. The next that should happen is that the Priest will be murdered. There is No Way Out.

Mark 6: 48 - 50 (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;
[50] for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."

Are Mark and Matthew writing from Source? YES!!! "From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from Source, it does not follow that the Source Stories were written about "Jesus".

Matthew 14: 27 - 32 (RSV):

[27] But immediately he spoke to them, saying, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear." [Note the duplicated verse from Mark here]
[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
[31] Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?"
[32] And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT PETER IS NOT A SECONDARY PART IN THIS TABLEAU???

Luke 13: 23 - 25 (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.
[25] When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, `Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, `I do not know where you come from.'

Matthew 18: 1 - 4 (RSV):

[1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom 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 kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

[Edit Note] I should put this Passage in as well. It is 12 years later, after the Conflagration. The Priest - It is the Priest here and not Peter himself, yes? - is looking back:

Mark 9: 36 - 37 (RSV):

[36] And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them,
[37] "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."

The Story of the New Testament is the Story of Peter, a child in this first Iteration of the Story, who saved a Priest "by a MIracle" only to see him crucified 12 years later at a duplicated Passover. Jairus begins the Second Story by asking the Priest to make one more call to Glory. The Priest goes to his death. The Absurdity is appalling to the Author of the Beatitudes. If it is Peter here, he goes back to the Mishmarot Priesthood and finishes his days. He knows nothing else to do. It is a Hollow Happiness but that is all that there is.

[Edit Note: "The Prodigal Son" goes somewhere in here...]
And the evidence I think is strong that John did not know Mark, nor need to. He only needed know the Marcionite gospel and Matthew.
Great stuff and an area from which I know little. Enlighten us.
In this sequence we see a reference in John 6:2 to Jesus doing signs to those with diseases, while Matthew 14:14 mentions Jesus healing the sick, as also the Marcionite version preserved in Luke 9:11, although John is following Matthew. This element is not in Mark's version. Also σταδίους is in Matthew 14:24 and John 6:19, but not found in Mark, who uses what I think is more original ἐν μέσῳ "in the middle" of the Lake, which is all one need say. Matthew's specifics here are added, answering that snarky guy in the 3rd row how said "how far exactly, I mean, if it's just a small Lake you could easily swim for it; I think he's just being a wuss" by saying, "uh, well, they were like, uh, around 600 meters" another voice "three to four stadia", back to the respondent, "it's deep out there and the water swirly" -- visions of Monty Python skit in action.
If you are rewriting a Story to make it the story of a savior/god, you will be presented with Logic Problems. John has Authors who come up with laughable solutions but it's the best they could come up with "on the fly". Mark writes smoothly but he intentionally hides - The hiding is in all of the Gospels but Mark doesn't seem to care. He may be writing for a much different Intent, writing perhaps as a Novelist of today would. The religion stuff came later.
So if John is following Matthew, and Mark is using a common source shared with Matthew, why would these lines be missing? This points to Peter's walk on the water being a later element added by either Matthew himself or by a scribe in a revision of the text. And Matthew has a number of elements, such as guards at the tomb, which seem to be scribal additions to the original, some answering questions that arose in later eras. But this is no surprise, as all the gospels were Catholicized to some extent before the text was Canonized. Peter's walk is certainly a candidate to be one of those additions.
I believe the Symbolism came first with the additions made to explain away the oddities of the Texts - See Also: "The Grafted Story of the Empty Tomb", viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=grafted+story .
I would also argue that you are attempting to argue that a later element represents a reflection on an earlier version of the story, and that Matthew picked up this early version having Peter save a disciple on the water from some lost apocryphal Acts and incorporated it.
Ummm...Yes, I guess. You make it sound like a bad thing.
Diversity is present in the earliest texts of Christianity. That has consequences. I came to my view on the gospels, that is their composition, by asking the question, why would you spend the time and resources to write another gospel? And it's not cheap in time or money. You only do so if the existing one(s) are so offensive to your sect you can't explain away the differences.
'Zackly.
Stealing a Story from the debris of a leveled Temple and a collapsed Culture shows the advantage of theft over honest toil. Paraphrasing Atwill, "How do we get the Jews to worship Caesar without them knowing it?" You do it by taking an important Text that is viscerally Anti-Roman and rewrite it into the story of a savior/god who asks followers to give Loyalty to the Roman Overlords.
Mission Accomplished.
What seems most likely to me is a great teacher, who in legend is named John, taught "the way" in a proto-Christian sect, and that his message had great resonance in Asia Minor especially.
That would be found in the Priesthood. John was of Bilgah, the "Jesus character" was from Immer and Immer follows Bilgah in Mishmarot Service. Bilgah committed an Offense against the Priesthood. Hence:

John 1: 15 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")
The evidence for Peter in this role of Savior is scant, far less than John.
Unless you know where to look :D

Thanx for all of this, Stuart. Keep filling in the blanks on John Correcting Matthew.

CW

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

"Where are my keys?...Anybody seen 'em?"

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:13 am

Matthew 16: 18 - 19 (Moffatt):

[18] Now I tell you, Peter is your name and on this rock I will build my church; the powers of Hades shall
[19] not succeed against it. I will give you the keys of the Realm of heaven ;

whatever you prohibit on earth
will be prohibited in heaven,

and whatever you permit on
earth will be permitted in
heaven."

The good ol' Moffatt Translation gives a bit of a clue here. Moffatt uses "Realm of Heaven" for this Phrase in Matthew. People have wondered why Matthew used this phrase that Moffatt translates as he does: "Realm of Heaven" marks off a Real, Physical Place. It is not "Somewhere, Over the Rainbow". Peter is from a Priestly Line, probably of Immer, living in Immer's Settlement in Jabnit, down the street from Meiron. He would be allowed into the Realm of Heaven, as well as the Chamber of the Hearth and the Chamber of the Flame.

This Matthean Passage is from the Second Attempt, after Jairus asks the Priest to make one more attempt to Overthrow the Romans and Herodians (such as they are after Archelaus). It is therefore dated to 8/9 CE. The Priest is beginning to assemble those who are still Loyal after 12 years as well as children who will fulfill the role played by Peter in the 4 BCE Debacle. Oh, yes, Peter is there as well. Not everyone wants to play:

Luke 9: 51 - 62 (Moffatt):

[51] As the time for his assumption was now due, he set his face for the journey to Jerusalem.
[52] He sent messengers in front of him. They went and entered a Samaritan village to make preparations for him,
[53] but the people would not receive him because his face was turned in the direction of Jerusalem.
[54] So when the disciples James and John saw this, they said, " Lord, will you have us bid fire come down from heaven and consume them ? "
[55] But he turned and checked them.
[56] Then they journeyed to another village.
[57] And as they journeyed along the road a man said to him, " I will follow you anywhere."
[58] Jesus said to him,

" The foxes have their holes,
the wild birds have their nests,
but the Son of man has
nowhere to lay his head."

[59] He said to another man, " Follow me " ; but he said, " Let me go and bury my father first of all."
[60] Jesus said to him, " Leave the dead to bury their own dead; you go and spread the news of the Reign of God."
[61] Another man also said to him, " I will follow you, Lord. But let me first say good-bye to my people at home."
[62] Jesus said to him, "No one is any use to the Reign of God who puts his hand to the plough and then looks behind him."

Note the naive tenor of verse 54. These are children who are not as nuanced as the adults - Like Peter was 11 or 12 years ago.

The "Foot Washing Episode" with its odd smearing of the characters "Peter" and "Simon Peter" is in here somewhere.

The Priest is going to his death. Peter is still with him. Peter has the Symbolic Keys to the Realm of Heaven. It is, after all, Peter's Story.

CW

Post Reply