Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:23 pm
(Of course I have the feeling that the critical perspective of the 19th and 20th centuries is being abandoned here and we are falling back into the deepest "superstition")
I don't understand this comment.
I just meant that in case you give up Paul's priority. Good to hear you're not switching sides.
I think that's a critical basis. The most ardent apologists always want to date the Gospels or an older Jesus story before Paul.
While you read only allegory in the Barabbas's episode, without a valid reason to reject the other two factors (pro-Roman apology and anti-Marcionite polemic).
Which makes me to have the suspicion that you want at any cost a proto-Mark very much similar to our current Mark.
I don't go beyond Mark or look for any proto-Mark.
The decision also has to do with the fact that the Barabbas story forms a parallel to the Salome story. This is old hat among some Markan scholars (John = Jesus, Herod = Pilate, Herodias = chief priests, Salome = Jewish people, Herod's oath - privilegium paschale, Birthday feast - Pascha feast, Jesus as Elijah - Barabbas).
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:23 pm
The decision also has to do with the fact that the Barabbas story forms a parallel to the Salome story. This is old hat among some Markan scholars (John = Jesus, Herod = Pilate, Herodias = chief priests, Salome = Jewish people, Herod's oath - privilegium paschale, Birthday feast - Pascha feast, Jesus as Elijah - Barabbas).
are you defending an interpolation (Barabbas) by another interpolation (Salome)?
davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:34 am
I'm glad to here it! I like to know why i'm confused
but it's not a feminist theory if you think that's what happened though and they all stole off her and didn't attribute, that happens. someone that opposes feminism isn't going to come up with a theory like that but it doesn't mean only someone that was a feminist would develop it they just wouldn't be in principle opposed to it
You're right, but without some kind of fondness for Mary or at least a specific interest one certainly wouldn't do that.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:23 pm
The decision also has to do with the fact that the Barabbas story forms a parallel to the Salome story. This is old hat among some Markan scholars (John = Jesus, Herod = Pilate, Herodias = chief priests, Salome = Jewish people, Herod's oath - privilegium paschale, Birthday feast - Pascha feast, Jesus as Elijah - Barabbas).
are you defending an interpolation (Barabbas) by another interpolation (Salome)?
I am defending a text that can actually be read in 1500 year old manuscripts. It really exists.
Is there any manuscript without these two passages so that the suggestion of interpolation seems somewhat justified?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:23 pm
The decision also has to do with the fact that the Barabbas story forms a parallel to the Salome story. This is old hat among some Markan scholars (John = Jesus, Herod = Pilate, Herodias = chief priests, Salome = Jewish people, Herod's oath - privilegium paschale, Birthday feast - Pascha feast, Jesus as Elijah - Barabbas).
are you defending an interpolation (Barabbas) by another interpolation (Salome)?
I am defending a text that can actually be read in 1500 year old manuscripts. It really exists.
Is there any manuscript without these two passages so that the suggestion of interpolation seems somewhat justified?
but you pointed out in past somewhere here in the forum how the Markan text is bluntly broken by the Salome episode.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:29 pm... but you pointed out in past somewhere here in the forum how the Markan text is bluntly broken by the Salome episode.
"Bluntly broken"? I've never said anything like that about any pericope in GMark.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:29 pm... but you pointed out in past somewhere here in the forum how the Markan text is bluntly broken by the Salome episode.
"Bluntly broken"? I've never said anything like that about any pericope in GMark.
in the sense that Mark 6:30 follows directly Mark 6:13, hence the reference to Herod can be removed without much trouble. Klinghardt says that Mark invented the episode of the dancing etc, that was absent in *Ev.
I don't put much value to this episode. The parallelism "Barabbas/Jesus as Elijah" (???) doesn't work insofar we don't have a good equivalent for the released Barabbas, nor a releaser in the figure of Herod replacing Pilate. It is more probable that Mark 6:14-29 had in mind a macabre parody of the eucharist, with the head on the dish etc.
(Frankly, the episode is not even a literary jem).
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:29 pm... but you pointed out in past somewhere here in the forum how the Markan text is bluntly broken by the Salome episode.
"Bluntly broken"? I've never said anything like that about any pericope in GMark.
in the sense that Mark 6:30 follows directly Mark 6:13, hence the reference to Herod can be removed without much trouble. Klinghardt says that Mark invented the episode of the dancing etc, that was absent in *Ev.
What else could Klinghardt claim? He explicitly said that he simply assumes that GMarcion is older. He doesn't even seem to have heard of intercalation (aka "Markan sandwich") as a stylistic device in GMark.
Sure, you and others cheer for Klinghardt simply because he produces the desired "scientific" results. I can see no difference to devout Christians who prefer conservative scholars and their works.
