Mark, Herodias and John

[Charles Wilson]

Another Plug for Jay Raskin: In The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, ISBN-13: 978-1413497915, p. 149, Raskin states:

"Mark has the stone placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does not 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 be necessary in both stories...There is one explanation for two such enormous lapses and for the pieces of Mark fitting so well with into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of information..."

Of course Jay is onto something. Is this the only example? I don't think so. We've had Threads recently that have covered aspects of Mark 6 and the Banquet of Herod with Herodias. Michael Turton has been quoted from his work on Markan chiasms. Concerning Mark 6: 14+, Turton states:

"I believe that the passage to "For Herod had sent and seized John,..." is Markan. Beyond that, someone has expanded what the original writer wrote. The center of the chiasm is a doublet that is too simpleminded to be Markan. Somewhere around "When his disciples heard of it,..." the hand of the original writer resumes, but the overwriting is too thorough for certainty..." ( http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark06.html )

I accept the General form of the statement. The passage has been very much breathed on as Turton implies - For me, since it is the Story of a Mishmarot Priest around Jerusalem at the 4 BCE Passover, I can maneuver around the early verses a bit. Similarly, when I see:

Mark 6: 14 - 16 (RSV):

[14] King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."
[15] But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
[16] But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

I am reminded of Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."

This analysis is for another day. Jus' sayin'...

Agree that Turton is correct here. "Somewhere around "When his disciples heard of it,..." the hand of the original writer resumes.."

Is there a body to be found? A body that would make sense as if Mark and John Cut and Pasted for a single Source?

John 1: 19 - 30 (RSV):

[19] And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
[21] And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."
[22] They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
[23] He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said."
[24] Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.
[25] They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"
[26] John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know,
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
[28] This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'

You should be able to Deconstruct most of this: "The Jews" have sent Priests and Levites. Ummm...The Priests and Levites are not Jews, perhaps? "He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." As pointed out before, "Confessed" has become a Transvalued word - "I confess that Jesus is my Lord and Savior!...". Not the same meaning.

"Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us." We are getting closer.

"John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." " Here is a moment of discovery. John is of the Mishmarot Service Group "Bilgah". Bilgah is the Group directly ahead of Immer. Bilgah committed an Offense and has its closet in the Temple sealed and its Ring nailed down, hence the Joke about the thong of a sandal.

This John is murdered.

In the pivotal 11th chapter of John we find a stone blocking a tomb entrance and a command to have it moved. It is the stone in front of the tomb of Lazarus, dead for 4 days and in need of spices for burial:

[38] Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
[39] Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days."

It is not as simple as stating "John was Lazarus". The analysis MUST go deeper than this but even if you are not willing to go down this road, we appear to find once again that Mark and John wrote from a single Document that was in front of them. (Note: Part of the extended analysis shows that if you believe that Lazarus was genuinely raised from the dead to life again, there will be howling contradictions. The Story of Lazarus is the Story of the Death of a man at the hands of the Herodians and Romans. As a symbolic tale, it symbolizes the "Resurrection" of the Priesthood for the Glory of Rome. This section may be from Zakkai.)

CW

[Paul the Uncertain]

It would seem that both would be necessary in both stories...

In Mark, the women buy their spices as soon as shops are open again after they first learn that there is any tomb for them to visit. The delay to buy unexpectedly needed suppiles smoothly explains how they just miss being witnesses to the Resurrection (or whatever frees up the tomb to be occupied by somebody else when they do finally get there).

John's one woman and Mark's three women both collapse into clinical shock. This is John's "11 o'clock number," and he crushes it. He does well to drop women extras, shopping trips and wasted worry about the gritty mechanics of moving stones. Whatever this plot point is for Mark (and of course the "authentic" ending of Mark is a whole topic in its own right), it isn't anything he dwells on.

we appear to find once again that Mark and John wrote from a single Document that was in front of them.

I would counterpropose that maybe John liked what he read in Mark, and asked himself "How can I make this scene even better?"

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you for your comments, Paul.

It would seem that both would be necessary in both stories...

In Mark, the women buy their spices as soon as shops are open again after they first learn that there is any tomb for them to visit. The delay to buy unexpectedly needed suppiles smoothly explains how they just miss being witnesses to the Resurrection (or whatever frees up the tomb to be occupied by somebody else when they do finally get there).

I find the "Little Shops on the Prarie" arguments unconvincing (No offense to you intended). It is after Passover and the First Day of Unleavened Bread, a "High Sabbath". The Time Lines and Holy Days are all awhack. Besides, the arguments are of a Symbolic Nature, not a literal description. If Apologetix is at work here, there is nothing to be said.

John's one woman and Mark's three women both collapse into clinical shock. This is John's "11 o'clock number," and he crushes it. He does well to drop women extras, shopping trips and wasted worry about the gritty mechanics of moving stones. Whatever this plot point is for Mark (and of course the "authentic" ending of Mark is a whole topic in its own right), it isn't anything he dwells on.

You are more than halfway to a Pure Pauline Christology. No more messy details about what "Jesus" did. All that matters is that you believe in "Jesus" etc.

Mark 4: 38 (RSV):

[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?"

Fitzmyer, SJ, calls this "Unnecessary detail". Matthew and Luke have the variations, "Master! We are drowning!". All to hide the important moment when you realize that this is not about a boat being tossed about in a storm. It is about something else entirely. Contrast with John 6: 22 (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.

A Just So Story.

Remember Colonel Cathcart:

"‘That has the rivers of Babylon in it, sir,’ the chaplain replied. ‘ “…there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” ‘

‘ 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.’ "

we appear to find once again that Mark and John wrote from a single Document that was in front of them.

I would counterpropose that maybe John liked what he read in Mark, and asked himself "How can I make this scene even better?"

The people who wrote what has come to us as John didn't even like what the other authors of John wrote. We had a Poster named Adam who was a fan of Howard Teeple (Lit. Origins of John) and I tend to agree these days with Teeple. John is edited and cross edited to get to the desired result. Was there cross-pollinization between John and the Synoptics? I believe so but I don't necessarily believe it was only one way. Consider:

Luke 16: 16 (RSV):

[16] "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.

This could fit into John. probably chapters 11 or 12 with no problem. It has been Transvalued. It is not about "Doing Away" with an Eternal Covenant. It has everthing to do with the Romans telling you what they are going to do (and did!).

John 11: 47 - 50 (RSV):

[47] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."

So: You tell me. Did Mark and John have a common Source?

Mark 1: 24 (RSV):

[24] and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.

Of course they did.

Thanx again,

CW

[Paul the Uncertain]

Howdy, Charles

Just laying out a different view (if I had a Guild card, then I'd call it "performance criticism").

I did love this line of yours,

The people who wrote what has come to us as John didn't even like what the other authors of John wrote.

and for what it's worth,

You are more than halfway to a Pure Pauline Christology. No more messy details about what "Jesus" did. All that matters is that you believe in "Jesus" etc.

I think Mark is early enough that those battle lines hadn't even been drawn yet. Besides, I think it is very possible that many of the "messy details about what 'Jesus' did" hadn't been made up yet, either.

And I really do believe that whoever wrote Mary Magdalene's scene in John 20 had read Mark 16:1-8 and recognized the juicy dramatic potential and thorough realism of clinical shock.

[Charles Wilson]

And I really do believe that whoever wrote Mary Magdalene's scene in John 20 had read Mark 16:1-8 and recognized the juicy dramatic potential and thorough realism of clinical shock.

Howdy neighbor --

Tell me your Time Lines for the authorship of the Gospels. For me, the Cluster of writings could not have been earlier than the death of Domitian (dba "The Holy Spirit") and no earlier than the death of Verginius Rufus ("WHO...?!???"). So...Realistically no earlier than around 110 and no later than around 125 since that is the earliest C-14 Dating for that fragment from John. When I haven't had my nap, I can see that the Gospels could have been written within 6 months of each other, in a Clean Room somewhere in Rome. The Production was that tight.

One of the Proofs of this is to be found in your statement. John has the detail that Mark lacks. Mark is smooth but the Source is more easily seen in John. The Direction of reading flows in the other direction, from John to Mark, to me:

John 20: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

From Atwill, the word "Napkin" is "Soudarian", a Latin loan word for the head covering of a body prepared for burial. "Why would a Latin loan word be used here?"

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"He was killed beside the Lake of Curtius and was left lying just as he was, until a common soldier, returning from a distribution of grain, threw down his load and cut off the head. Then, since there was no hair by which to grasp it, he put it under his robe, but later thrust his thumb into the mouth and so carried it to Otho...From these it was bought by a freedman of Patrobius Neronianus for a hundred pieces of gold and thrown aside in the place where his patron had been executed by Galba's order. At last, however, his steward Argivus consigned it to the tomb with the rest of the body in Galba's private gardens on the Aurelian Road. ..."

Although out of order in John, Otho is routed and commits suicide at the Po river at Bedriacum, piercing his side with a knife, at daylight, just after "The Sabbath". The Empty Tomb Satire comes here, probably from Pliny the Younger and Tacitus - See Also: The story of the Memorial to Otho and the story of Verginius Rufus*. Then comes Vitellius and the vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick, reflecting Vitellius' affair with Asiaticus, whom he found selling posca at a bazaar in Puteoli (Suetonius, 12 C, "Vitellius").

If you can make sense out of this, explain it to me. Better off, actually, to tell me your Time Line.

Best to you,

CW

*Note: See Plutarch, Life of Otho, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/r ... otho*.html :

"Well, then, the rest of the story is now in place. They buried the remains of Otho, and made a tomb for them which neither by the great size of its mound nor by the boastfulness of its inscription could awaken jealousy. I saw it when I was at Brixillum. It is a modest memorial and the inscription on it, in translation, runs thus: "To the memory of Marcus Otho." ..."[The soldiers] let all of them go except Verginius Rufus, and him they annoyed by going to his house in military array and inviting him again, and even urging him, to assume the imperial power, or to go on an embassy in their behalf. But Verginius thought it would be madness for him to accept the imperial dignity now, when they were defeated, after refusing it before, when they were victorious, and as for going on an embassy to the Germans, he feared to do so, since they felt that he had often done them violence beyond all reason; and so he stole away unobserved by another door. When the soldiers learned of this, they consented to take the oaths, and joined the forces of Caecina, thus obtaining pardon..." [[Thus, the Empty Tomb]].

There is some blurring here at what happened to Otho (Suetonius; "[Otho] breathed his last and was hastily buried (for such were his orders) in the thirty-eighth year of his age and on the ninety-fifth day of his reign..."

[Paul the Uncertain]

Hello, again.

My personal time line is fairly conventional. The Kirby Interval (what's listed on the ECW main page) of 65-80 CE for Mark is fine with me, with the principal letters of Paul placed somewhere in the 50's.

But for the few observations I made here, the absolute dating isn't critical. No particular amount of time would need to elapse for the author of John 20 to see that Mark 16 included a beautifully exploitable nugget, the temporary incapacity of Mary Magdalene. It is enough that Mark came earlier at all; it only takes a moment to think "I can make that part of the story bigger and even better."

Similarly, as long as Mark has some idea about the contents of Paul, then he has exploitable nuggets to expand out into his gripping tales. It would be convenient if Paul, Peter and James were freshly dead, and their students or former co-workers were in disarray, but not much more convenient than if the root apostles never existed in the first place, and Mark was some early stab at instituting dogma, anytime.