A (pressing) question for RG Price about Mark

[mlinssen]

I don't think JtB is all that important. I'm not sure if he really existed, nor do I think whether he did or not is very important.

I would like to read a your future post about your complete view on John the Baptist.

Surely Paul didn't know John the Baptist, I agree. But what was the reason for "Mark" (author) introduce him in the incipit of the story?

I like Tarazi’s idea that JtB is an allegorical figure of Paul. If gMark does in fact come from the curator of Paul’s letters, this interpretation would make a lot of sense. Paul was almost certainly the inventor of baptism into Christ (or “in the name of Jesus”), but this fact had to be concealed in the Jesus story. So it became JtB who brought the Holy Spirit into history, and Luke would later make up a story to fold the baptism of JtB back into Paul’s baptism (Acts 19:1-6).

The synoptic Jesus calls JtB the last and greatest of the prophets—certainly this fits Paul’s conception of his own calling (Galatians 1). Paul was so great in his own mind that he was the new Moses, the prophet of the new covenant (2 Corinthians).

So JtB, who may very well have existed (Josephus), is in the Bible nothing but an allegory of Paul. The earliest Pauline believers would have known this esoteric association.

JtB is a figment of the imagination of Thomas, according to my claims. I've explained how a few times here, but am happy to oblige one more time: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7275&p=113740&hilit ... es#p113740

The very clue to Thomas logion 46 is that he condenses the entire Tanakh book of Chronicles into one logion: Chronicles starts with Adam, and ends with Zedekiah - the very first word of Chronicles is Adam, and Zedekiah is the very last actor (not counting God, Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus)

I'll try this for a change:

46 say(s) IS : from Adam (https://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/1-1.htm)
toward Johannes the Immerser (https://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/36-11.htm)

Jeremiah immersed in the mud: https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/38-6.htm, and out of the mud again: https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/38-13.htm

in the(PL) beget of the(PL) woman not-to-be he-who exalted (https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/52-32.htm)
to Johannes the Immerser so-that : Shan't! break viz. his(PL) eye (https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/52-11.htm)
did I tell it however : he-who will come-to-be in you(r)(PL) he make-be of little he will know the(F) reign-of(F) king and he will be-high to Johannes

Now why was Thomas so very pleased with Zedekiah?
Because Zedekiah played the major part in destroying the Temple, Jerusalem, the kingdom of Judea - the entire Israelian dream stopped right there, and they entered their dark ages.
I place Thomas in between 63 BCE and 69 CE, he would surely have been very excited over the second destruction in 70 CE, let alone the events that unfolded after 136 CE

[EDIT]

And why did Thomas mockingly call Zedekiah and sons Johannes? Well, the offspring of the last 'good' king of the Judeans, Josiah, all undeerwent a name change upon becoming king - except for his first-born, Johannes, who did neither

The last three kings 'did that which was evil in Yahweh his God's sight'. After Josiah dies, his son Shallum is made king, aka Jeohahaz / Joahaz. After three months the Egyptian king Neco makes his brother Eliakim king, aka Jehoiakim. After eleven years Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, makes his son Jeconiah, aka Coniah, aka Jehoiachin king. After three months and ten days that same Nebuchadnezzar makes his uncle Zedekiah king, aka Mattanyahu / Mattaniah.
Is it clear that referring to any of these by any name would be in vain? Many of these names are also used within other genealogies, of other families - a pointer to the name of the firstborn of Josiah isn't all that bad, really, and it's the best pointer there is before directly pointing to Josiah himself - or Zedekiah, for that matter, both of which would be considered great spoilers

So Johannes the Immerser it was, the canonicals completely misunderstood the joke (like many other parts of thomas), Mark gave him the smallest of scripts in Mark 1:4-9, and quickly exited him and killed him so the Elijah in him could Transfigure

The Thomas movement, a spiritual self-seeking bunch of rebels (at least initially) fiercely opposed to religion and leaders of any kind, was hijacked by Paul / Mark, scripture was applied in all sorts of crooked ways to give him a footing, contradictions flew over the place and from the very start it was a continuous fight against pretty much everyone because it was such a lousy fabrication from the very start (and I still wonder whether Mark didn't just try so sabotage either the Thomas supporters or Paul by creating a Jesus that would infuriate the Jews in all sorts of ways). The Church fathers continued the fight, and even today Christianity is the most challenged religion of all, I think. But I'm far from relgious and don't know anything about it anyway so I could be wrong about that - but not about the rest

And that's it. And there's almost a thousand pages on all of it at academia.edu

But, off-topic, sorry. Do carry on

[klewis]

It would be nice to find Markan parallels with Acts that do not appear in Luke. I would buy that book.