“Did Mark Bottom Out?” Or “A Titanic Failure”

[neilgodfrey]

I forget the translator now but the first time I read a modern translation of the four gospels in paperback I was really thrown aback as I read the Gospel of Mark. It was so unlike Matthew or any of the other gospels. It really was a dark and foreboding gospel. Its Jesus was not a figure in whom a child could find comfort. He was on the edge of being a mysterious, even at times a somewhat frightening figure. So years later when I came across John Carroll's The Existential Jesus I was reassured to see I was not alone in the impression the Gospel of Mark had on me. I have since seen other references among specialist scholars making the same point -- that the Gospel of Mark is a somewhat "foreboding" gospel. Its Jesus, its mood and tone, are dark.

When we read the Gospel of Mark without any recollection of the other gospels or of any other gospel story or image of Jesus from Sunday school or the general culture, -- that is, when we read it without preconceived notions of what to expect, the 16:8 ending is indeed all in keeping with the dark and frightening tone of all that has gone before.

[mlinssen]

I stumbled in here the first time when I found some comments about Earl Doherty's work and wanted to follow up. My knee-jerk reaction at the time was "Jesus a myth?! How kooky! That'll be an easy theory to refute."

Which of course as it turned out, was not. I'd never read a word of christian text analysis before. Got hooked very quickly.

Likewise! Hadn't read a thing until a few years ago, not even the bible much except for the children's one. Raised a Roman Catholic, bit of a history. But oh my - I still haven't finished Acts, it's just too shamefully shameless

Was that your translation I was reading shortly upon my arrival? I saw "demotic" and read "demonic" but I suppose you hear that a lot. Had to look it up.

Yes, highly likely. Taught myself Coptic almost 2 years ago, after I found out that the translations are extremely biased and inaccurate. Goes for Bible translations as well, by the way

Would enjoy reading your solution to the Synoptic Problem.

Short version: I'll assume you know your bit already so I'll just use some words: Q doesn't exist but Thomas is the source.
Marcion turned him into religion, very successfully even.
After Bar Kokhba the Judaics were in need of a religion and the Romans helped them hijack Marcion by fixating it into Judaism with "prophecies fulfilled".
Paul helped out and also fixed some of Mark's mistakes, perhaps. Paul has plenty of Thomas but I haven't read enough of him to see him refute Mark.
Like and Matthew - they are written by one and the same person or persons, in close cooperation at least. Luke is Marcion plus xtian elements and assumed to address the Marcionites, Matthew is fixing Mark, supporting Luke and aimed at the Judaics

I won't use the term Jews, it is false. Someone either is from Israel / Palestine (Israelian / Palestinian), or adheres to Judaism (Judaic), or both.
When people use the word Jew they want to con-fuse things on purpose, like saying that Jesus was a Jew - apart from him being Thomasine fiction, the Jesus of the NT most certainly wasn't a typical Judaic, and he certainly wasn't a typical Judean either. Needless to say, the word is mostly used by the so-called Judaizers

[mlinssen]

I forget the translator now but the first time I read a modern translation of the four gospels in paperback I was really thrown aback as I read the Gospel of Mark. It was so unlike Matthew or any of the other gospels. It really was a dark and foreboding gospel. Its Jesus was not a figure in whom a child could find comfort. He was on the edge of being a mysterious, even at times a somewhat frightening figure.

Are you telling (me) that, as a child, you found comfort in Matthew?

Comfort?

[brewskiMarc]

I forget the translator now but the first time I read a modern translation of the four gospels in paperback I was really thrown aback as I read the Gospel of Mark. It was so unlike Matthew or any of the other gospels. It really was a dark and foreboding gospel. Its Jesus was not a figure in whom a child could find comfort. He was on the edge of being a mysterious, even at times a somewhat frightening figure. So years later when I came across John Carroll's The Existential Jesus I was reassured to see I was not alone in the impression the Gospel of Mark had on me. I have since seen other references among specialist scholars making the same point -- that the Gospel of Mark is a somewhat "foreboding" gospel. Its Jesus, its mood and tone, are dark.

When we read the Gospel of Mark without any recollection of the other gospels or of any other gospel story or image of Jesus from Sunday school or the general culture, -- that is, when we read it without preconceived notions of what to expect, the 16:8 ending is indeed all in keeping with the dark and frightening tone of all that has gone before.

I can relate to this. I think in particular the sanitized King James version. I could see finding comfort in that "Matthew". They did render some pretty prose. And even Linus quotes Luke in the Christmas special. Happiness is a warm bible.

Growing up Catholic we were never actually encouraged to read the bible. Just the bits and pieces they wanted us to see. When I first read Mark, I wasn't so much struck by the darkness of it as much as the direct, matter-of-factness. Until I got to the killing of the fig tree. We never heard THAT one in school! Seriously? He killed a tree for doing what it's supposed to do? (I have read many why's of this since then, but the first time you read it without any context it is unnerving.)

[brewskiMarc]

Likewise! Hadn't read a thing until a few years ago, not even the bible much except for the children's one. Raised a Roman Catholic, bit of a history. But oh my - I still haven't finished Acts, it's just too shamefully shameless

See my remarks to Neil. (Including, yeah I get the "comfort" thing. Lullabies are comforting for their pleasing rhythms. Never mind it's talking about falling our of a tree to your death!)

My previous post punned the paraphrased "my soul will be healed" instead of "my servant/slave". Figured you either caught it or snuck by as too familiar. lol. Changing "slave" to "servant" is a good example of KJ's dishonest sanitizing, IMHO. (Changing it to "soul" is, well...)

Yes, highly likely. Taught myself Coptic almost 2 years ago, after I found out that the translations are extremely biased and inaccurate. Goes for Bible translations as well, by the way

That's impressive. I would love to do that type of thing. I plan on taking a class in How to Not Be Lazy. One of these days.

Short version: I'll assume you know your bit already so I'll just use some words: Q doesn't exist but Thomas is the source.
Marcion turned him into religion, very successfully even.
After Bar Kokhba the Judaics were in need of a religion and the Romans helped them hijack Marcion by fixating it into Judaism with "prophecies fulfilled".
Paul helped out and also fixed some of Mark's mistakes, perhaps. Paul has plenty of Thomas but I haven't read enough of him to see him refute Mark.
Like and Matthew - they are written by one and the same person or persons, in close cooperation at least. Luke is Marcion plus xtian elements and assumed to address the Marcionites, Matthew is fixing Mark, supporting Luke and aimed at the Judaics

I won't use the term Jews, it is false. Someone either is from Israel / Palestine (Israelian / Palestinian), or adheres to Judaism (Judaic), or both.
When people use the word Jew they want to con-fuse things on purpose, like saying that Jesus was a Jew - apart from him being Thomasine fiction, the Jesus of the NT most certainly wasn't a typical Judaic, and he certainly wasn't a typical Judean either. Needless to say, the word is mostly used by the so-called Judaizers

This will take me a bit of parsing and noodling on. I've said to others, I have a limit on permutations before I can't process them very well. So it may take me a bit. Wow, though!

m

[mlinssen]

Likewise! Hadn't read a thing until a few years ago, not even the bible much except for the children's one. Raised a Roman Catholic, bit of a history. But oh my - I still haven't finished Acts, it's just too shamefully shameless

My previous post punned the paraphrased "my soul will be healed" instead of "my servant/slave". Figured you either caught it or snuck by as too familiar. lol. Changing "slave" to "servant" is a good example of KJ's dishonest sanitizing, IMHO. (Changing it to "soul" is, well...)

Missed it! Still don't see it. Pointer, please

Yes, highly likely. Taught myself Coptic almost 2 years ago, after I found out that the translations are extremely biased and inaccurate. Goes for Bible translations as well, by the way

That's impressive. I would love to do that type of thing. I plan on taking a class in How to Not Be Lazy. One of these days.

Well, it's "a talent", or rather, something I got for free while being tossed into this world: an interest for languages, so basically it takes relatively little effort. It's a bit like admiring Megan Fox for her looks - although I'm grateful for both ROFL

Short version: I'll assume you know your bit already so I'll just use some words: Q doesn't exist but Thomas is the source.
Marcion turned him into religion, very successfully even.
After Bar Kokhba the Judaics were in need of a religion and the Romans helped them hijack Marcion by fixating it into Judaism with "prophecies fulfilled".
Paul helped out and also fixed some of Mark's mistakes, perhaps. Paul has plenty of Thomas but I haven't read enough of him to see him refute Mark.
Like and Matthew - they are written by one and the same person or persons, in close cooperation at least. Luke is Marcion plus xtian elements and assumed to address the Marcionites, Matthew is fixing Mark, supporting Luke and aimed at the Judaics

I won't use the term Jews, it is false. Someone either is from Israel / Palestine (Israelian / Palestinian), or adheres to Judaism (Judaic), or both.
When people use the word Jew they want to con-fuse things on purpose, like saying that Jesus was a Jew - apart from him being Thomasine fiction, the Jesus of the NT most certainly wasn't a typical Judaic, and he certainly wasn't a typical Judean either. Needless to say, the word is mostly used by the so-called Judaizers

This will take me a bit of parsing and noodling on. I've said to others, I have a limit on permutations before I can't process them very well. So it may take me a bit. Wow, though!

m

Ah, permutations - yeah, I just make them up as I go really, not bound to any convenient theory if it's hardly convincing.
But all of Christianity has two main question points at the moment:

• how come Luke and Matthew agree so verbatim while they disagree
• what is the source text?

- I think the sane ones agree that most if not all got retrofitted to before 70 CE from at least end of 1st CE, if not beginning / mid 2nd CE.
- Said sane ones also agree that the NT is a political series of texts that put in writing what needed to be read rather than what actually happened.
- Oral tradition based on a living Jesus? Impossible, these are Greco-Roman writings based on other Greek writings

[brewskiMarc]

Missed it! Still don't see it. Pointer, please

Let's see if I can create a missing link: viewtopic.php?p=124341#p124341

Otherwise it was this bit:

You remind me abit of Joe Wallack, but he's still around. Ish

Was always very fond of his posts, too. But his are far too big shoes to fill. Or, “I am not worthy to reprise him. But only play on words and my sole will be heeled.”

Ah, permutations - yeah, I just make them up as I go really, not bound to any convenient theory if it's hardly convincing.
But all of Christianity has two main question points at the moment:

• how come Luke and Matthew agree so verbatim while they disagree
• what is the source text?

- I think the sane ones agree that most if not all got retrofitted to before 70 CE from at least end of 1st CE, if not beginning / mid 2nd CE.
- Said sane ones also agree that the NT is a political series of texts that put in writing what needed to be read rather than what actually happened.
- Oral tradition based on a living Jesus? Impossible, these are Greco-Roman writings based on other Greek writings

I believe I agree with all of this. But you inspire me. I feel like doing another quirky thread on source text. Haven't finished cooking it up there yet, but if it comes across to you as if I am diminishing Thomas as a source, trust me, I won't. In fact, I want to look deeper into that as I go through your analysis.

[mlinssen]

Otherwise it was this bit:

You remind me abit of Joe Wallack, but he's still around. Ish

Was always very fond of his posts, too. But his are far too big shoes to fill. Or, “I am not worthy to reprise him. But only play on words and my sole will be heeled.”

Yes, I got that one when I read it LOL. As a non-native, no English wordplay can elude me, as I first have to match every word against those in my head. I think.
When I was in High School (as an exchange student), Melanie wrote "purrogative" and it made me laugh hard, because she had just enough wit to care, for cats for instance, whereas the fact that Bobby Brown was using a very old word, going back to Latin even, fortunately didn't catch her attention

I believe I agree with all of this. But you inspire me. I feel like doing another quirky thread on source text. Haven't finished cooking it up there yet, but if it comes across to you as if I am diminishing Thomas as a source, trust me, I won't. In fact, I want to look deeper into that as I go through your analysis.

Oh go on, please! LOL
You're giving it all away by the "but", although the "believe" was careful an introduction enough. Walking on eggs?

You think it's all bollox but don't want to say so - you may say so really, I can have all the nasty stuff in the world, just don't come to my doors without offering an argument, because that's what children do who aren't experienced enough yet to hide their frustration over not being able to win.
I'm being ignored by everybody, which is fine. I have provided everyone with the same material and abilities as I have myself, by making this sublime translation of Thomas, filled with more than 25,000 hyperlinks to online Dictionaries, so everyone instantly becomes more or less fluent in Coptic - at the very least, knowledgeable enough to determine whether I'm right or wrong on my so very different translation of Thomas.
The thing is though, nobody makes it that far - because no one really likes the idea of it all starting with Thomas. I've put Marcion in between Thomas and the canonicals (not as a free-bee but because it just hit me LOL) but still: no takers

So please, do me this favour: because I ask around, and I never get an answer unless I hold a knife to people's throat, and then I doubt the validity of the response...

Why don't you like the idea of Thomas being the (passive and unknowing) source to all of Christianity?

[brewskiMarc]

Oh go on, please! LOL
You're giving it all away by the "but", although the "believe" was careful an introduction enough. Walking on eggs?

No. Hedging.

You think it's all bollox but don't want to say so

Not yet. Once I've had a chance to absorb it I may. But then I promise to say so. (And why.) If I like it I'll also say so.

Why don't you like the idea of Thomas being the (passive and unknowing) source to all of Christianity?

I don't like or dislike. I don't know enough to say one way or the other yet. Thomas is one piece I have spent almost no time on. But... er... I mean... however... I can say that the most likely place where I will balk is in that I am at a point where I am very skeptical about any one sweeping explanation for origins. I expect the reality is very muddy and muddled. If this is part of the quagmire and helps me understand it better, that'd be great.

m

[mlinssen]

Oh go on, please! LOL
You're giving it all away by the "but", although the "believe" was careful an introduction enough. Walking on eggs?

No. Hedging.

You think it's all bollox but don't want to say so

Not yet. Once I've had a chance to absorb it I may. But then I promise to say so. (And why.) If I like it I'll also say so.

Why don't you like the idea of Thomas being the (passive and unknowing) source to all of Christianity?

I don't like or dislike. I don't know enough to say one way or the other yet. Thomas is one piece I have spent almost no time on. But... er... I mean... however... I can say that the most likely place where I will balk is in that I am at a point where I am very skeptical about any one sweeping explanation for origins. I expect the reality is very muddy and muddled. If this is part of the quagmire and helps me understand it better, that'd be great.

m

Ah. Geez, someone who speaks his mind - or that, and a mind that is intelligble LOL (usually, it's both). Thank you.
Reluctance is not the right word then, perhaps - more a (perfectly understandable) lack of enthusiasm. I always have to compensate for my sensory input being disbalanced when compared to my output

Yes, sweeping explanations for origins - I hear you.
It's a rather credible process this way though, where every next form of the text just cherry picks from the former, and adds of its own - it is pretty much exactly like the dozen people sitting in a circle and whispering the story that they hear in their right ear, into the right ear of the person to their left. In the end, a mere skeleton remains yet it has been clad in all kinds of new skin and flesh, and whatnot.
It's certainly not a destructive process that way, it is very natural, organic, and a process of creation, like everything is

It doesn't become really muddy and muddled until it's all in the possession of "Christian" scribes and subject to centuries of "benefit of hindsight"

Anyway, thanks again