So - maybe gMark is attempting to do what George Wells was writing about - a Galilean preacher, who was not crucified, fused with a celestial Christ figure. The Galilean preacher figure of Wells being concerned with human welfare on terra-firma; the cosmic/celestial Christs figure being concerned with intellectual/philosophical musings. The time of Pilate deemed to be, by gMark, an appropriate time to fuse the two strands of thought: Flesh and blood, history, fused with a new philosophical idea. A new creation, a rebirth - whatever term used simply acknowledges that advancement requires more than simply history or ideas - it's the 'play', the interaction, between them than produces forward movement. Basically saying - to understand the background to what became early christianity requires Jewish history to play a role. We can run with a celestial/cosmic crucifixion but all we would be doing is viewing the rainbow - a great sight but a rainbow hides, cancels, the rain that preceded it that fell on terr-firma. It's the 'rain' that is fundamental to the rainbow - as is Hasmonean/Jewish history fundamental to the gospel Jesus story.
Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2950
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
Mark 1-13 has an undated Jesus. The Hasmoneans, to my knowledge, are dated.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 1:19 amas is Hasmonean/Jewish history fundamental to the gospel Jesus story.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2950
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
Let me try and get this right.
''....proto-Mark without a Passion story,'' = a Jesus figure who is not crucified ? (Wells theory..)
''......Jesus talks about the sufferings that expect not him but a distinct figure (= the Son of Man)? = Son of Man to be crucified ?
So - a non-crucified Jesus figure plus a crucified Son of Man figure. Two figures - as Wells has two figures. Wells, however, has the two figures fused together. i.e. a historical Galilean preacher figure and a celestial christ figure.
So - are you dropping the non-crucified Jesus figure and simply running with a celestial/cosmic christ figure ?
Or - are you keeping both the non-crucified Jesus plus the Son of Man crucified figure ? Two Jesus stories in the NT ?
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
The Jesus of Mark 1-13, without the Passion story, works only as revealer and healer. An apparition, nothing more. He is not the Christ, he is not the Son of Man, he is not the Holy of God.
Where and when the crucifixion (of the Son of Man) will happen, nothing is said. Since the Son of Man who is meant in Mark 1-13 is not the same Son of Man who is meant in Mark 14-16, then I am inclined to suppose that in Mark 1-13 the Son of Man is not a human being, but a celestial figure (given the fact that the Son of Man in Mark 14-16 coincides with the earthly Jesus).
Where and when the crucifixion (of the Son of Man) will happen, nothing is said. Since the Son of Man who is meant in Mark 1-13 is not the same Son of Man who is meant in Mark 14-16, then I am inclined to suppose that in Mark 1-13 the Son of Man is not a human being, but a celestial figure (given the fact that the Son of Man in Mark 14-16 coincides with the earthly Jesus).
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
Possibly 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 may reveal the secret of a such Proto-Mark composed only by Mark 1-13: the earthly Jesus reveals in advance, only to the "Perfects" he finds along his path on the earth (cfr. Mark 4:11-12), the fate expected shortly after by the Son of Man: the crucifixion by the demons in outer space.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2950
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
The Jesus of Mark 1-13 is an 'apparition, nothing more'. = a ghost ?
So - two Son of Man figures ?
Where and when the crucifixion (of the Son of Man) will happen, nothing is said. Since the Son of Man who is meant in Mark 1-13 is not the same Son of Man who is meant in Mark 14-16, then I am inclined to suppose that in Mark 1-13 the Son of Man is not a human being, but a celestial figure (given the fact that the Son of Man in Mark 14-16 coincides with the earthly Jesus).
Mark 1 -13 = ''the Son of Man is not a human being, but a celestial figure''
Mark 14 - 16 ''the Son of Man coincides with the earthly Jesus''.
So - a Son of Man ''apparition''' a ghost, walked around Galilee while a Son of Man, in Jerusalem, 'coincides' with the earthly Jesus.
Galilee and Jerusalem - Jewish history and it's relationship to Galilee of the Gentiles.
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
I don't see the two as allies. The Jesus of the Passion Story is clearly judaizing, by construction (see how much is there of midrash from OT) and for a good reason: to judaize Mark 1-13 and/or to remove the suspicion that the Jesus of Mark 1-13 is anti-demiurgist.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:15 am So - a Son of Man ''apparition''' a ghost, walked around Galilee while a Son of Man, in Jerusalem, 'coincides' with the earthly Jesus.
ADDENDA:
the FACT in evidence is that Pilate is a late addition, since the only difference introduced by the Passion story, in addition to make it clear that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Son of Man etc, is the dating under Pilate.
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
I think this is an absolutely fascinating hypothesis. But another poster brought up Mark 10:32-33. This would need explaining, for without an explanation it trips up this hypothesis. Is the aforementioned passage a later interpolation? Has the Greek been poorly translated into English? If not, then I think it calls this hypothesis into serious question. I think a close examination of those verses is key to this.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 6:54 amI don't see the two as allies. The Jesus of the Passion Story is clearly judaizing, by construction (see how much is there of midrash from OT) and for a good reason: to judaize Mark 1-13 and/or to remove the suspicion that the Jesus of Mark 1-13 is anti-demiurgist.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:15 am So - a Son of Man ''apparition''' a ghost, walked around Galilee while a Son of Man, in Jerusalem, 'coincides' with the earthly Jesus.
ADDENDA:
the FACT in evidence is that Pilate is a late addition, since the only difference introduced by the Passion story, in addition to make it clear that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Son of Man etc, is the dating under Pilate.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2950
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences
Pilate a late addition?Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 6:54 amI don't see the two as allies. The Jesus of the Passion Story is clearly judaizing, by construction (see how much is there of midrash from OT) and for a good reason: to judaize Mark 1-13 and/or to remove the suspicion that the Jesus of Mark 1-13 is anti-demiurgist.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:15 am So - a Son of Man ''apparition''' a ghost, walked around Galilee while a Son of Man, in Jerusalem, 'coincides' with the earthly Jesus.
ADDENDA:
the FACT in evidence is that Pilate is a late addition, since the only difference introduced by the Passion story, in addition to make it clear that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Son of Man etc, is the dating under Pilate.
Well now..... The Toledot Yeshu story has its Yeshu figure hung up in the time of a Queen Helene..... .maybe the Markan writer wanted to give the Yeshu story a rewrite and an update to the time of Pilate...