The opening of Mark

[davidmartin]

So Mark isn't going in cold the waters have already been warmed for him?

[schillingklaus]

The case of the trial before the Sanhedrin has already been solved by Jean Magne in LA CRUCIFIXION.

The whole Sanhedrin stuff is completely intepolated into a pre-synoptic gospel story where the Romans capture Jesus, and he is sentenced to extreme penalty right away without reasons and trial. This follows from traces of redactorial fatigue.

[rgprice]

No, it's not anything as elaborate as a mystery. It's a well-posed question that, as an audience member, you'd like an answer to, and to which you will be provided an answer in the storyteller's good time.

You keep repeating this but it simply isn't true, because the text doesn't read the way you want to pretend it reads. You are describing aspects of storytelling that Mark does not employ. You pretend the text employs them, but it doesn't.

[Paul the Uncertain]

First, a protip RG: if you disagree with somebody, don't claim they're pretending about things. Keep your remarks to the content, not what you imagine to be the pretenses of the producer of the content. Yeah, I know it's a "lightly moderated" forum; act civilly anyway.

Now. Here's how the text reads at chapter 6:16-27, paragraphed for readability, World English Bible translation:

But Herod, when he heard this, said, “This is John, whom I beheaded. He has risen from the dead.” For Herod himself had sent out and arrested John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for he had married her. For John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

So we see that Mark does explain the arrest. Mark continues after explaining the arrest with what happened to John:

Herodias set herself against him and desired to kill him, but she couldn’t, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he did many things, and he heard him gladly.

Then a convenient day came when Herod on his birthday made a supper for his nobles, the high officers, and the chief men of Galilee. When the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and those sitting with him.

The king said to the young lady, “Ask me whatever you want, and I will give it to you.” He swore to her, “Whatever you ask of me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.”

She went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask?” She said, “The head of John the Baptizer.”

She came in immediately with haste to the king and requested, “I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptizer on a platter.”

The king was exceedingly sorry, but for the sake of his oaths and of his dinner guests, he didn’t wish to refuse her. Immediately the king sent out a soldier of his guard and commanded to bring John’s head; and he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the young lady; and the young lady gave it to her mother.

[Charles Wilson]

There is absolutely no need for women to have been on that boat, as they could have been added later, just as the Romans were all male until they abducted Sabine women.

Your use of the word "Absolutely" is not warranted. Women might have been added later but that is only one of the possibilities. For that to work, there would have to be a developed navigation technology that would allow finding Hawai'i, settling it, sailing back to the Homeland and then getting women to go. There is the problem of Lost Knowledge and more.

Go outside and pretend you are at water's edge. You look out and wonder: "Is there anything out there?" Now go look at a globe and find Hawai'i. How many boats went out and never came back? There was at least one boat or a group that never came back and lived. They landed at Hawai'i. There were PROBABLY women there [in those boats].

The comparison to the Romans simply doesn't work for the above reasons and a thousand more.

The scene of Peter at the sanhedrine frontyard is a particularly ridiculous case of interpolation and mutilation performed by Mk, proving once more the insane falsity of Markan Prioritism.

If we remove the Interpolation and Mutilation, is there anything left? Yes. The Story of Peter finds the character allowed into the Chamber of the Flame. THEREFORE PETER IS PRIESTLY. That changes the Trajectory of the the entire NT. It challenges Markan Priority only Tangentially.

The Original may or may not be "Really Real". I have Nicholas of Damascus as a possible Author of this Proto-Mark Story, a Story that describes the 4 BCE Temple Slaughter and the aftermath 12 years later. There may be other Authors of this material as well.

The Geography of Mark is horrible but the Math is superb. Only a Nicholas or a Zakkai (or his School... ) could have written this. There is a gaping wound that goes to the Origin of Passover and the High Sabbath that follows but...

CW

[rgprice]

@Paul the Uncertain

Of course the arrest is eventually explained, but the statement about the arrest in Mark 1 is written as if the reader already knows that it happened.

You don't write "after" without first stating what happened. "John was arrested by Herod's men. After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee." That is how the "should" read if the writer was producing the first account of this story. But instead the writers is writing as if the first statement is already known by the audience. The mystery that you talk about still there. Nothing is explained here, but it is at least presented logically.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Of course the arrest is eventually explained, but the statement about the arrest in Mark 1 is written as if the reader already knows that it happened.

Two questions, then. (1) What feature of the chapter 1 text leads you to think that the author is writing "as if" the reader already knows that it happened? and (2) In your view, is the John-related portion of chapter 6th written "as if" the reader already knows that it happened?

You don't write "after" without first stating what happened.

Putting aside that Mark did just that, could you cite your authority that such a thing is impermissible? Perhaps in an academic treatise the use of "devices" in general would be frowned upon, but we are discussing a work of literature. Is there some set of tablets somewhere which prescribe what a literary author can and cannot do?

"John was arrested by Herod's men. After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee."

Who's Herod? Or which Herod? Doesn't your version assume about as much prior information as Mark's?

The mystery that you talk about still there. Nothing is explained here, but it is at least presented logically.

I see, so Mark should write logically (as you discern what is logical) rather than the way authors have written stories to attract and hold the interest of their readers, listeners, and viewers as far back as we have examples of their work?

OK. There is no common ground to advance from here. Thank you for the conversation; I withdraw the questions.

[rgprice]

Just look at other parts of Mark.

Mark 1:21 They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach.
...
29 And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

Mark 3:4 And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 5 After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He *said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

Mark 1:25 A woman who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years, 26 and had endured much at the hands of many physicians, and had spent all that she had and was not helped at all, but rather had grown worse— 27 after hearing about Jesus, she came up in the crowd behind Him and touched His cloak.

Mark 6:45 Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side to Bethsaida, while He Himself was sending the crowd away. 46 After bidding them farewell, He left for the mountain to pray.
...
Mark 7:14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them,

etc.

The passage about John getting arrested in Mark 1 has no part to underline s I've done here.

[Charles Wilson]

RGP --

Mark 3: 1 - 5 (RSV):

[1] Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
[3] And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here."
[4] And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.
[5] And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

Even if you accept the Sabbath stuff as "Rilly, Rilly, There", the question remains:

"What does 'saving life or killing' have to do with healing a man with a withered hand?"
The Scene is non-sensical in the extreme - the situation and the result do not make sense as is. There is something missing and that missing piece is to consider the scene as ONLY concerning those who are in the Synagogue at that moment.

The healing is focused on the Man with the Withered Hand but the DIALOGUE is directed to the Pharisees and the Herodians:

[4] And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.

They know. They know of something that has happened but did NOT happen in that present moment.
As Joseph Heller once said, "Something Happened".

What happened RGP? Do you know?

BEST,

CW

[schillingklaus]

Nothing of Peter's denial, his presence in the yard, or Jesus' trial by the Sanhedrin remains after removing all the obvious interpolations.