Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

iskander wrote:
Mark introduces Jesus as a man on his way to join a religious group lead by John. It soon becomes apparent that Jesus is a talented student who will greatly influence the outlook of the group. The story is told as if sketched with a broad brush but the image it shows is clear : the teacher hopes this student will eventually lead the people on to greater goals.

Jan Hus and Martin Luther bear the same relation to each other although they never met. Hus died with the same hope voiced by John : he proclaimed, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” That man will be Luther. During the disputation of Leipzig Martin Luther identified himself with Jan Hus with his proclamation "Ja, Ich bin ein Hussiten”.


Jesus and john stood on the same side of the divide. bless them.

But were they not also second cousins, how the great historian Luke told us? And as children they could have played together.

And was John going in the wilderness, because he was unlucky in his love for Mary of Magdala? And what thought Mary about John’s camel clothes and about the fine white garments of Jesus?

And maybe Jesus disliked the locusts and the wild honey and later he ate only bread and fish.

And are these not the real questions of their everyday life?

And was he not the son of the Holy Spirit , the son of a perpetual virgin woman?
Religion is created by men and women, as the poet wrote :
"... as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name"
A Midsummer Night's Dream, V,I, 7


Considering the historical origins of any religion is a process not very different from digging up a selected site in an archaeological investigation. Fragments of the past are hidden from sight and mingled with artefacts.
In Christianity the problem is to select the a site where we would expect to find fragments from the earliest period . When the site is selected it is important to understand how to recognize some findings as being only artefacts belonging to a later date .


An example of a religious artefact is one like this one,
This man lived recently," However, the most famous Kabbalist of the day was Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572), universally known as the Arizal, an acronym for “The G dly Rabbi Isaac of Blessed Memory.”
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... Arizal.htm


And this is the artefact that would make his existence a myth , see attachment

iskander wrote:Considering the historical origins of any religion is a process not very different from digging up a selected site in an archaeological investigation. Fragments of the past are hidden from sight and mingled with artefacts.
In Christianity the problem is to select the a site where we would expect to find fragments from the earliest period . When the site is selected it is important to understand how to recognize some findings as being only artefacts belonging to a later date .

Okay.

But is this really an appropriate understanding of Mark’s story? Is it legitimate to read Mark in this way?

iskander wrote:Mark introduces Jesus as a man on his way to join a religious group lead by John. It soon becomes apparent that Jesus is a talented student who will greatly influence the outlook of the group. The story is told as if sketched with a broad brush but the image it shows is clear : the teacher hopes this student will eventually lead the people on to greater goals.

My impression is that in Mark’s story Jesus comes alone to John and he goes alone in the wilderness. He does not join John’s group as a member and he is not John’s student. Jesus’ mission starts after the arresting of John (Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee ...).

The people come to Jesus because they have heard what he was doing (Mark 3:8 When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him). He did not take over John’s disciples and there are clear differences between John and Jesus and also between their disciples (for example: fasting).

But I do not say, that your opinion is wrong. John’s gospel may be a good source for it. It seems to me only a bit “unfair” to read this very likely scenario in GMark because it seems that Mark wished to say the opposite.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I think that in this case one can see how Matthew understood Mark and how he changed Mark, how both positioned John in relation to Jesus und to the kingdom-message and that for both the phrase “in those days” had likely an eschatological meaning.

In some sense this is nothing and a wasting of time.

But then I think in another sense this is one of these few things which are not pure speculation.

I apologize in advance for being mundane here, but it seems to me that, while the instances of "in those days" in Mark 13.17, 24 and "in/until that day" in Mark 2.20; 13.32; 14.25 certainly reflect the prophetic use of that phrase for future times, the instances of the same or similar phrase in Mark 1.9; 4.35; 8.1 has another precedent: the narrative histories, starting with Genesis 6.4:


1 Samuel 3.1b is another example:


These instances seem to mean those (past) days as opposed to these (present) days, but there are others which seem to mean simply those days (of which I have already been speaking), which is even closer to what we find in Mark. But, in any case, these instances relate to the historical past, not to the prophetic future, thus proving a better parallel to Mark 1.9.

It would be odd to find such a phrase much earlier than Mark 1.9, since "those days" in this latter sense requires there to have been some description of the days which serve as the antecedent. Since the description of John the baptist is the very first thing narrated in the gospel, what sense would it make to say that John came baptizing "in those days," when no days have been described yet? A quick check for this phrase in the Hebrew scriptures seems to confirm this impression: the phrase occurs where there are already things happening in the narrative.

In this light, the instance in Matthew 3.1 is more appropriate than what it would be in Mark 1.4 (where the natural question would be: "what days?"), since Matthew 3.1 is not the first thing narrated in the gospel. Naturally, "those days" have to be pretty loose in Matthew, since there is a chronological gap between chapters 2 and 3, but still, there is an antecedent in Matthew which is lacking in Mark. (However, I would not call such observations a waste of time, since that is how valuable discoveries are made.)

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

iskander wrote:Considering the historical origins of any religion is a process not very different from digging up a selected site in an archaeological investigation. Fragments of the past are hidden from sight and mingled with artefacts.
In Christianity the problem is to select the a site where we would expect to find fragments from the earliest period . When the site is selected it is important to understand how to recognize some findings as being only artefacts belonging to a later date .

Okay.

But is this really an appropriate understanding of Mark’s story? Is it legitimate to read Mark in this way?

iskander wrote:Mark introduces Jesus as a man on his way to join a religious group lead by John. It soon becomes apparent that Jesus is a talented student who will greatly influence the outlook of the group. The story is told as if sketched with a broad brush but the image it shows is clear : the teacher hopes this student will eventually lead the people on to greater goals.

My impression is that in Mark’s story Jesus comes alone to John and he goes alone in the wilderness. He does not join John’s group as a member and he is not John’s student. Jesus’ mission starts after the arresting of John (Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee ...).

The people come to Jesus because they have heard what he was doing (Mark 3:8 When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him). He did not take over John’s disciples and there are clear differences between John and Jesus and also between their disciples (for example: fasting).

But I do not say, that your opinion is wrong. John’s gospel may be a good source for it. It seems to me only a bit “unfair” to read this very likely scenario in GMark because it seems that Mark wished to say the opposite.

The difference between my reading and yours is very small.

John the baptizer is an ascetic proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. John is forgiving sins.!!!???. And individuals went out to him to confess and be forgiven. Jesus is one of those men who seek forgiveness from a' quack' and this choice would have required prior careful thought from Jesus; a teacher- student situation and explains the why John rates Jesus so highly.

John proclaims, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me. This one special man is Jesus who is now appointed as the beloved of God. This indicates that John had taught Jesus over a period of time.
Jesus then completes his PhD. in Ascetics in the University of Wilderness and then he becomes an assistant professor working quietly under the direction of John.


When John dies , Jesus takes over .As Einstein takes over from Newton

Ben C. Smith wrote:I apologize in advance for being mundane here, but it seems to me that, while the instances of "in those days" in Mark 13.17, 24 and "in/until that day" in Mark 2.20; 13.32; 14.25 certainly reflect the prophetic use of that phrase for future times, the instances of the same or similar phrase in Mark 1.9; 4.35; 8.1 has another precedent: the narrative histories, starting with Genesis 6.4:

The Nephilim [LXX: giants] were on the earth in those days [LXX: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις], and also afterward....

1 Samuel 3.1b is another example:

And word from the Lord was rare in those days [LXX: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις]; visions were infrequent.

These instances seem to mean those (past) days as opposed to these (present) days, but there are others which seem to mean simply those days (of which I have already been speaking), which is even closer to what we find in Mark. But, in any case, these instances relate to the historical past, not to the prophetic future, thus proving a better parallel to Mark 1.9.

It would be odd to find such a phrase much earlier than Mark 1.9, since "those days" in this latter sense requires there to have been some description of the days which serve as the antecedent. Since the description of John the baptist is the very first thing narrated in the gospel, what sense would it make to say that John came baptizing "in those days," when no days have been described yet? A quick check for this phrase in the Hebrew scriptures seems to confirm this impression: the phrase occurs where there are already things happening in the narrative.

In this light, the instance in Matthew 3.1 is more appropriate than what it would be in Mark 1.4 (where the natural question would be: "what days?"), since Matthew 3.1 is not the first thing narrated in the gospel. Naturally, "those days" have to be pretty loose in Matthew, since there is a chronological gap between chapters 2 and 3, but still, there is an antecedent in Matthew which is lacking in Mark. (However, I would not call such observations a waste of time, since that is how valuable discoveries are made.)

Clearly, it can simply mean „in those days“ without a deeper theological meaning and this is also the natural reading.

It was only the fact that Matthew changed Mark’s two “ἐγένετο” to two “παραγίνεται” and that he switched “in those days” from Jesus to John that brought me to this idea. It’s not so much my own thought than my impression, that Matthew understood “in those days” in Mark 1:9 with the deeper theological meaning (and therefore switched it).

btw Both Luke and John have also some interesting “in those days”- or “in that day”-verses.

iskander wrote:The difference between my reading and yours is very small.

John the baptizer is an ascetic proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. John is forgiving sins.!!!???. And individuals went out to him to confess and be forgiven. Jesus is one of those men who seek forgiveness from a' quack' and this choice would have required prior careful thought from Jesus; a teacher- student situation and explains the why John rates Jesus so highly.

John proclaims, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me. This one special man is Jesus who is now appointed as the beloved of God. This indicates that John had taught Jesus over a period of time.
Jesus then completes his PhD. in Ascetics in the University of Wilderness and then he becomes an assistant professor working quietly under the direction of John.

When John dies , Jesus takes over .As Einstein takes over from Newton

Before our little discussion, I was asked by a reader of my blog whether I could write a “fair” post about mythicism. First I did not wished this, but then I thought, it could be interesting to discuss mythicism not in a broader sense, but related to this little question. Why was Jesus baptized in GMark?

I discussed five opinions, two HJ, three MJ (I plundered vridar for this. Thanks for the hard work, Neil!). I have not expressed my opinion about HJ/MJ in my post.

HJ
- your opinion as the majority view of scholars
- Max Aplin’s view in „Was Jesus ever a disciple of John the Baptist?“

MJ
- John the Baptist is the "water god" Oannes mentioned by the Babylonian writer Berossus (Arthur Drews)
- the baptism is a later redaction of Proto-Mark (Roger Parvus, Mark and Proto-Mark)
- it’s all a literary fiction (R.G. Price, How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity)

Further: What is the origin of the Christian baptism according to HJ and MJ?

Maybe there could be a few interesting points in Max Aplin’s work for a HJ theory.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Further: What is the origin of the Christian baptism according to HJ and MJ?

I wonder if baptism is borrowed from a pagan religion such as an Egyptian mystery religion: many of them had a water or water-immersion component.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

iskander wrote:The difference between my reading and yours is very small.

John the baptizer is an ascetic proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. John is forgiving sins.!!!???. And individuals went out to him to confess and be forgiven. Jesus is one of those men who seek forgiveness from a' quack' and this choice would have required prior careful thought from Jesus; a teacher- student situation and explains the why John rates Jesus so highly.

John proclaims, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me. This one special man is Jesus who is now appointed as the beloved of God. This indicates that John had taught Jesus over a period of time.
Jesus then completes his PhD. in Ascetics in the University of Wilderness and then he becomes an assistant professor working quietly under the direction of John.

When John dies , Jesus takes over .As Einstein takes over from Newton

Before our little discussion, I was asked by a reader of my blog whether I could write a “fair” post about mythicism. First I did not wished this, but then I thought, it could be interesting to discuss mythicism not in a broader sense, but related to this little question. Why was Jesus baptized in GMark?

I discussed five opinions, two HJ, three MJ (I plundered vridar for this. Thanks for the hard work, Neil!). I have not expressed my opinion about HJ/MJ in my post.

HJ
- your opinion as the majority view of scholars
- Max Aplin’s view in „Was Jesus ever a disciple of John the Baptist?“

MJ
- John the Baptist is the "water god" Oannes mentioned by the Babylonian writer Berossus (Arthur Drews)
- the baptism is a later redaction of Proto-Mark (Roger Parvus, Mark and Proto-Mark)
- it’s all a literary fiction (R.G. Price, How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity)

Further: What is the origin of the Christian baptism according to HJ and MJ?

Maybe there could be a few interesting points in Max Aplin’s work for a HJ theory.

Mark is fiction for those who don't believe. The addition " the son of God" tells the would be reader what to expect. I don't need sceptic literature to dismiss god and its priests. Religion, however, is a forceful reality in the lives of people and I read about it as I read about politics and other subjects.

Mark tells the story of a Jewish dissenter struggling against the power of the clerics of his time and place. He is like Jan Hus and Martin Luther , for example. Why was Jesus baptized? He was a religious man who believed ' in the world to come' and its associated consequences, but could no longer accept the atoning sacrificial system of the temple. Both Hus and Luther were obedient servants of the papacy before turning 'heretics'.

John offered an alternative path to eternal happiness if only if he could transfer his faith in the temple ceremonial to the simpler ceremony offered by John. Jesus discovered that ' faith' was the solution for every person. He accepted the purifying water-- cleansing water is a very common finding in different religions-- and later he settled for the 10 commandments and the mercy of God. Luther must have travelled along a similar path towards his rejection of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and its associated consequences.

MrMacSon wrote:I wonder if baptism is borrowed from a pagan religion such as an Egyptian mystery religion: many of them had a water or water-immersion component.

I have mentioned the "baptism of Pharaoh" as a common explanation

iskander wrote:Why was Jesus baptized? He was a religious man who believed ' in the world to come' and its associated consequences, but could no longer accept the atoning sacrificial system of the temple.

Maybe, but Mark does not tell this. I’m not sure whether all answers beyond a simple “he accepted John’s baptism (and trusted him)” could be a bit eisegesis.