Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:

why should we respect them [Marcionites] more than the equally dogmatic proto-Catholics ?

But this is the problem with you Giuseppe. You make everything about you, who you like, what you like, favoring your own. It's not about whether I or anyone else 'likes' a tradition but the fact that the evidence points to Marcionism being the earliest tradition. If you value antiquity and originality, there is only one place to focus all your energy. If you like yourself and want to validate your taste and preferences you should continue to operate as you do, continue hating the Catholics and getting revenge on them by clouding up an internet discussion forum with broken English posts that no one understands.

Clearly, if evidence points to marcionite priority, then I cannot reply.

But frankly, I like Marcion's gospel, but my fool problem is that, comparing the Mcn priority with the Mark priority, the reason to prefer personally the latter is that there are some (my preferred) scholars that think that all - very all about Jesus! - can be reduced to Mark as first gospel. With Mcn as first gospel, I am moved to accept that strange thing called ''oral tradition'' to explain what not even the Mcn priority could explain so effectively as the Mark priority.

This is my bias in the discussion. Therefore I will do not disturb more. Excuse me.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:I present this as a theory. Suppose "Mark" (author) starts with a theme/conclusion that every natural supposed group in Jesus' supposed setting had a negative reaction to something "Mark" thinks was important about Jesus:

Group Identification	Expectation regarding Jesus (one of their own)	Opposite result	Artistic touch of irony
Disciples	Followers of Jesus	Abandon Jesus	The followers of Jesus run away from him to "save" themselves.
Jewish religious leaders	Identify and promote the Messiah to save the Jews	Identify and convict the Messiah which convicts the Jews	Jewish religious leaders make fun of Jesus not being able to prophesy exactly as his prophecy of Peter's denial is happening right under their long noses
Jesus' family	Unconditional support	Unconditional opposition	They don't want Jesus seen or heard. Who is his real family?
Jesus' hometown	Proud of one of their own	Embarrassed by one of their own	Questioning the work of the carpenter's hands

If you accept that "Mark" starts with a theme here (the why) than the how is secondary.

Thanks for the chart, Joe. You seem to have them stored away in your pocket, ready to flourish at a moment's notice.

All right, so I can agree with the general premise; and I have said before that nobody does abandonment and rejection like Mark.

Here are the main questions that spring to mind when I read this pericope:

1. ...
2. Why are they said not to believe, even though they know Jesus can do miracles?
3. ...

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VauzhTAuoFw

JW:
Take two pericopes and call unto me in the morning.

Ben, in the world of GMark, can a different pericope help explain the offending one?:

Mark 6

1 And he went out from thence; and he cometh into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and [what mean] such mighty works wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

4 And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching.

ἀπιστίαν

Lack of faith in a religious context would be well within its range, yes? The point of the offending pericope is that the Homers know Jesus. Physically, but not spiritually. They are offended by the change. Thus they are negative without even getting to the key related question. What is the source of the change?

"Mark" (author) connects/contrasts the "know" lesson with:

6:53 And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and moored to the shore.

54 And when they were come out of the boat, straightway [the people] knew him,

55 and ran round about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.

56 And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

"Mark's" Jesus than goes to the "other side" where the people would not have known him physically. There, they (immediately) know/recognize him. Spiritually. And the opposite result which is nicely balanced with the first pericope and answers your third question.

So, to answer your question directly:

Why are they said not to believe, even though they know Jesus can do miracles?

• 1. They believe that Jesus has done amazing teaching and deeds.
  
  2. Their emphasis is on Jesus' change because they knew Jesus.
  
  3. Their reaction to Jesus' change is negative because they knew Jesus.
  
  4. They don't get to the key related question of what is the source of Jesus' change.
  
  5. "Mark's" "unbelief" = lack of faith. Because they have a negative attitude towards Jesus' abilities, not necessarily a negative belief in his ability, they do not have faith that Jesus will do miracles as "Mark" defines "faith".
  
  6. 5. is confirmed by Jesus being unable to do many miracles because of their lack of faith. "Mark", like the White Walkers, always the artist, has the great contrasting/balancing irony that now it is Jesus that is amazed at them (and limited). For their lack of faith! Even "Mark's" Jesus is subservient to his Master of Irony. Actually this fits "Mark's" more important theme that Jesus crucified his passions during the ministry, during the Passion.
  
  7. The cruncher, as the Brits would say, is the proper "knowing" lesson is completed with the later pericope. While the answer to Ben's original question here of why the Homers don't "believe"/have faith in Jesus' new abilities even though they do believe he has exhibited these abilities, is somewhat unclear in the offending pericope by itself, it is made clearer with the connected pericope and the contrast and emphasis on proper "knowing". The correct knowing of Jesus is a spiritual recognition, acceptance that he has The Power and the Source is God. This is what is necessary for miracles.

Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 1

Had to be early Aramaic traditions that stated he was nothing but a man and nothing more. For an Aramaic Jew viewing a/the Galilean as a "son of god" like the Emperor already had would have been non Jewish and blasphemous at the highest order.

Only Hellenist would pervert the theology and mythology the Galilean communities who may have known or witnessed him simply would have refused in full.


This pericope could reflect this possibility.


You cannot look at this as a historical event that took place even knowing it did not. It needs it be viewed in context as a reflection of the time period of completion, as a late first century tradition.

JoeWallack wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:I present this as a theory. Suppose "Mark" (author) starts with a theme/conclusion that every natural supposed group in Jesus' supposed setting had a negative reaction to something "Mark" thinks was important about Jesus:

Group Identification	Expectation regarding Jesus (one of their own)	Opposite result	Artistic touch of irony
Disciples	Followers of Jesus	Abandon Jesus	The followers of Jesus run away from him to "save" themselves.
Jewish religious leaders	Identify and promote the Messiah to save the Jews	Identify and convict the Messiah which convicts the Jews	Jewish religious leaders make fun of Jesus not being able to prophesy exactly as his prophecy of Peter's denial is happening right under their long noses
Jesus' family	Unconditional support	Unconditional opposition	They don't want Jesus seen or heard. Who is his real family?
Jesus' hometown	Proud of one of their own	Embarrassed by one of their own	Questioning the work of the carpenter's hands

If you accept that "Mark" starts with a theme here (the why) than the how is secondary.

Thanks for the chart, Joe. You seem to have them stored away in your pocket, ready to flourish at a moment's notice.

All right, so I can agree with the general premise; and I have said before that nobody does abandonment and rejection like Mark.

Here are the main questions that spring to mind when I read this pericope:

1. ...
2. Why are they said not to believe, even though they know Jesus can do miracles?
3. ...

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VauzhTAuoFw

JW:
Take two pericopes and call unto me in the morning.

Thanks, Joe. I will think it through.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thanks, Joe. I will think it through.

JW:
If you are a GoT fan Ben, as an analogy think of the first officer that Jon asked if he had any last words. Obviously the officer believed that Jon had been resurrected but did not have faith in him as evidenced by his saying "It ain't right."


Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 2

JoeWallack wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thanks, Joe. I will think it through.

JW:
If you are a GoT fan Ben, as an analogy think of the first officer that Jon asked if he had any last words. Obviously the officer believed that Jon had been resurrected but did not have faith in him as evidenced by his saying "It ain't right."

The books, yes; I rarely read fiction anymore, but I am actually up to date on the books. But the HBO series disappointed me too often. I stopped watching it last season. Sorry, the analogy is opaque to me.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:I present this as a theory. Suppose "Mark" (author) starts with a theme/conclusion that every natural supposed group in Jesus' supposed setting had a negative reaction to something "Mark" thinks was important about Jesus:

Group Identification	Expectation regarding Jesus (one of their own)	Opposite result	Artistic touch of irony
Disciples	Followers of Jesus	Abandon Jesus	The followers of Jesus run away from him to "save" themselves.
Jewish religious leaders	Identify and promote the Messiah to save the Jews	Identify and convict the Messiah which convicts the Jews	Jewish religious leaders make fun of Jesus not being able to prophesy exactly as his prophecy of Peter's denial is happening right under their long noses
Jesus' family	Unconditional support	Unconditional opposition	They don't want Jesus seen or heard. Who is his real family?
Jesus' hometown	Proud of one of their own	Embarrassed by one of their own	Questioning the work of the carpenter's hands

If you accept that "Mark" starts with a theme here (the why) than the how is secondary.

Thanks for the chart, Joe. You seem to have them stored away in your pocket, ready to flourish at a moment's notice.

All right, so I can agree with the general premise; and I have said before that nobody does abandonment and rejection like Mark.

Here are the main questions that spring to mind when I read this pericope:

1. ...
2. ...
3. Why does Jesus do a few miracles anyway, despite this disbelief? (In other words, if the point is rejection, why not have Jesus shake the dust off his feet and do no miracles there at all?)

JW:

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
3756 [e]	ouk	οὐκ	not	Adv
1410 [e]	edynato	ἐδύνατο	he was able	V-IIM/P-3S
1563 [e]	ekei	ἐκεῖ	there	Adv
4160 [e]	poiēsai	ποιῆσαι	to do	V-ANA
3762 [e]	oudemian	οὐδεμίαν	not any	Adj-AFS
1411 [e]	dynamin	δύναμιν,	work of power,	N-AFS
1487 [e]	ei	εἰ	if	Conj
3361 [e]	mē	μὴ	not	Adv
3641 [e]	oligois	ὀλίγοις	on a few	Adj-DMP
732 [e]	arrōstois	ἀρρώστοις	sick,	Adj-DMP
2007 [e]	epitheis	ἐπιθεὶς	having laid	V-APA-NMS
3588 [e]	tas	τὰς	the	Art-AFP
5495 [e]	cheiras	χεῖρας	hands,	N-AFP
2323 [e]	etherapeusen	ἐθεράπευσεν.	he healed [them].	V-AIA-3S

JW:
For starters Ben, "Mark" uses a double negative above, yes? It's generally agreed that such double negatives do still not only have a meaning of negative but an extra emphasis of negative. On the surface than this would seem to support your observation that the subsequent exceptions to the negative in the same pericope contradict its use and could be evidence of an original that did not have the contradiction. Unlike the current GoT though I have faith that you are still familiar with the classic Animal House. There is a scene where Flounder tells Otter and Boone that he heard that Legacys are automatically asked to pledge. Otter and Boone say, "Yes, that's normally the case, unless the brother was a real head case (look at each other), like Fred."

Similarly, we are talking about "Mark" here. You would agree that he has a substance abuse problem with the double negative. Some would say that ain't good Greek. I would say it's style. He also is known to follow a double negative with an exception, such as at 1:44. GMatthew exorcises the double negative and GLuke was apparently so upset with her Markan original that she has the Homers go Palestinian on Jesus. I think you would agree that "Mark's" style is unorthodox (so to speak) so I would offer as an initial defense of Markan originality here his style. More to come, but comment (maybe you think the 1:44 language is arguable)?


Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 2

JoeWallack wrote:For starters Ben, "Mark" uses a double negative above, yes?

Yes.

It's generally agreed that such double negatives do still not only have a meaning of negative but an extra emphasis of negative. On the surface than this would seem to support your observation that the subsequent exceptions to the negative in the same pericope contradict its use and could be evidence of an original that did not have the contradiction. Unlike the current GoT though I have faith that you are still familiar with the classic Animal House. There is a scene where Flounder tells Otter and Boone that he heard that Legacys are automatically asked to pledge. Otter and Boone say, "Yes, that's normally the case, unless the brother was a real head case (look at each other), like Fred."

Well, I can say that I have watched it; but jeepers, man, that was aaaages ago.

Similarly, we are talking about "Mark" here. You would agree that he has a substance abuse problem with the double negative.

Sure. Demonstrating a talent for understatement, Robertson remarks that Mark "loves the double negative".

Some would say that ain't good Greek. I would say it's style.

Mark is either a genuine rustic or a sort of Mark Twain (or both).

He also is known to follow a double negative with an exception, such as at 1:44.

I can honestly say that I have never given the specific combination of double negatives and exceptions any special thought.

I think you would agree that "Mark's" style is unorthodox (so to speak) so I would offer as an initial defense of Markan originality here his style. More to come, but comment (maybe you think the 1:44 language is arguable)?

(Arguable in what way? It is a double negative, I agree.)

You may be preaching to the choir here if you are trying to convince me of Marcan priority vis-à-vis Matthew and Luke. But, if you are arguing for Macan priority vis-à-vis some alleged source, I am not sure rustic language is enough for me. As I remarked to Kunigunde on another thread, I am not very optimistic about our chances of recreating the exact wording of most lost sources; so I do not know whether the source might have been phrased rustically, as well, or not. I will grant that the synoptic authors seem to rewrite each other less than, say, the Greco-Roman historians rewrote their sources; but Matthew and Luke still do a lot to Mark (changing historic presents into aorists, removing superfluous and overused words like "straightway/immediately", and so on). So who is to say exactly how Mark treated the wording of his sources? What if his sources are even more rustic than his own stuff, or perhaps even translational Greek based on Aramaic, and he has cleaned them up a bit in the same way that Matthew and Luke have cleaned up Mark? Unless you have some fresh ideas about how we could go about recovering such information....

Ben.

It's great to see that every alternative to the 'against Marcion' theory is incomprehensibly vague and only appeals to those who have spent years developing an 'everything is Mark' approach. To Marcion!

Giuseppe wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:

why should we respect them [Marcionites] more than the equally dogmatic proto-Catholics ?

But this is the problem with you Giuseppe. You make everything about you, who you like, what you like, favoring your own. It's not about whether I or anyone else 'likes' a tradition but the fact that the evidence points to Marcionism being the earliest tradition. If you value antiquity and originality, there is only one place to focus all your energy. If you like yourself and want to validate your taste and preferences you should continue to operate as you do, continue hating the Catholics and getting revenge on them by clouding up an internet discussion forum with broken English posts that no one understands.

Clearly, if evidence points to marcionite priority, then I cannot reply.

But frankly, I like Marcion's gospel, but my fool problem is that, comparing the Mcn priority with the Mark priority, the reason to prefer personally the latter is that there are some (my preferred) scholars that think that all - very all about Jesus! - can be reduced to Mark as first gospel. With Mcn as first gospel, I am moved to accept that strange thing called ''oral tradition'' to explain what not even the Mcn priority could explain so effectively as the Mark priority.

This is my bias in the discussion. Therefore I will do not disturb more. Excuse me.

Guiseppe,

Every personality on this forum writes from a position of bias, some more pronounced than others, and some held in check more maturely. Basically, you should ignore any responses that make no attempt to address the point you're trying to make or answer the question you're trying to ask. You just filter the rest out. Then, you'll be left with either posts that can help you, or if people can't engage with what you're trying to say, you'll be left with nothing. Keep reading and posting. And remember the words of Mary Magdelene... "and the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate".