Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

gryan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:03 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:10 am

gryan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:04 am Homeless charismatics?

No bread... no money...? Depending on hospitality from strangers? What's going on here?

Possibly something Cynical?

Interesting link with a past thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7350&p=114902#p114902

I agree that the homeless charismatics of the Gospels are depicted as being better than the cynics who were notoriously rude and crude. These messengers were supposed to rely on hospitality. Thus, unlike the cynics, they did not need to carry provisions of their own. They were supposed to say "Peace to this house," eat what was set before them, and heal the sick. This is very different than the cynics.

Different, yes, but possibly in cultural reaction to the Cynics, as if trumping their Cynicism with a model based on the Hebrew prophets, like Elijah and Elisha, the latter of which accepted regular hospitality from the wealthy Shunammite woman before raising her son from the dead (2 Kings 4.8-37), a pretty literal enactment of Luke 10.8-9.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:16 am
Of interest is the saying of Herod in Mark 6:16. It is literally

ὃν	ἐγὼ	ἀπεκεφάλισα	Ἰωάννην	οὗτος	ἠγέρθη
whom	I	beheaded	John	this one	has been raised

The phrase "John, this one has been raised" (Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἠγέρθη) caused the following text variants according to laparola

Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἠγέρθη] ‭א2 B L W Δ (33 1342 αὐτὸς for οὗτος) 372 892* 2427 2737 copbo WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν] A (C N 1424 ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν) 0269 579 Byz goth ς ND Dio
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] 124
οὗτος ἐστιν Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] Θ (f1 ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν) 565 700 pc it
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] (D omit Ἰωάννην) f13 28 69 788 (892c οὗτος ἐστιν) pc vg copbo
οὗτος Ἰωάννην ἠγέρθη] ‭א*
οὗτος Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη] ‭א1
Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη] 33

Wieland Wilker wrote in his „Textual Commentary“.

It is clear that this large number of variants has its cause in a difficult original reading.

Cf. Mk16:16
Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη,
You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!

Is there some significance to the verbal parallel that links these two resurrection belief statements? '

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 4:53 pm Q: Would this apply to a Caesar? Say...Galba? There is an undercurrent in the NT of Immortality going to the Rulers. This would trace back probably through the Egyptian Pharaohs but is seen in the NT - "What must I do to obtain Eternal Life?"
...
Does Galba get taken over the river to the place, the "Paradise of the Gods"? He WAS Emperor (So was Frugi Piso...). He was beheaded, however. If John is godly and he comes back what of Herod?

Lotsa' tension in what appears to be possibly an added story in Mark 6.

I mean it very friendly but I will probably never understand these shift-in-time-and-persons-theories.

Giuseppe once said it is hard to believe that authors as different as Mark and Matthew conspired together. But when you see how different their portraits of some persons are, I just can't understand it anymore. One then has the same problems as Bible-faithful Christians who cannot cope with differences and contradictions in the Gospels. You noticed the difference yourself.

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:25 pm Luke gives Herod a more sophisticated air than the fearful Herod of the other Gospels.

imho, it starts already with Mark's and Luke's shared material. The three opinions of the people (John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets) are arranged by Mark according to the improbability of the supernatural event, from the resurrection of a dead John to the appearance of Elijah from heaven and "down" to an „ordinary“ prophet in his lifetime with whom the divine power works. Luke reduces all of this to the resurrection (or appearance from heaven) and - of course, as Luke always did - the bad guys don't believe in the resurrection. At the end, the multiple choice test makes no sense in GLuke.

Mark 6:14-16	Luke 9:7-9
14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known.	7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed,
Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.”	because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead,
15 But others said, “He is Elijah.”	8 by some that Elijah had appeared, and
And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”	by others that one of the prophets of old had risen.
16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”	9 Herod said, “John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?” And he sought to see him.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:49 pmThe three opinions of the people (John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets) are arranged by Mark according to the improbability of the supernatural event, from the resurrection of a dead John to the appearance of Elijah from heaven and "down" to an „ordinary“ prophet in his lifetime with whom the divine power works.

I get how being a prophet like the prophets of old is less miraculous than either of the other two options, but why is Jesus being Elijah less miraculous than John coming back from the dead?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:56 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:49 pmThe three opinions of the people (John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets) are arranged by Mark according to the improbability of the supernatural event, from the resurrection of a dead John to the appearance of Elijah from heaven and "down" to an „ordinary“ prophet in his lifetime with whom the divine power works.

I get how being a prophet like the prophets of old is less miraculous than either of the other two options, but why is Jesus being Elijah less miraculous than John coming back from the dead?

Sorry Ben, my wording was misleading. I didn't mean it one a scale of the miraculous but against the background of the traditional Jewish world of belief.

If we were believing Jews in the first century and we would agree that Jesus is a man of God what would we think? I think that we would know that there were several prophets in older times who could work miracles. „A prophet like one of the prophetes“ should therefore be the obvious choice. Of course, we would also think of Elijah as the most famous miracle worker and we have Malachi's promise that Elijah will come back. But in this case we would have to admit that it is a unique event and that the day of the Lord is at hand. But the opinion that a dead man has risen and works miracles would be an unusual breakthrough in our thinking because we don't have a traditional conception to suggest this possibility.

Yeah we tease her a lot cause we got her on the spot welcome back

JW:
6

14 And king Herod heard [thereof]; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.

• • 15 But others said, It is Elijah.
    
    And others said, [It is] a prophet, [even] as one of the prophets.

16 But Herod, when he heard [thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.

1. It looks like the Byzantine gets this one right (law of averages). The "he" of 6:14 is original, rather than "they", thus giving a typical Markan chiasm. As I've mentioned many times now, the chiasm category should be a major category of Internal Evidence.

2. The switch to "they" improves the grammar by exorcising the repetition but repetition is kind of "Mark's" thing.

3. With the "he" of 6:14, 6:16 can be properly translated, "this one has been raised". When Herod first hears of Jesus he says it is John the Baptist. When he hears others guessing who Jesus is he identifies who it is, The John the Baptist he killed (Oedipus shortcut, so to speak).

4. The grammar also works better with "he" in verse 14 as he only uses "John" in 16 supporting he already used the full title in 14.

I still fear (but not with amazement or trepidation) that you are missing the Markan significance of the What's My Line guesses which I will inform you of via Revelation.


Joseph

REVELATION, n. A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

Is The Palestinian Authority a Terrorist Organization Under International Law?

gryan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:28 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:16 am
Of interest is the saying of Herod in Mark 6:16. It is literally

ὃν	ἐγὼ	ἀπεκεφάλισα	Ἰωάννην	οὗτος	ἠγέρθη
whom	I	beheaded	John	this one	has been raised

Cf. Mk16:16
Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη,
You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!

Is there some significance to the verbal parallel that links these two resurrection belief statements? '

I'm not exactly sure what the question is related to. Is it a question of whether the grammatical wording of Mark 6:16 and 16:6 clearly indicates that both statements of resurrection should be read in parallel? Or rather in what sense both statements could be seen as referring to each other?

imho, it can be seen that words and motifs from the Passion of the Baptist in Mark 6:14-29 recur in the Passion of Jesus. The number of these repetitions suggests to me that this must have been done on purpose. However, the contextual relationships are often unclear.

In Mark 6:17 John is seized and bound. Jesus is seized in Mark 14:46 and bound in Mark 15:1. In Mark 6:20 Herod feared John and heard him „gladly“. The high priests feared Jesus in Mark 11:18 and in Mark 12:57 the people heard Jesus „gladly“. Initially, Herodias fails to kill John, but then it came a day of good opportunity (ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου) in Mark 6:21. Initially, the High priests failed to seize Jesus, but in Mark 14:11 Judas is looking for a good opportunity (εὐκαίρως) to betray Jesus.

These are just examples. I could add ten more points. The parallelism of Mark 6:16 and Mark 16:6 is limited to the word “ἠγέρθη” and the previous mention of the form of the execution.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:58 am Finally, Mark 16:6 is also a nice parallel to Mark 6:16. In both cases there is an emphasis on the form of the execution and the resurrection statement („John, whom I beheaded, has been raised“ - „You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen.“)

Few scholars have noted that Mark 6:16 could grammatically be a question as well in the sense of “What John, whom I beheaded, has been raised?”, but the prevailing opinion sees it as a confirmatory statement. However, Herod's statement is not understood as a belief, but as an expression of his paranoid fear of John and his inner conviction that he has acted injustice to this “just and holy man” (Mark 6:20).

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:59 pm

gryan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:28 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:16 am
Of interest is the saying of Herod in Mark 6:16. It is literally

ὃν	ἐγὼ	ἀπεκεφάλισα	Ἰωάννην	οὗτος	ἠγέρθη
whom	I	beheaded	John	this one	has been raised

Cf. Mk16:16
Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη,
You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!

Is there some significance to the verbal parallel that links these two resurrection belief statements? '

I'm not exactly sure what the question is related to. Is it a question of whether the grammatical wording of Mark 6:16 and 16:6 clearly indicates that both statements of resurrection should be read in parallel? Or rather in what sense both statements could be seen as referring to each other?

imho, it can be seen that words and motifs from the Passion of the Baptist in Mark 6:14-29 recur in the Passion of Jesus. The number of these repetitions suggests to me that this must have been done on purpose. However, the contextual relationships are often unclear.

In Mark 6:17 John is seized and bound. Jesus is seized in Mark 14:46 and bound in Mark 15:1. In Mark 6:20 Herod feared John and heard him „gladly“. The high priests feared Jesus in Mark 11:18 and in Mark 12:57 the people heard Jesus „gladly“. Initially, Herodias fails to kill John, but then it came a day of good opportunity (ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου) in Mark 6:21. Initially, the High priests failed to seize Jesus, but in Mark 14:11 Judas is looking for a good opportunity (εὐκαίρως) to betray Jesus.

These are just examples. I could add ten more points. The parallelism of Mark 6:16 and Mark 16:6 is limited to the word “ἠγέρθη” and the previous mention of the form of the execution.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:58 am Finally, Mark 16:6 is also a nice parallel to Mark 6:16. In both cases there is an emphasis on the form of the execution and the resurrection statement („John, whom I beheaded, has been raised“ - „You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen.“)

Few scholars have noted that Mark 6:16 could grammatically be a question as well in the sense of “What John, whom I beheaded, has been raised?”, but the prevailing opinion sees it as a confirmatory statement. However, Herod's statement is not understood as a belief, but as an expression of his paranoid fear of John and his inner conviction that he has acted injustice to this “just and holy man” (Mark 6:20).

Wow! My question was intended to be open ended. You have given an answer that is, for me at least, a lot to take in! This morning as I awoke well before dawn, pondering GMark, I felt something like awe or fear, and my mind went to the famous original ending of GMark: καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν· ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

----------------

Nevertheless, there is a further parallel that came my mind, given that I'm into rereading Galatians:

Gal 3:1
Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος;
Oh unperceptive Galatians, who bewitched you? Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was written formerly as having been crucified.

Cf. Mk16:16
Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη,
You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, the one having been crucified. He has risen!

Had the verse from Mk been "written formerly" at the time when Paul was face to face with the Galatians? And is it possible that Paul had shown them the text?

In Gal, Paul wanted the Galatians to perceive the origin of the "Spirit" they received, ie, ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν (the one supplying to you plural the Spirit and working miracles in you, Gal 3:5).

This language of "working miracles" (ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις), together with speculation about the origin of these powers, appears in Mark too: "people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” (...διὰ τοῦτο ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ. Mk 6:14).

So, the Paul of the epistle to the Galatians and GMark have some similar ideas connecting miraculous powers with a prior event of the execution and resurrection of a righteous person.

Having recently read the Fragments of Papias, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm , I have a naive question (The rational mind likes a puzzle): Is it possible that the writer of GMark was personally with Paul in Galatia so that the Galatians were able, with their own eyes, see him in the very process of putting in print those words about the one "having been crucified"?

JoeWallack wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:16 am
JW:
6

14 And king Herod heard [thereof]; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.

• • 15 But others said, It is Elijah.
    
    And others said, [It is] a prophet, [even] as one of the prophets.

16 But Herod, when he heard [thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.

1. It looks like the Byzantine gets this one right (law of averages). The "he" of 6:14 is original, rather than "they", thus giving a typical Markan chiasm. As I've mentioned many times now, the chiasm category should be a major category of Internal Evidence.

2. The switch to "they" improves the grammar by exorcising the repetition but repetition is kind of "Mark's" thing.

3. With the "he" of 6:14, 6:16 can be properly translated, "this one has been raised". When Herod first hears of Jesus he says it is John the Baptist. When he hears others guessing who Jesus is he identifies who it is, The John the Baptist he killed (Oedipus shortcut, so to speak).

4. The grammar also works better with "he" in verse 14 as he only uses "John" in 16 supporting he already used the full title in 14.

I still fear (but not with amazement or trepidation) that you are missing the Markan significance of the What's My Line guesses which I will inform you of via Revelation.

imho, Wilker (page 223f) gets it right

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:04 pmimho, Wilker (page 223f) gets it right

Maybe he does, but his argument is nullified by that font choice, sorry. Way it goes.