• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

John vs Mark Late Easter Article

Vinnie

Student
V
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
39
I wasn't here on Easter (not yet registered) so I'll post this a bit late. I composed it on Easter day and psoted it to various other MBs and since then added one section to it.

Its actually quite short (compared to my other lengthy works) and this makes it accessable to a wider audience (as who is going to really read a 30 page study I write???) which pleases me.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/easter1.html

It highlights seven divergences between Mark and John in a short span of text in the passion narrative. The secen divergence are:

1. Cup. 2. Flight. 3. Ground. 4. Interrogation. 5. Cross. 6. Drink. 7. Death

There is also a summary of each small section point at the end for reader convenience which I quote here.

1. In Mark Jesus --greatly disturbed-- asks that the cup be taken away. In John Jesus literally scoffs at the heretical notion of asking that the cup be taken from him.
2. In Mark Jesus is seized or captured and the disciples run. In John Jesus lets the soldiers accompany him to his glorification and lets his disciples go free.
3. In Mark it is Jesus who is prostrate on the ground. In John it is the arresting pary (a detachment of soldiers, their commander and Jewish leaders) who all fall to the ground.
4. In Mark, Pilate interrogates Jesus. In John, Jesus interrogates Pilate.
5. In Mark, a painfully human Jesus is granted assistance carrying his cross. In John, the serenely transcendental and always-in-charge-Jesus requires no assistance at fulfilling the cup the father poured for him.
6. In Mark Jesus is offered a drink. In John Jesus says, "I am thirsty" an someone brings him a drink.
7. In Mark, Jesus lets out a loud cry and breaths his last breath. In John, knowing that all is fulfilled, Jesus chooses to give up his spirit.

Vinnie
 
I imagine there are differences in the several different Titanic movies.

One has Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett, another does not.

However, we all agree that the Titanic sank.
 
Riddick said:
I imagine there are differences in the several different Titanic movies.

One has Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett, another does not.

However, we all agree that the Titanic sank.
Click to expand...

Yeah but we don't agree that any of the people on board rose from the dead and swam up from the depths of the ocean three days later based upon divergent and contradictory theological accounts.

We can also see the titanic at the bottom of the ocean. If the "risen Jesus" returns, holes in hands and side with proof its really him, be sure to let us know. We can do an IMAX film on him to--just like the Titanic.

Vinnie
 
actually, he plans on using the entire sky when he returns --- the whole world will see his return. so his show will blow the shiot out of imax.
 
Riddick said:
actually, he plans on using the entire sky when he returns --- the whole world will see his return. so his show will blow the shiot out of imax.
Click to expand...

Does he plan on appearing on both sides of the earth at once?

At any rate, I won't wait up since he's so late. Call me one of the scoffers the author of 2 Peter dealt with in the 2d century. Even Paul used a harvest metaphor almost a century earlier (first fruits). Two thousand years seems a bit strained to me for a harvest metaphor but later interpolations (e.g. John's redaction) and strained apologetics (2 Peter) let Christians sleep in peace at night.

Vinnie
 
Riddick said:
However, we all agree that the Titanic sank.
Click to expand...
Then let us likewise agree, solely for the sake of argument, that some 'Yeshua' was crucified, while all the story fabricated decades later have no evidentiary basis and, in fact, have somewhat the quality of anti-Judaic preposterous nonsense masquerading as embellishment.

Parenthetically, was there not also an issue about the 'trial' occurring both before (John) and after (the Synoptics) Pesach?
 
Riddick said:
I imagine there are differences in the several different Titanic movies.

One has Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett, another does not.

However, we all agree that the Titanic sank.
Click to expand...
Did the story told by DiCaprio and Kate Winslett really happen... No, thats why we might call it "historical fiction".

We found the city of Troy, but there probably wasnt an Odysseus...

I guess that "devine savior" bit is just part of the mix that probably didnt happen either... (Hey, Nazareth didnt even exist at the time of Christ, I guess that's one thing Homer's Odyssey has over the Bible...)
 
Yahweh said:

Did the story told by DiCaprio and Kate Winslett really happen... No, thats why we might call it "historical fiction".

We found the city of Troy, but there probably wasnt an Odysseus...

I guess that "devine savior" bit is just part of the mix that probably didnt happen either... (Hey, Nazareth didnt even exist at the time of Christ, I guess that's one thing Homer's Odyssey has over the Bible...)
Click to expand...

Really? Well that adds fuel to my Jesus as myth arguments. Can you give me a source for the nazareth bit?
 
rachaella said:


Really? Well that adds fuel to my Jesus as myth arguments. Can you give me a source for the nazareth bit?
Click to expand...

IT's common knowledge, I'm sure a web searchw ill turn up plenty. It's generally assumed it's a mistake, and what's meant was that he was a Nasarene, which is a jewish cult with some odd initiaion rituals, which include not cutting your hair (which is why JEsus is often pictured with long, hippy-style hair. The artists weren't all idiots, I guess.)
 
Actually most scholars are under the impression that Nazareth was excavated and that Jesus came from there.
This is not universally known. It is not "generally assumed". My undertanding is that a few revisionists hold to it.

Vinnie
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
Nazareth - oh my! :o
Click to expand...

:o

What's your point? It's also common knowledge that the area on which Nazareth now sits wasn't an abandoned wasteland or anything back int he day. For crying out loud, the site you are referring to is less than a mile from the biggest city in the area. We're talking about outlying farmers here.

In Jesus' day, there was no city called Nazareth. Worse, there wasn't in Mark's day either. In fact, most indications are they named the town Nazareth *AFTER THE BIBLE STORY THAT SAYS JESUS WAS BORN THERE*. Cart... horse... can't push...
 
"""""""What's your point? It's also common knowledge that the area on which Nazareth now sits wasn't an abandoned wasteland or anything back int he day. For crying out loud, the site you are referring to is less than a mile from the biggest city in the area. We're talking about outlying farmers here. """"""""

Which completely undercuts any argument you can raise on the silence of Nazareth in the record!

"""""""""In Jesus' day, there was no city called Nazareth.""""""

Mark and John independent attest to the contrary opinion. There is also no theological motivation for such a creation. Also most schoalrs are under the impression Nazareth was excavated.


""""""In fact, most indications are they named the town Nazareth *AFTER THE BIBLE STORY THAT SAYS JESUS WAS BORN THERE*""""""""

There are NO such evidences. You merely assume this because the references to Nazareth come after the two independent biblical dtails, Your assumption does not an argument make.

Please address Crossan's statements on pages 15-19 of The Historical Jesus and pages 207-213 by Raymond Brown in The Biurth of the Messiah.

This is the communis opinio in hcolarship today. Feel free to dialogue with their statements on these issues.

Vinnie
 
Oh yeah, Q (Matt 4:13 and Luke 4:16) may mention Nazareth as well. That would be triple independent attestation and this now covers source and form (aka different media overlapping). Whether this comes from Q or not is disputed but both Matthew and Luke have the same form (Nazara) here.

Vinnie
 
scribble said:

It's generally assumed it's a mistake, and what's meant was that he was a Nasarene, which is a jewish cult with some odd initiaion rituals, which include not cutting your hair ...
Click to expand...
It is "generally assumed" by whom? Do those who 'generally assume' this, based solely on Mat 2:23, thereby assert Matthean priority? If not, how do those who 'generally assume' explain the 5 references to Nazareth found in Mark?
 
Vinnie said:
Mark and John independent attest to the contrary opinion. There is also no theological motivation for such a creation. Also most schoalrs are under the impression Nazareth was excavated.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up. In particular, the argument that 'Mark' unnecessarily fabricated Nazareth seems particularly weak. If, however, it could be shown that Matthew 2:23 reflects an oral tradition available to Mark, the situation would become somewhat more interesting. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom