godspell said
The part about going away, one by one, starting with the elders clearly refers to the group who showed up with the woman in tow. Not the crowd of sympathetic listeners who were there already. The conflict comes from the fact that the story has been shoehorned in there. Why would there be ‘elders’ in a casual crowd of listeners? The elders would be the ones who recognized the validity of his argument and left first–the younger among them would follow in the elders’ wake. They were never a ‘crowd’–they were a handful of people who entered an already-existing crowd. Looking to embarrass Jesus, or to make an accomplice of him in their flouting of the Roman monopoly on capital punishment.
“All the people” gathered round to hear him teach (with the obvious meaning of all those present) and they are joined by scribes and pharisees. People leave one by one until only Jesus and the woman are left. This necessarily includes the original group/crowd of listeners.
I don’t want to get too bogged down here, but when you say there was no sharp distinction between Jews and Christians when John was written–clearly after the Temple was destroyed
I think John 7:22 and additionally John 5:2 means this isnt clear at all.
Mark’s Jesus is baptized by John. He is very clearly subordinate to John. Mark believes he is the one John has prophesied, but John is prophesying the Messiah, not God’s Begotten Son. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Mark’s Jesus is human and a sinner and he knows it.
No Mark’s Jesus is the Lord of Isaiah 40. This is Mark’s Jesus:
You who bring good news to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and he rules with a mighty arm.
Mark’s Jesus is the lord who will cut short the days of the end-times and will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
John’s Jesus only command is that his disciples love each other as he has loved them. Hardly a hate-filled gospel.
None of the gospels treat Jesus as anything less than the Lord of the Septuagint.
He condemns the crowd, fellow Jews, for nothing more than not agreeing with every word he says for no reason other than that he’s said it–as if they’re supposed to just KNOW who he is. And he is clearly saying this of ALL of them, which is why they pick up small stones to throw at him.
They pick up stones because he claime to be “I am” before Abraham was. He says they will be condemned for not knowing the message he gives has come from god.
He won’t condemn a fellow Jew who has been caught in the act of adultery, never expressed any remorse, never showed any interest in his teachings. It’s a glaring disconnect, and one of many reasons why it’s impossible John put this story in there.
Chapter 8 is about the son setting free the slaves of sin. The impression given is that woman is set free from sin.
The story was problematic for all Christians of this period, you see. That’s why it took so long to get into any gospel. The woman never admits her guilt, never expresses any repentance, never says anything to Jesus other than that the men who wanted to kill her have left. And he simply tells her to go and sin no more. There is no indication she ever became a follower of Jesus–we have no idea if she mended her ways.
This is fine in the context of a radical rabbi making a point about hypocrisy–but for early Christians, it was like issuing a license to just do whatever you wanted, and later you could stop. They didn’t like adultery and fornication either. (Some of them, like Paul, weren’t too crazy about married sex.)
Yes I agree – but this is a reason for it to be removed and never put back in again. The fact its there despite being problematic to christians suggests it was original to the gospel.
The story is deeply embarrassing to early Christians. That’s why John didn’t include it–and that’s why some version of it probably did happen. It was too powerful a story to forget. And thankfully it was preserved. Pity it had to be in a gospel so full of hate.
But if belongs better in Mark why wasnt it added to it rather than John? Why wasnt it added to all four?
Man, you type a lot of crap, bren.
He arrives, people gather, then the Scribes and Pharisees show up, he talks to them, they leave, the woman leaves, the crowd is still there. Then the Pharisees start ragging on him, which makes no sense, since they left, but of course it does, because the pericope wasn’t originally in there.
John edited this chapter together out of bits and pieces, but he had a uniting theme–something he wants to say with a particular group of stories–and then much later this story that doesn’t fit with his theme got put in there because it had the same setting. Jesus condemns all these people, but doesn’t even ask the woman caught in adultery to repent of her sin. In so many ways (and in terms of the language used) it doesn’t fit. As most scholars will always agree, but some will refuse to agree, because they want to believe scripture is immutable. It’s not.
The Mark quote isn’t you put up is saying Jesus is proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God–he is God’s herald, as John the Baptist was his. This is not at all hard to figure out. Jesus is Messiah to Mark–but the Messiah isn’t God. He has been chosen by God to tell people the Kingdom is near, and how they can enter it.
John’s Jesus claims to be a pre-existent being, absolutely. But he’d already angered the crowd with his abuse (and of course, in John’s original chapter, the Pharisees are still there, since the pericope wasn’t in his original gospel, and John would never show them being so gracious as to admit they’d been wrong).
But contrary to what you said further up, the crowd never wanted to stone the woman, they were just witnesses to the confrontation between Jesus and the small group of zealots who want to stone her. The stoning you refer to at the end isn’t ritual execution, but just angry people tossing bits of gravel. (again, no large stones there–the zealots would have taken the woman elsewhere to be stoned) Elsewise Jesus would be dead a bit early (are you saying he ran away with his hands over his head?) They’re just telling him to shut up, and with John’s Jesus, that’s perfectly understandable. He’s kind of a dick. 🙂
The pericope being problematic proves that there was a living memory of this having happened–not that it was in John’s gospel.
Look at all the other problematic stories (like Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist) that John’s gospel leaves out, even though he certainly would have known about it–he refers to it, but refuses to actually say John baptized Jesus. John found that story about the baptism so upsetting, he (unlike Matthew and Luke, who just tried to pretty up Mark’s story a bit) completely rewrote it. John the Baptist (who in reality was Jesus’ master), becomes Jesus’ groupie–which is weird, since the Cult of John existed long after Jesus was dead, and pretty much all the stories about John the Baptist in the four gospels are clearly intended as a response to followers of John who insisted he (not Jesus) was Messiah, even though in John he’s told all his followers Jesus is Messiah (and so much more).
(You keep saying Mark edited Matthew, but why would he edit out John saying it would be more fitting for him to be baptized by Jesus? Because Mark is relating a story widely known to have happened–Jesus was John’s disciple, and John baptized him to cleanse him of sin, at which point he can be a proper vessel for God’s message. If he was a divine being, this wouldn’t make any sense. Therefore, Mark never believed Jesus to be anything other than a man chosen by God. Matthew thought he was more than that, and changed the story–so did Luke. John refused to even acknowledge the baptism happened–a very obvious progression from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John.)
The author of John (who never met Jesus, and therefore cannot see him as a man) is immune to the Doctrine of Embarassment–he will write the story he wants to write and to hell with what people say really happened. His intent is to erase all the things about Jesus in the other gospels that don’t fit his vision of a transcendant divine being temporarily clad in in human form. The pericope utterly conflicts with his vision of Jesus, and the egocentric Jesus he depicts wouldn’t have just told that woman “Go and sin no more.”
The pericope, as Bart says, was probably originally added as a marginal note in copies of John, and somebody copying one of those copies decided to make it part of the main text–that wasn’t going to happen four separate times.
It was too powerful and truthful a story for people to forget, but in the early days of Christianity, it just didn’t fit the program very well. Once Christianity was well-established, they could find a place for it, and it just happened to be in John, because it seems to take place in the same location as the stories about Jesus teaching in the temple courtyard.
I don’t think he’d have phrased it quite that way, but your overall point is well-taken.
I can’t think offhand of one major historical figure who hasn’t been wildly misrepresented after his/her death (and often before it), so nothing extraordinary about that. It’s the longest running joke there is.
No Mark’s Jesus is the Lord of Isaiah 40. This is Mark’s Jesus:
You who bring good news to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and he rules with a mighty arm.Mark’s Jesus is the lord who will cut short the days of the end-times and will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight….’” (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Bird takes it that this is a composite quotation, drawing on three sources. The primary source is Isaiah’s declaration of “good news” regarding the return of YHWH to Zion and the forgiveness of the iniquity that had brought destruction on exile upon the people of Jerusalem (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
The words “Behold, I send my messenger before your face…”, however, are not found in the Isaiah passage. They come instead from Malachi:
Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord (ʾadon) whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. (** you do not have permission to see this link ** ESV)
The speaker is YHWH, who announces that he will send his messenger (malʾakh) to prepare the way for him. This is in response to the complaint that there is no God of justice in Israel. “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them” (** you do not have permission to see this link **). The name “Malachi” means “my messenger”.
So the first messenger is undoubtedly a prophet. But in both Hebrew and Greek the word translated “messenger” can also mean “angel”, and it is possible that Malachi’s second “messenger of the covenant” is the angel of the Lord, a figure who embodies the dynamic presence of God in the midst of his people.
Bird’s third source is ** you do not have permission to see this link **, which some scholars think lies behind the Malachi passage:
Behold, I send an angel (malʾakh) before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.
Bird then argues that the three Old Testament passages can be conflated, leading to the conclusion that:
Jesus is not only the Messiah, but Malachi’s “Lord” and “angel of the covenant,” functionally equivalent to the “angel“ of the divine presence who accompanied Israel in the exodus, and in terms of Isaiah, the presence of Yahweh himself. (86)
So here’s the anti-adoptionist pay out. If John the Baptist is preparing the way for one who is already named as Lord, when we get to Jesus’ baptism, “the heavenly voice can only be identifyingJesus as God’s Son at his baptism, not elevating him to divine sonship.”
I find this unconvincing.
On the one hand, I see no reason to suppose that Mark was remembering the Exodus passage. Conceivably Malachi had the phraseology in mind, but the two stories are very different: the “messenger” of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and the “Behold, I am sending my messenger before my face” tradition. Mark shows no interest in a guarding angel or “angel of the covenant”; this aspect can be safely discounted.
On the other hand, I don’t see how Mark’s narrative through to the baptism of Jesus supports Bird’s conclusions. John is the messenger preparing the way of the Lord, in the spirit of Elijah (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
So we have no reason at this stage to identify the “Lord” of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** with Jesus. Jesus is rather the anointed Son who will perform the task of a servant on behalf of the God of Israel.
But that is not quite the end of the matter.
In the Malachi passage YHWH is speaking. He sends his messenger to prepare his way. But the “Lord whom you seek” and who will suddenly come to his temple is not YHWH but ʾadon. It is this “Lord” who will refine the priesthood as with fire, so that they “will bring offerings in righteousness” to YHWH (** you do not have permission to see this link **). Then YHWH says that he himself will “draw near to you for judgment” (3:5).
In context the Lord who is ʾadon is presumably also YHWH, rather than a reformist figure in Israel (cf. ** you do not have permission to see this link **). But the shift in terminology has introduced the possibility of differentiating between YHWH, his messenger or prophet, and an ʾadon who will come to the temple to enact or anticipate the judgment of God.
The distinction is not clearly operative in ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly. (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
According to Bird, Jesus here attributes pre-existence to the Messiah “since Yahweh addresses him in David’s time”; he has “divine sovereignty as kyrios and priestly authority on par with Melchizedek, as ** you do not have permission to see this link ** makes clear” (89).
The point about pre-existence is debatable. Jesus says that David spoke “in the Holy Spirit”, which rather suggests that he has understood David’s words as prophecy.
But the Hebrew text of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** also distinguishes between the “Lord” who is YHWH and the “Lord” who is ʾadon. The writer of the psalm, a court prophet or poet, refers to the king as “my lord” (ʾadōni), to whom YHWH says, “Sit at my right hand….” Jesus and the early church, however, found in the Psalm a way of speaking about the enthronement of a greater “Lord” or “King” than David. The kyrios who is YHWH has exalted the kyrios who is ʾadon to an everlasting throne in the heavens, and it is specifically in that sense that Jesus surpasses David:
For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
The distinction is anticipated, at least linguistically, in ** you do not have permission to see this link **: it is YHWH who speaks and sends his prophet; it is the ʾadon who comes suddenly to his temple.
Arguably this provides an implicit template for Jesus’ coming to the temple as ʾadon to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of YHWH on the corrupt temple system.
But the main point to make is that Jesus’ appeal to ** you do not have permission to see this link **must serve not to equate or identify these two Lords but to differentiate between them. There is one Lord who is YHWH. There are also messengers or prophets such as John the Baptist, whom YHWH has sent in vain to the vineyard of Israel. But there is also a Lord who has been anointed and authorised as a Son to fulfil the prophetic task.
This Lord will ** you do not have permission to see this link **). He will come suddenly to the temple not to destroy it but to prefigure its destruction. He will be rejected by Israel and killed, but YHWH will raise him from the dead and will authorise him—exceptionally—to rule at his right hand until the last enemy of his people has been destroyed.
/////////////////
Hello Godspell, can you give me your understanding of this? Matthew Periman is agreeing with you that Mark does not identify Jesus as Lord/Yhwh.
John the Baptist clearly didn’t accept Jesus as the one he was waiting for. Whether Jesus claimed to be that one is an open question, but the persistence of John’s cult after both men were dead clearly points to John going to his grave without saying “Jesus is the one.” The baptism story was a recurring problem, because clearly John baptizing Jesus means John was at that point in a superior position. (At no point does JOHN ever call Jesus Lord.)
John’s own followers seem to have considered him to be Messiah (even after he’d been executed, though in a less degrading way than Jesus). This begs the question of whether Mark to some extent invented John’s words about one coming after him, or misinterpreted things John was known to have said. I don’t think either Jesus or John believed themselves to be divine or semi-divine beings, who had miraculous births. (Nor were they cousins.) They knew they were just men, born in the normal fashion.
This also begs the question of whether Jesus, like John, didn’t ever openly claim to be Messiah, but his followers kept trying to push that role on him, and he played along to some extent without ever committing to the role.
There is a modern precedent for this in the case of Menachem Schneerson, the Lubavetcher Rebbe, whose followers kept insisting was Messiah, while he basically refused to say yes or no, though he sure talked about how the Messiah was coming. Remember it’s God’s call who the Messiah is–if you have to say you’re him, you’re not him. Bit of a Catch-22. And some went on thinking he was Messiah, after he died of natural causes. Some claim he’ll be reborn, others that he never really died at all.
This indicates that it’s possible for a charismatic cult leader to be proclaimed something he never explicitly claimed to be, even in private. (Perhaps because he wasn’t sure himself, was waiting to hear from God, and God never phoned.)
Of course, nobody thinks that sect of Hasidic Judaism is going to change the world the way Jesus’ cult did. (And John did only indirectly, by inspiring Jesus.) And why that is would be a different conversation.
Robert said
brenmcg said
I didnt argue against that.
In Mark, Luke and John, Barabbas enters the story when the crowd call for him to be released. In Matthew he enters when Pilate gives the choice between him and Jesus. The introductory phrasing about who Barabbas is matches up with this placing in Luke, John and Matthew but not in Mark. The fact that the incorrectly placed introductory phrasing in Mark appears in exactly the same place as the correctly placed introductory phrasing in Matthew suggests Mark editing Matthew.You’re still arguing this point (see bolded above). ‘The introductory phrasing about who Barabbas is in Matthew does’ NOT ‘match up with Luke and John’. Objectively speaking, Luke and John both introduce Barabbas after Pilate gives the choice to the crowd, whereas Matthew does it before Pilate gives them a choice. Earlier you also argued, “Only Mark introduces Barabbas early and before he’s needed,” but there’s absolutely no reason why Matthew could not have introduced Barabbas after Pilate’s question to the crowd, exactly as Luke and John do. But you call Matthew’s placement of the introduction of Barabbas ‘appropriate’. You’re merely trying to introduce your subjective sense of what you think is ‘incorrect’ and therefore suggestive of editing instead of paying attention to the objective facts of the text and at the same time ignoring perfectly valid reasons for why Mark may want to emphasize the character of Barabbas as a rebel in contrast to Jesus and therefore highlight who the character of Barabbas at the beginning of this part of the story, which is meant to contrast Jesus’ kingship with the choice of the high priests and elders for rebellion and rebellious messiahs in the historical context in which Mark is writing his gospel.
There is a difference between the introductory phrasing and the entrance of the character into the story. The gospel writers can have the character enter wherever they want, Barabbas can appear as one of the three at the transfiguration if they’d like, but the introductory phrasing must match up with the placement. Who is this character they’ve just introduced?
Matthew, Luke and John’s introductory phrasing for Barabbas “Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder” etc. matches up with the respective entrance of Barabbas into their story.
Luke/John when called on by the crowd, Matthew when Pilate asks the crowd if they want Barabbas or Jesus released.
Mark matches Luke/John for the entrance of Barabbas when the crowd call for him to be released, but the introductory phrasing “A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising” comes a few lines earlier – exactly where it appears in Matthew’s.
The introductory phrasing, appearing in the same place in Matthew/Mark, matches up better with the actual entrance into the story of Matthew’s Barabbas.
Mark, as you say, “may want to emphasize the character of Barabbas as a rebel” but so does Luke. We therefore have an explanation, from Matthew, for why Mark may have placed his introduction in the “wrong” place and supporting evidence from Luke (an editor) that Mark didnt put the introduction in what would be considered the “right” place (ie Luke has same concerns and same story structure re Barabbas but places the introductory phrasing later, matching with Barabbas’s actual introduction).
brenmcg said
This is sarcasm – the soldiers and not aware of the irony.
We can read Pilate as being intentionally sarcastic but it doesnt fit the “handed over out of jealousy line” or with the fact the chief priests are manipulating Pilate.Again, you seem to be thinking that sarcasm and irony are supposedly mutually exclusive. Irony can be multifaceted and variously defined, but some would simply define sarcasm as a verbal form of irony. But regardless of how they are defined the scene with the soldiers mocking Jesus as supposed king of the Jews uses sarcasm as part of the irony. While the soldiers are not sincere in their recognition of Jesus’ kingship, the scene is obviously ironic because Mark and his audience nonetheless actually do believe that Jesus is the messiah and king. Likewise, Pilate certainly does not believe that Jesus is the true king of the Jews, nor the crowd that calls for Jesus to be crucified, neither in Mark nor in Matthew’s account, yet Mark and his audience certainly do. The irony of both successive passages is obviously related. Everyone in the world sees this but you, I think.
The soldiers are ridiculing Jesus but the irony is only for the reader, they arent aware of it. Following this with “they handed him over out of jealousy” wouldnt make sense here. The line indicates a belief in the innocence of Jesus and it would make no sense for this belief to be a cause of the soldiers ridiculing Jesus.
Same for Pilate. We can understand Pilate being sarcastic or mocking but the irony is only for the reader. Pilate believes Jesus to be innocent, that he was handed over only out of jealousy. He tries to resist the crowd when they call for execution “what crime has he committed?” Its the chief priests that want Jesus killed and they use the crowd to force Pilate in to doing it.
How then are we to understand the point of Pilate’s question “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?”; he doesnt think the chief priests believe this to be true, he’s not ridiculing Jesus like the soldiers did, he’s not intentionally being ironic as this is only for the reader? Does he think the crowd actually believe Jesus to be their king?
Mark might be being ironic here but his character Pilate makes no sense. It reads like he’s editing someone else’s Pilate.
godspell said
Man, you type a lot of crap, bren.
He arrives, people gather, then the Scribes and Pharisees show up, he talks to them, they leave, the woman leaves, the crowd is still there. Then the Pharisees start ragging on him, which makes no sense, since they left, but of course it does, because the pericope wasn’t originally in there.
They leave one-by-one until Jesus was left with just the woman. I don’t see how the conclusion that the original crowd were included in the one-by-one can be avoided.
The Mark quote isn’t you put up is saying Jesus is proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God–he is God’s herald, as John the Baptist was his. This is not at all hard to figure out. Jesus is Messiah to Mark–but the Messiah isn’t God. He has been chosen by God to tell people the Kingdom is near, and how they can enter it.
The quote is saying John the baptist is the messenger preparing the way for the Lord. In Mark’s gospel he’s preparing the way for Jesus.
Mark thinks Jesus is the Lord and the Messiah. He also believes the Lord to be God.
But contrary to what you said further up, the crowd never wanted to stone the woman, they were just witnesses to the confrontation between Jesus and the small group of zealots who want to stone her. The stoning you refer to at the end isn’t ritual execution, but just angry people tossing bits of gravel. (again, no large stones there–the zealots would have taken the woman elsewhere to be stoned) Elsewise Jesus would be dead a bit early (are you saying he ran away with his hands over his head?) They’re just telling him to shut up, and with John’s Jesus, that’s perfectly understandable. He’s kind of a dick. 🙂
No I’m saying its like Luke ch4 where the crowd try to throw Jesus off a cliff but he walks right through the crowd.
The pericope being problematic proves that there was a living memory of this having happened–not that it was in John’s gospel.
The pericope being problematic tells against it being part of an oral tradition. Problematic accounts have a much better chance of surviving in written tradition.
If people didnt like the story they wouldnt retell it, they feel a need to remove it from written sources.
(You keep saying Mark edited Matthew, but why would he edit out John saying it would be more fitting for him to be baptized by Jesus? Because Mark is relating a story widely known to have happened–Jesus was John’s disciple, and John baptized him to cleanse him of sin, at which point he can be a proper vessel for God’s message. If he was a divine being, this wouldn’t make any sense. Therefore, Mark never believed Jesus to be anything other than a man chosen by God. Matthew thought he was more than that, and changed the story–so did Luke. John refused to even acknowledge the baptism happened–a very obvious progression from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John.)
John is an obvious progression from the synoptics as a group, not from Mark specifically.
Anyway John baptising Jesus does not necessarily imply John is greater than Jesus. If the baptism is seen as the anointing of the messiah then John’s role is as a priest. The priest is not greater than the king.
Matthew’s exchange between John and Jesus challenges this idea and is an admission of embarrassment felt by christians at the time.
Mark/Luke remove the line and we lose any sense of the baptism making Jesus inferior to John.
The author of John (who never met Jesus, and therefore cannot see him as a man) is immune to the Doctrine of Embarassment–he will write the story he wants to write and to hell with what people say really happened. His intent is to erase all the things about Jesus in the other gospels that don’t fit his vision of a transcendant divine being temporarily clad in in human form. The pericope utterly conflicts with his vision of Jesus, and the egocentric Jesus he depicts wouldn’t have just told that woman “Go and sin no more.”
but this is contradicted by John 7:22 and 5:14, where Jesus heals the man and tells him to “sin no more”. John’s Jesus is someone who tells those he cures or saves to sin no more
They leave one-by-one until Jesus was left with just the woman. I don’t see how the conclusion that the original crowd were included in the one-by-one can be avoided.
By accepting that the story was never part of the original gospel, as most scholars have concluded? They’re all back again a moment later, even though there’s no mention of them having come back.
It would be nice if you’d admit that this is all based on your religious beliefs. I hate to intrude on your privacy, but you’re being awfully public here. You have your own religious interpretation of scripture, you are determined to find some way to make it all jibe in spite of the endless contradictions, and you will refuse to acknowledge anything that calls it into question. That’s the answer to this dogged persistence of yours, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I’d call it faith, but I hold faith to a higher standard than that. If you had real faith, you wouldn’t need to prove it.
Feel free to deny it several times. I’ll listen for the cock’s crow. 😉
Mark thinks Jesus is the Lord and the Messiah. He also believes the Lord to be God.
Mark thinks Jesus is the Messiah, and only God is God–which is quite clearly what Mark’s Jesus thinks, since he cries out to God from the cross, and accuses God of forsaking him.
Robert said
Of course, I never said the soldiers would be sarcastically ridiculing Jesus because Pilate (or they) knew the chief priests handed Jesus over out of jealousy. If that is really what you think I said, your reading comprehension of what I write is as poor as is it is of Mark’s text.
But that Pilate and his soldiers are both able to ridicule the high priests or Jesus or the Judean crowd in general and nonetheless be aware of the high priests’ base motives in handing over Jesus is not out of character for any of them. None of the Romans here are presented as shining champions of innocent Jews or Gallileans. There is absolutely no reason to see Mark as editing Matthew’s account here.
Pilate’s questions to the crowd merely testify to his knowledge of Jesus’ innocence, not to his genuine belief as a character in Jesus being the actual king of the Jews. He ridicules the high priests with his first question and he possibly reminds the crowd (and/or Mark reminds the reader that) they themselves once celebrated his messianic entry into Jerusalem, which indeed could be part of the chief priests’ jealousy of Jesus’ popularity, an enmity which only increases during Jesus’ short career in Jerusalem.
Neither Pilate nor his soldiers, neither as characters in Mark’s narrative nor as historical people in the time of Jesus were aware of the ironic communication between Mark and his readers. If this is your point, it is already completely self-evident, to everyone. But the soldiers’ conscious use of sarcasm (verbal irony) is indeed part of Mark’s dramatic literary irony in these scenes.
The point is that Mark’s Pilate cant be both ridiculing the priests while at the same time being manipulated by them into killing an innocent man.
Also it is the crowds following Jesus to Jerusalem that hail him as messiah not the people in the city. These are persuaded by the chief priests to reject Jesus as messiah.
Pilate’s line of “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” is best understood as a change from Matthew’s original “Jesus who is called the messiah” – a change which causes internal conflict within the text, conflict not present in Matthew’s version.
godspell said
They leave one-by-one until Jesus was left with just the woman. I don’t see how the conclusion that the original crowd were included in the one-by-one can be avoided.
By accepting that the story was never part of the original gospel, as most scholars have concluded? They’re all back again a moment later, even though there’s no mention of them having come back.
Its slightly strange but the pharisees are there too and without PA the pharisees being present with Jesus makes absolutely no sense.
Its best understood as the crowd and pharisees leaving Jesus and the woman alone but not exiting the temple courts. When the woman leaves Jesus addresses them all again.
Mark thinks Jesus is the Messiah, and only God is God–which is quite clearly what Mark’s Jesus thinks, since he cries out to God from the cross, and accuses God of forsaking him.
Its a nice idea Mark seeing Jesus as just a flawed human, before the later gospels make him ever more perfect and ever more divine. But it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Mark believed what every other new testament writer believed – Jesus was Lord, the Father was God, and the Lord was God.
brenmcg said
godspell said
They leave one-by-one until Jesus was left with just the woman. I don’t see how the conclusion that the original crowd were included in the one-by-one can be avoided.
By accepting that the story was never part of the original gospel, as most scholars have concluded? They’re all back again a moment later, even though there’s no mention of them having come back.
Its slightly strange but the pharisees are there too and without PA the pharisees being present with Jesus makes absolutely no sense.
Its best understood as the crowd and pharisees leaving Jesus and the woman alone but not exiting the temple courts. When the woman leaves Jesus addresses them all again.
Mark thinks Jesus is the Messiah, and only God is God–which is quite clearly what Mark’s Jesus thinks, since he cries out to God from the cross, and accuses God of forsaking him.
Its a nice idea Mark seeing Jesus as just a flawed human, before the later gospels make him ever more perfect and ever more divine. But it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Mark believed what every other new testament writer believed – Jesus was Lord, the Father was God, and the Lord was God.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You really need to avoid blanket statements like that.
Jesus is clearly referred to as a man who God has chosen, and he makes it clear that’s how he sees himself. Even in Acts, written by one of the two gospel authors who said he was God’s son. Everybody started out thinking of him as a man, and it took a long time for the idea he was God to be fully accepted.
Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, who wrote later, thought of him as a man who became God’s adopted son at the moment of his baptism. His power came from faith, not any special quality he was born with, and his Jesus makes it clear anyone with the same faith can do the same things. If Jesus’ power only comes from faith, he’s a man–the true power is with God, and he is not God. He has no power other than his belief in God. It’s not hard to figure out. Unless you don’t want to.
You understand that ‘The Pharisees’ didn’t all move around in one big herd, right? That there were different groups of them? That when Jesus is said to be engaging them in debate, there might be an entirely different group of people there, each and every time, whose names the gospels writers didn’t know?
The Scribes and Pharisees in the Pericope left. There’s no reason for them to come back. There’s no mention of them coming back. They never did come back. The story ends there. And then gets inserted into the collection of stories in that chapter, long after its author is dead.
The Pharisees referred to in the original version of that chapter are an entirely different group, from an entirely different story–and no longer referred to as ‘The Scribes and Pharisees.’ What happened? Why isn’t it consistent? Because the story was inserted into a place somebody thought it would fit.
As Roger David Aus argues, the Pharisees in the pericope had a few elders among them, who were exceptionally well-versed in scripture–they were the Scribes. Able to both read and understand the import of what he wrote in the dirt. Jesus convinced them with his arguments, shamed them, and they left–followed by the younger men, deferring to their elders. That’s why they file away a few at a time. Because only the Scribes understood the point Jesus had made, recognized its validity, and didn’t feel like explaining it. They just walked away, and it took a few moments for the rest of them to realize it was over.
The scrutiny of the willfully blind is not known for its acuity. None so blind as those who will not see.
godspell said
brenmcg
Mark believed what every other new testament writer believed – Jesus was Lord, the Father was God, and the Lord was God.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You really need to avoid blanket statements like that.
acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
acts 2:39 “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call”
The writer of acts believed that Jesus was Lord and that the Lord was God.
The final line of acts 2 is “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved”. The question is, and its an unanswerable question, who’s being referred to here? is it Jesus or is it God?
All four gospels (Mark is no exception) claimed Jesus to be a man
All four gospels claimed Jesus to be the Messiah
All four gospels claimed Jesus was the Son of God
All four gospels claimed Jesus was Lord (in the sense of of Isaiah 40:3)
There is no progression here.
The Scribes and Pharisees in the Pericope left. There’s no reason for them to come back. There’s no mention of them coming back. They never did come back. The story ends there. And then gets inserted into the collection of stories in that chapter, long after its author is dead.
It takes place in the temple courts. They “leave” one-by-one until Jesus is left alone with the woman. But the temple courts haven’t emptied, Jesus and the woman are “alone” despite being surrounded by people. He tells the woman to leave and sin no more and then begins speaking to the crowd in the temple courts again.
If you think the progression from the PA to John 8:12 is strange, the progression from the previous chapter to 8:12 is irreconcilable.
Robert said
Why not? Can’t he needle, even despise, the very people whose choice he is also by (fictional) custom supposedly bound to respect once a year? Makes perfect sense, actually.
He would also be insulting and mocking Jesus also. This wouldn’t fit with the rest of the story where Pilate is amazed by Jesus, believes him to be innocent and tries to reason with crowd against executing him.
Taken in isolation a line like “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” might be read as mockery but not when taken in context
“What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.
“Crucify him!” they shouted.
“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
Pilate is not switching so swiftly from mockery to supplication.
Even if you were right about some internal conflict in Mark’s text, which you have not demonstrated, you still continue to avoid the very real possibility, most would say likelihood, that it is the later redactor that most often smooths out difficulties in an earlier text. Your view of how Mark’s text is best understood is, by your own admission, incoherent. You’ve disqualified yourself from being able to interpret how Mark’s text is best understood and continue to break the hermeneutical rules you yourself agreed to follow. Why should I take you seriously?
Theological difficulties might be more likely to be smoothed out by later redactors but we’re talking here about internal contradictions. Internal contradictions are more likely to appear in works incorporating the ideas of multiple authors.
My view on how Mark is best understood is not incoherent – I think he’s best understood as making occasional errors when editing Matthew.
I think he didn’t fully understand the implications of having Pilate say “will I release the king of the Jews”. Even if you think Mark wrote first you must agree that Matthew and Luke both saw Mark’s version as requiring correction.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)