My recreation of the opening of the First Gospel

[rgprice]

Yes, interesting indeed. Its interesting that so many traditions ascribe this to "John Zebedee". As I'm sure you've seen in my posts, I'm quite confident that the "Gospel of John" was originally titled such because it was about the "testimony of John the Baptist", not "John Zebedee". But I think the idea that it needed to be from a disciple ended up changing the attribution.

I think in the original Gospel, John basically foretells the coming of Jesus and is then banished. This itself likely symbolizes the writer's perspective that the Jewish prophets foretell the coming of Jesus, but are themselves then banished.

But the writer of the original Gospel of John, disregarding the Jewishness of John, wants to use John as his witness to the coming of Jesus because he wants to show that Jesus was shown to be the Son of God by means other than the Jewish prophets, i.e. other than scriptural predictions. So he wants a real live prophet instead of prophets from the scriptures.

[MrMacSon]

I get the impression that there was an early tradition of a John - probably [mostly] John, son of Zebedee - telling of a revelation from/by a Saviour/Christ/Jesus and of this eventually being usurped by [perhaps new] narratives about this Saviour-Christ or a Saviour-Jesus* +/- the Christ descending onto and into that Jesus

* Y'shua/Yehoshua - Iesous (in Greek) - essentially means 'Yehweh saves' (so 'Saviour-Jesus' is a tautology, but used here to emphasise a [changing] pattern)

---

nb. the subsequent highlight-edit-addition in my previous post [in this thread, bottom of p.4):

[the] Nag Hammadi Codex III [manuscript of the Apocryphon of John] goes into greater detail about the descent of the Christ/Savior figure into the prison-world of [the] Demiurge and his role in facilitating the reawakening and liberation of mankind.

eta:
I wouldn't be surprised if the canonical NT texts post-date some of the 'Secret Book/Apocryphon of John' narratives

[Ken Olson]

The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are clearly late and reactionary additions to earlier narratives that gave no account of a birth of Jesus. They are specifically anti-docetic inventions. The case that the birth accounts are late anti-docetic inventions is very strong. So much has been done on this in the past 10 years in relation to scholarship about Marcion's scriptures.

What work has been done on the birth stories (or other stories) in Matthew and Luke being anti-docetic inventions in relation to Marcion?

Could you cite the works that have made this case? I would be very interested to see the arguments.

Thanks,

Ken

[rgprice]

The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are clearly late and reactionary additions to earlier narratives that gave no account of a birth of Jesus. They are specifically anti-docetic inventions. The case that the birth accounts are late anti-docetic inventions is very strong. So much has been done on this in the past 10 years in relation to scholarship about Marcion's scriptures.

What work has been done on the birth stories (or other stories) in Matthew and Luke being anti-docetic inventions in relation to Marcion?

Could you cite the works that have made this case? I would be very interested to see the arguments.

Thanks,

Ken

For example: Tyson: Marcion and Luke-Acts.

[rgprice]

I get the impression that there was an early tradition of a John - probably [mostly] John, son of Zebedee - telling of a revelation from/by a Saviour/Christ/Jesus and of this eventually being usurped by [perhaps new] narratives about this Saviour-Christ or a Saviour-Jesus* +/- the Christ descending onto and into that Jesus

I don't think so. First of all, I don't think there was any narrative about Jesus at all until the "Gospel of Mark" or proto-Mark. The writer of that narrative invented it all. Prior to that the closest thing to a narrative about stuff like the Christ Hymn.

Secondly, "James and John Zebedee" in Mark are clearly supposed to represent the pillars of the Pauline letters, along with Peter. The writer of Mark is against these figures, and casts them as failures and examples of people who fail to understand who Jesus really is.

Thirdly, it is John the Baptist who witnesses Jesus becoming the Christ. It is John who sees the heavens open and the spirit descend. And again, in the original layer of the Gospel of John, John "Zebedee" doesn't even exist. He isn't even in the whole story, while John the Baptist (who isn't really called John the Baptist, but just John) has a starring role and is the one who provides the whole introduction about the Light coming into the world. We're told that he is the one is is a witness to the Word becoming Flesh so that through his testimony everyone else may believe that Jesus is the Christ. Obviously John the Baptist was the original important John, who was just later usurped by "John Zebedee" out of concerns for "apostolic succession".

[Ken Olson]

The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are clearly late and reactionary additions to earlier narratives that gave no account of a birth of Jesus. They are specifically anti-docetic inventions. The case that the birth accounts are late anti-docetic inventions is very strong. So much has been done on this in the past 10 years in relation to scholarship about Marcion's scriptures.

What work has been done on the birth stories (or other stories) in Matthew and Luke being anti-docetic inventions in relation to Marcion?

Could you cite the works that have made this case? I would be very interested to see the arguments.

Thanks,

Ken

For example: Tyson: Marcion and Luke-Acts.

I have a PDF of Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006). He discusses the Lukan infancy narrative in the section pp. 90-100, which contains sub-sections on Disjunctions of narrative and character (pp. 92-97) and Differences in linguistic style and ideology (pp. 97-98), and the infancy narratives and Marcion (pp. 98-100). In the conclusion of the section, he writes:

These considerations make it highly probable, in my judgment, that the Lukan
birth narratives were added in reaction to the challenges o( Marcionite Christianity.
It would be very difficult to explain why Marcion would choose a gospel with these,
to him, highly offensive chapters at the beginning only to eliminate them. Further,
it would be difficult to imagine a more directly anti-Marcionite narrative than what
we have in Luke 1:5-2:52 [Tyson, Marcion, 100].

As far as I can see, mention of the Matthean infancy narrative appears only in a quotation from Joseph Fitzmyer's commentary on Luke on p. 97, and Tyson never mentions docetism or anti-docetism at all.

Did I miss the discussion of anti-docetism and of the Matthean infancy narrative in Tyson, or Is connecting the Lukan infancy narrative (and the Matthean) to anti-docetism your own contribution? Is there published scholarship that has argued for this?

Best,

Ken

[MrMacSon]

I get the impression that there was an early tradition of a John - probably [mostly] John, son of Zebedee - telling of a revelation from/by a Saviour/Christ/Jesus and of this eventually being usurped by [perhaps new] narratives about this Saviour-Christ or a Saviour-Jesus* +/- the Christ descending onto and into that Jesus

I don't think so. First of all, I don't think there was any narrative about Jesus at all until the "Gospel of Mark" or proto-Mark.

I was thinking of the Secret Book/Apocryphon of John (or the like).* About an account of a mere revelation [from a celestial 'Jesus'].

As per,

it is John the Baptist who witnesses Jesus becoming the Christ. It is John who sees the heavens open and the spirit descend.

The Zebedee thing is a sideshow.

* maybe even an early version of a Johannine epistle. Or what became the canonical Book of Revelation.

[rgprice]

Getting back to the OP. Once we accept that it was John who was driven into the wilderness and "delivered to Satan", we can then see that in this story both John and Jesus are "delivered to Satan". The story opens with the delivering of John to Satan and closes with the with delivery of Jesus to Satan.

Here I discuss the ransom theory of Jesus's sacrifice: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11623

Notice that this is stated in the Gospel of Mark:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

So the opening tells us:

Mark 1:
12 Immediately the Spirit impelled him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days being tested by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him.

14 Now after John had been handed over (παραδοθῆναι), Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good news.”

Clearly in the original, it was John who was driven into the wilderness and "tested by Satan". v14 tells us that "after John had been handed over" or "delivered up", then Jesus...

It only make sense that v14 is referring to what just happened in v12-13. The way this is traditionally read, v14 comes out of nowhere and is unexplained until Mark 6. This is accepted because Mark is read after Matthew, but this makes no sense on Markan priority, where anyone reading this would have been greatly puzzled.

John had been handed over to Satan, not to some unmentioned Herodian authorities.

And in typical Markan fashion, the story concludes with another handing over to Satan, the handing over of Jesus to Satan to "give His life as a ransom for many."

Mark 3 tells us:

23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.

This appears, to me, to be referring to the idea of Jesus rescuing the souls of those who had been captured by Satan. That Jesus would enter the underworld where he would perform the rescue. So, it appears to be saying that the exorcisms of Jesus are a part of the binding of Satan in preparation for the plundering of his domain, which presumably he will perform upon his death.

And now we come back to the Parable of the Sower.

13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. 17 But they have no root and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the age and the lure of wealth and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. 20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.”

John the Baptist is the one on the path who is immediately dealt with by Satan. Peter is of course the one on rocky ground, who falls away during times of trouble. Jesus directly calls Peter Satan in Mark 8. I couldn't figure out the connection to the thorns, but I think I've got it now. This is James and John Zebedee, who want Jesus to fulfill their "desires". They are also the "thorn in Paul's side", given to him by Satan.

2 Corinthians 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Much of the Corinthian letters deal with Paul's complaints about not being treated with teh respect of other apostles, whom he disagrees with. For example:

1 Cor 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

So James was a thorn in Paul's side, as was Peter/Cephas for that matter.

In the Gospel of Mark, first John the Baptist is handed over to Satan. Then Jesus calls Peter Satan. James and John are portrayed negatively, as power hungry and unliked by the other disciples. They are equated to the thorn in Paul's side - messengers of Satan.


And again this all comes from the Pauline letters, which tell us hat:

13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

The writer of Mark is accusing Peter, James and John of being false apostles, agents of Satan - who "disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."

But it is Paul who is ultimately the true apostle of Jesus, who is the only one that sees Jesus after his death (contrary to the interpolation in 1 Cor 15).

Key to understanding all of this is getting the opening right and understanding that it is John who is "handed over" to Satan in the beginning, not Jesus.

[Peter Kirby]

It only make sense that v14 is referring to what just happened in v12-13. The way this is traditionally read, v14 comes out of nowhere and is unexplained until Mark 6. This is accepted because Mark is read after Matthew, but this makes no sense on Markan priority, where anyone reading this would have been greatly puzzled.

Ben C. Smith offered this as one of a few examples where, he suggests, the text assumes prior awareness of story elements.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3818

[rgprice]

It only make sense that v14 is referring to what just happened in v12-13. The way this is traditionally read, v14 comes out of nowhere and is unexplained until Mark 6. This is accepted because Mark is read after Matthew, but this makes no sense on Markan priority, where anyone reading this would have been greatly puzzled.

Ben C. Smith offered this as one of a few examples where, he suggests, the text assumes prior awareness of story elements.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3818

And I offer this as one of the few examples where Ben be wrong

It is my contention that the canonical Gospel of Mark has been revised, multiple times. It was revised first when it was copied from its source. Then it was revised again when it was made a part of the Four Gospel collection.

The "title" of the Gospel: Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ", was created by the first revisor. When this person copied only the first part of the story from his source, he identified it with this descriptor. The writer of the story wants the identity of Jesus to be a mystery and would not tell the reader in the first line that Jesus is the Christ. The revisor says that this is "the beginning" because he literally just copied out the first HALF of the story, the other half being about the revelation of Jesus to Paul and Paul's ministry.

Then we have Mark 1:9: "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan." This is at least modified by the second revisor, who was conforming the story to Matthew by saying that Jesus came "from Nazareth in Galilee". Nothing else in the Gospel of Mark treats Jesus as having come from Nazareth. He is referred to as a Nazarene, which must have meant something like Holy One or one with a Secret Identity. If anything, according to Mark Jesus was from Capernaum.

So right here we already have evidence of two instances of modification in Mark 1.

As I've said previously in this thread, a key phrase linking v8 and v9 is "it came to pass"

YLT

7 and he proclaimed, saying, `He doth come -- who is mightier than I -- after me, of whom I am not worthy -- having stooped down -- to loose the latchet of his sandals;

8 I indeed did baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'

9 And it came to pass in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John at the Jordan;

Verse 9a tells us that what John had just said "came to pass", but what John had just said was that the one who would come would be the one doing the baptizing. John did not say that he was going to baptize the one mightier than him.

What would have "come to pass" would have been Jesus baptizing John with the Holy Spirit.

10 and immediately coming up from the water, he saw the heavens dividing, and the Spirit as a dove coming down to him;

11 and a voice came out of the heavens, `Thou art My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'

12 And immediately doth the Spirit put him forth to the wilderness,

13 and he was there in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan, and he was with the beasts, and the messengers were ministering to him.

14 And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,

It is my contention that here the text originally said, "`This is My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'", like what is said in Mark 9.

So the original would have said:

7 and he proclaimed, saying, `He doth come -- who is mightier than I -- after me, of whom I am not worthy -- having stooped down -- to loose the latchet of his sandals;
8 I indeed did baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'
9 And it came to pass in those days, Jesus came and baptized John at the Jordan;
10 and immediately coming up from the water, he saw the heavens dividing, and the Spirit as a dove coming down to him;
11 and a voice came out of the heavens, `This is My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'
12 And immediately doth the Spirit put him forth to the wilderness,
13 and he was there in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan, and he was with the beasts, and the messengers were ministering to him.
14 And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,

So with just those two changes, the whole story changes, but now v8 correctly flows into v9, with v9 saying that what John had just said had "come to pass", and v14 correctly follows v12-13, explaining that John had just been "delivered up" to Satan. And now there is no assumption of 'prior knowledge".

If we look at the other cases provided by Ben:
2. Simon Peter: Knowledge of Peter comes from the Pauline letters.
3. The son of man: Its my contention that this "son of man" is meant to be a reference to Ezekiel, who is sent by God to prophecy against the Israelites and foretells their destruction. And this figure is indeed also conflated with the figure "like a son of man" from Daniel. So the reader is to know who the Son of Man is from the Jewish scriptures.
4. The disciples of John. Meh
5. The betrayal by Judas. A later revision. The writer of the original wanted mysteries to be revelated later, he didn't ruin them. Similar types of editorial comments are made in the Gospel of John as well. The comment about Mary in John is also a product of a later editor, as is the comment that John the Baptist was not yet arrested at John 3:24.
6. Pilate. Meh. Also, what if Mark originally opened like Luke:

3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

7. Alexander and Rufus. Meh.
8. The second Mary. I'm suspicious about the whole ending of Mark 15. It an awfully lot of name dropping. But difficult to draw many conclusions about.

But to add to all of this, I think also that the original Gospel was intended for initiates into a mystery cult, which is why the story contains so many secret codes and enigmas. So many of these answers and references likely came from the teachings of the mystery cult.

Likewise, we are introduced to John the Baptist with a references to 2 Kings 1:8 telling us that JtB is Elijah. Clearly the casual reader wouldn't figure this out either, nor would the casual reader figure out the dozens of other hidden scriptural references in Mark.

So I think that Ben's point #1 is not like these other cases. Secondly I think that Mark was revised and later revisors made some of these changes that disrupt the original flow of the story, like giving away the identity of Judas right at the beginning, and even Mark 1:1, giving away the identity of Jesus himself.