A Plausible Reading of Mark, Well-Done with a Side of Ram

[Peter Kirby]

In any case, I am not very interested in bashing heads with you over Hebrews until I have had time to give the whole matter a thorough review. There's no point in lashing at each other when you don't have a clear picture of my view of things, and especially if I don't have a complete picture of the same.

And I am not very keen on lobbing verbal bombs with you over Mark unless you're willing to step outside of your apparent comfort zone of literal readings.

So I can't see this 'conversation' going anywhere in the immediate future, until I've written such a lengthier piece (or a minor miracle occurs, re: Mark).

[Bernard Muller]

Bernard Muller wrote:

According to Hebrews, Jesus suffered outside the gate (crucified)

It says 'suffered' here. Which for you therefore means 'crucified' here, outside the gate. You and your Gospel-colored glasses.

(Hint: 'suffering' by itself means neither crucifixion nor even death. A sacrifice/crucifixion of Jesus in Hebrews need not, therefore, be 'outside the gate'. Unless, of course, perhaps, you do believe that Jesus was immolated outside the gate, which might be more suggestive, but you reject such even though it is present in the context and import your silly assumptions about a crucifixion taking place here outside the gate. But if it's not an immolation here, then there's no reason to read a death here in Hebrews 13 at all; there is no 'crucifixion' here, and a death or crucifixion could take place elsewhere.)

(Yes, I am aware of Hebrews 6:6, thank you. Now read the above again, slowly this time.)

Yes there are Hebrews 6:6 & also Hebrews 12:2 and their reference to the crucifixion. So what sufferance of Jesus would happen outside the gate? 'Hebrews' is full of references to the Sacrifice, paralleling it with the one of animals in the Jewish system. So what else the author had in mind? Obviously you do not think anymore this "sufferance" parallels the killing of the red heifer.
And I did not use Gospel-colored glasses, I use only Hebrews.

Bernard Muller wrote:

But your observations about Simon of Cyrene are very much far fetched.

Didn't Stephan Huller say something about your insight and that of the noble watermelon? Did you forget the point of that? A big lump of lumbering incomprehension would say something like that. Doesn't really mean anything, considering the source. (Yes, I'm sorry. It's impossible for you to get outside of your noggin, so you'll be unable to understand this as anything but an insult. For that you have my sympathies.)

Is it how you defend yourself on this point: personal attack? I got my opinion on you, and Stephan, but I will not go that low.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Can you really believe "Mark" would put so much hidden meanings in one verse?

I'm ready to consider such a plausible explanation and its likelihood. You seem ready to shut your ears and say, "la la la la la la, I can't hear you."

Join the hundreds (including fundies) who use(d) the same methodology than yours: If someone is determined to satisfy his/her agenda, he/she will always find some explanations, even if they are complicated & far-fetched.
And how do you assess the likelihood or odds of you being right (on "outside the gate"" and "Simon of Cyrene"), considering your explanations are very convoluted & loosely evidenced?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

The ideas in these two texts, more than any other I can find in the earliest texts of Christianity (where the authors are not clearly just repeating what the Gospels say), show lots of correspondence with the Gospel narratives in the way that they read the scripture in order to learn about Jesus, not unlike the way that the Gospel of Mark does so.

I have pointed out in other contexts that this still happens amongst Christians today. I have personally heard sermons or Sunday School lessons in which the preacher or teacher asserts that Jesus, as a human being, must not have been very good-looking; the source for this datum turns out to be Isaiah 53.2, which says that the suffering servant has no stately form or majesty that we should be attracted to him. No canonical gospel makes this particular point.

Another example of this is Jesus getting his beard plucked out before his crucifixion. None of the four canonical gospels mentions this detail from Isaiah 50.6, but because Isaiah 50.6 is apparently what is in view in Matthew 26.67 = Mark 14.65a = Luke 22.63; Matthew 27.30 = Mark 15.19, and because this whole section of Isaiah is such a rich mine for messianic prophecies, many modern Christians assume that Jesus had his beard plucked out (when I was younger I actually assumed for a while that it did appear in one of the gospels, having heard it so much in connection with the passion of Christ), since that is one of the details from Isaiah.

J. D. Crossan was my first exposure to the idea that early Christians had fashioned entire events out of scriptural precedent, and my own experience growing up in church confirmed that such a thing was all too likely to have happened.

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

and other precedents, such as pagan ones. The heifer might be relevant to that.

[Giuseppe]

But is just true that:

QUOTE:
Allegorically associating the death of Jesus with fulfillment of the Law and an atonement motif is more at home in a Jewish Christian or proto-orthodox environment.

Maybe the episode of Barabbas and Cyrenaic, if linked under the common theme of atonement motif, include a possible marcionite antithesis (I'm hypothizing the priority of Mcn, Marcion's Gospel).

In order to prove Marcion priority, I ask if it's possible to see behind this episode a typical marcionite antithesis, precisely that that opposes the pure grace of alienus deus to sacrificial system of expiatory death:
exchanging Jesus Christ with Jesus Barabba, made according Leviticus 16, instead of ending as result in a expiation of *truely* right people, ''purifies'' the sin of not only the criminal Barabba, but of people that invoke ''on themselves and on their sons'' (cfr the more explicit Matthew) the 'blood' of victim: clearly the paradox in Mcn is that all this is not a true moral purification, but only apparent and then false, because the people remains blind before, during *and after* this presumed ''purification''. A critic to Jewish system of sacrifices, and of expiatory value of Jesus'death (like described, for example, in Revelation), would be in sight here.

And, if it's true (like I am inclined to think) the simbolism behind the Cyrenaic episode as described by Peter here, then even behind that point there would be impliciter a marcionite antithesis along the same previous lines: the Jewish system of atoning sacrifice, even in its JudeoChristian variant, taken to its extreme, leads to blaming the innocent - even the innocent en passant - without no real redeeming the real culprits (the TRUE Simon Peter which should have bear the cross and follow Jesus, and didn't) - hence the antithesis. In other terms, the hypothetical marcionite critical view presumed behind this episode is against the entire Jewish system of sacrifices, and that critic will converted by our Gospels in a critic, pure and simple, of Jewish people as an entire.

This point is particularly critic and moves me to ask all you a confirmation because the risk is not seeing which interpretation came first, if marcionite or Judeochristian.

I am indecise if using the term Judeo-Christian or Proto-Catholic, but I would refer to first term only if I was a markan priority supporter.

[Peter Kirby]

Thank you, Roger Parvus and Giuseppe, for your comments and ideas. I'm glad to see you pop up in the forum.

[Bernard Muller]

I did suggest in an earlier post in this thread, that the presence of Alexander and Rufus in Mark but not in either Matthew or Luke could be explained by Alexander and Rufus being alive when Mark was written but dead when Matthew and Luke were written.

Yes, or better, that Alexander & Rufus (and their story) were (or had been) known within the Markan community, when it was not the case in the ones of Luke & Matthew.
This explanation would be not only be plausible, realistic & simple (Occam razor), but also avoiding long and far-fetched explanations to the contrary (as in Carrier's OHJ pages 446-450).

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Secret Alias,

were (or had been) known within the Markan community, when it was not the case in the ones of Luke & Matthew.

But that's a 'hindsight is 20/20 argument.' Because this passage is not in Matthew and Luke you say 'therefore' Mark knew them and Luke and Matthew didn't. But Luke and Matthew kept references to people whom neither of them or Mark knew. I've always said Bernard that you can't get out of YOUR HEAD (= your beliefs, prejudices etc) and thus project your need for order on people and things in antiquity.

I see no evidence that Luke or Matthew removed references to people whom they did have a lot of information. Your supposition is just another explanation of the passage. It's hardly authoritative. But you move on like 'problem's solved' but nothing of the kind has been accomplished. You've just found another reason to stop allowing ambiguity to be ambiguity.

I did not present my explanation as the only possible one. I wrote: "This explanation would be not only be plausible, realistic & simple (Occam razor), but also avoiding long and far-fetched explanations to the contrary". So a lot you wrote on your posting does not applied.
And the "problems" are not from me. I don't have a problem with Mk 15:21, except some doubt I might not be right. Earlier, I gave 3 to 1 odds in favor of my position. That Jesus had been earthly human & got crucified in "Zion" is corroborated in the Pauline epistles.

There are all these problems, all these unresolved questions and you see it as your goal to sew them all up and stop letting them be problems and 'solve' them by making assertions.

I think some problems are just being made up to exist because a simple historicist explanation is not acceptable for many on this board, due to beliefs and prejudice. Do I have beliefs about the existence of a (hyper minimalist) historical Jesus? Yes, but based on a thorough and long lasting research. Prejudice? I do not think so, because I am as much an atheist as the others on this board.

What's unique about Alexander & Rufus is that's the only time in the gospels the names of people living one generation after Jesus' times are mentioned. Why would Mark mention them? To play on words (Alexander = Alexander the Great and Rufus = Rufus Musonius or scarlet/red)? Let's be serious.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

Either deal with it, in detail, or hold your peace then, eh? 'Far fetched, far fetched, far fetched'... we've heard you. We still need to know 'why, exactly', if we're going to push the conversation forward.

Looking back at your OP here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1498#p34422, I wonder:
Why would "Mark" attempt to suggest a connection between "Cyrenean" and 'silphion"?
Why would "Mark" attempt to suggest a connection between 'Alexander' and "Alexander the great"?
Why would "Mark" attempt to suggest a connection between 'Rufus" and "scarlet/red"?

Why would his audience be expected to reject the "natural" reading of Mk 15:21? And look for other explanations?

What would be the theological or christological or whatever message for his audience, accepting they would be expected to learn about the secret meaning under Mk 15:21, as recently "discovered"?

be expected to added 30/04/2015 10:27am, MT

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I appreciate any critical and productive comments based on a careful reading. Thank you.

Hi, Peter. I hope I have been reasonably careful in my reading, but I trust you will point out where I have not been.

When I first read Crossan describing various points of his prophecy historicized idea in The Historical Jesus, my first reaction was: Yessss, that makes sense. There were a couple of points I had to withhold judgment on, but overall, I found the case convincing before I was even done reading the chapter (chapter 14, in case anyone is interested). When I later read Meier describing the derivation of the walking on water from various theophanies in the LXX, again, my first reaction was: Yessss, that makes sense.

However, I have to admit, when I first read this proposal of yours concerning Alexander and Rufus, my first reaction was: Nooooo, how could that be?? And I am sorry to say that my reaction has not improved much over time. I hope with this post to begin to quantify that reaction in some way.

I want to go back through some of the verses that you adduce before and after Mark 15.21, in order to give my impression of what the reader has to do to glean the proposed connections from the text.

Let me start with the Barabbas incident, which incidentally is one that I am not completely sold on as a connection to the LXX. But for the sake of argument, here and now, I am happy to stipulate its background in and derivation from Leviticus 16.3-11. Here is how I see the process:

1. Read Mark 15.6-15a about Jesus being condemned and Barabbas being set free.
2. Read Leviticus 16.3-11 in which one goat is sacrificed and the other is released into the desert.
3. Jesus is fulfilling the role of the sacrificed goat, and Barabbas is fulfilling that of the one released.

Now, there is a hidden background step here, one that lurks behind all of the parallels we are looking that, and that step is, simply put: consult the scriptures for the prophecy or type that the events surrounding Jesus are fulfilling. Without that background, not all of the connections will be apparent (though some will still jump out at you). But, as I said, that background step lies behind everything we are doing here, I think, with only occasional and peripheral exceptions, so I will not specify it except in the case of the exceptions.

Here is the flogging:

1. Read Mark 15.15b about Jesus being flogged.
2. Read Isaiah 50.6 about the prophet giving his back to scourges.
3. Jesus is fulfilling the role of the suffering servant.

The connections between the passages are not verbal, at least not in a verbatim sense, but they are conceptual and direct enough, I think.

Here is the spitting:

1. Read Mark 15.19 about Jesus being spit upon.
2. Read Isaiah 50.6 about the prophet being spit upon.
3. Jesus is fulfilling the role of the prophet (deutero-)Isaiah.

Some verbal connections there, as well as conceptual ones.

Here is one I actually think I disagree with you on. You linked the wine mixed with myrrh to Psalm 69.21 LXX, but I prefer Proverbs 31.6:

1. Read Mark 15.23 about Jesus being given wine mixed with myrrh.
2. Read Proverbs 31.6 about giving wine to those suffering pain.
3. The wine with myrrh is fulfilling the role of analgesic wine.

I think the Psalm comes later in the pericope:

1. Read Mark 15.36 about Jesus being given vinegar to drink.
2. Read Psalm 68.22 (69.21 LXX) about the psalmist being given vinegar to drink.
3. Jesus is fulfilling the role of the psalmist.

The connections are both verbal and conceptual this way: wine to wine and vinegar to vinegar. But, be that as it may, let us go back for a second to Mark 15.23 and the myrrhed wine. There may be more going on there, to wit:

1. Read Mark 15.23 about Jesus refusing wine mixed with myrrh.
2. Read Mark 10.38-39; 14.36 about Jesus going through with the pain.
3. Jesus is fulfilling his own mission.

Here the background step is not to consult the LXX, but rather to consult the rest of the gospel. And here, I think, we get some possible layering of meanings. That is, Mark 15.23 links back both to one of the proverbs and to other themes in Mark. However, I think it is very important to note that, though this layering may well be present, each separate layer is identifiable on its own, without the other, and involves a simple 3-step process. (The exact number of steps is not important; what matters is that the same kind of linking is going on.) One can meaningfully get the connection to Proverbs without noticing the connection with the cup that Jesus is to drink, and vice versa.

I will not go through every single connection here; suffice it to say that, if you know of some (both that are generally considered pretty secure and) that do not follow this fairly simple identification pattern, then I would definitely be interested in seeing them.

I want to point out something else that I deem to be pretty important here. And that is that the author clearly does not mean the parallels to be exhaustive. For example, when he echoes Psalm 68.22 (69.21 LXX), mentions the vinegar to drink, but he does not mention the gall to eat. That parallel is certainly available, and Matthew 27.34 makes use of it, but Mark does not. Likewise, Mark uses the spitting and scourging of Isaiah 50.6, but he does not mention the buffeting of cheeks. This trend can be seen across broader passages, as well: though Psalm 22 gets some serious airtime in Mark 15, there are many parts that go unplumbed.

With all of that in mind, I approach your suggestion on Simon Cyrenian:

1. Read Mark 15.21 about Simon Cyrenian.
2. Read Leviticus 19.6 about the hyssop.
3. Compare the Cyrenian coin in your pocket with the silphium stalk on its reverse. [Or think Cyrenian --> Cyrene --> silphium.]
4. Silphium is a plant; so is hyssop.
5. Cyrene is fulfilling the role of the hyssop.

I am not committed to that order of steps; indeed, the order is pretty hard to get right. Rather, it is the number of steps that matters. I tried to write that without step #4, but I felt I could not take it out in good conscience. True, I took flogging in Mark 15.15b to equal scourges in Isaiah 50.6 without a separate step, but the two are essentially synonyms. Silphium and hyssop simply are not. Even with only the 4 steps it appears to me that we are playing a different kind of game here; with 5 even more so.

Furthermore, I think that fourth step is really one that occurs behind the scenes. We already have in mind (behind the scenes) to search the scriptures; that is common to nearly all of the connections we are playing with. But here I think we have to smuggle in another one, and that is the notion of being exhaustive in some way. Without knowing in advance either (A) that we should be looking for hyssop or (B) that Cyrene should mean something here related to passages already explored, where does one even begin (I think you began with some variant of either A or B, in a bid to solve the apparent mystery of Simon and his sons)? With the other parallels, the general background notion of searching the scriptures takes care of all that: whatever you are reading about, turn back to the Old Testament and see if that concept or word appears in a hopefully messianic context. Here, though, that rule would fail you. Neither Cyrene nor even silphium (or any reasonable synonym for silphium) appear in any hopeful spots in the Old Testament; one has to make a leap that seems to me to be uncharacteristic of the rest of the parallels.

John 19.29 brings the hyssop into play in much the same way as the other parallels, I think. It is just a matter of reading hyssop and then looking for hyssop in the scriptures. Surely Mark could have done something like this.

If you think me obtuse and unable to cope with symbols, so be it, though I cope with the ones listed further up without difficulty. It just appears to me that this instance of the game is of a different order than the rest. And I think Alexander is in the same boat.

What do you think? Do you see any differences that make a difference here like I seem to? Or is it all pretty much the same thing to your mind? Are there other examples to bring to bear on the process, examples closer in look and feel, as it were, to the silphium and the hyssop than the ones that I adduced?

Ben.