The Naked Man in the Gospel of Mark (grace, hell, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Joseph escaping from Potiphar's wife. It was a cute way of linking Joseph to Christ. By saying that even Joseph had been following Christ back in the day. The Roman guards who try to stop would have caused him to commit spiritual adultery (against God) if they had been able to stop him from following Christ.
I doubt this idea unless it was a zinger added by a redactor. From the copies we have, the original author of Mark does not appear to be a "highly" educated man, although ability to write itself would have made him more educated than 95% of the people. His Greek is not nearly as advanced as some of the other NT writers, and his sentences are shorter, crisper, and more journalistic in style. He wasn't a "researcher" with a purpose in mind. I think the writer was simply a compiler of oral stories who organized them into a chronological sequence.
Since that one story appears separately from the others, it was either a "oh, by the way" story the writer had been given, or it was added by some copyist for the purposes you suggest. But I think the former more likely than the latter. The other synoptic gospels were definitely attempts to show parallels to OT writings, and John was a flat out refutation of growing Gnosticism that saw Jesus as God only in "spirit," not as a man.
Interestingly, while I believe Jesus to have been a physical manifestation of God, I view scripture itself as "spiritual," not historic or scientific, making me sort of a gnostic with regard to scripture!
I always found humor in the young Joseph story. His father gave him a decorative OUTER coat (very visible at all times), and then he gave a bad report on his brothers (all older and stronger). Then he tells about a dream where his brothers will all worship him. Just an accident waiting to happen. The brothers took the coat and covered it in blood in order to lie to their father.
Just before he gets to his 2nd low point (in Egyptian prison) even his ordinary garment is taken from him, leaving him naked, but he is not ashamed (as Adam and Eve were).
Despite the popular trend of many later exegetes, one can not always find shining exemplars of moral characters in the Patriarchal Narratives. Joseph was, quite frankly, an arrogant little ****! And the writers makes no bones of hiding this fact, just as previous writers made no bones about hiding the fact that his grandfather basically pimped out his wife Sarai to the Pharaoh to get a bunch of good stuff!
There is something interesting in what you pointed out, as well. In the Patriarchal Narratives, they are marked by a string of deceptions and the consequences of those deceptions. One funny example is when Jacob steals his elder brother's birth right and then must flee for his life, at which point he works for his uncle Laban for seven years to marry Rachel - the younger daughter. Of course, when he wakes up it's Leah, the older.
He said to Lavan:
What is this that you have done to me!
Was it not for Rahel that I served you?
Why have you deceived me?
Lavan said:
Such is not done in our place, giving away the younger before the firstborn....
(Genesis 29:25-26, SB Fox)
OO BURN! Whether Laban was aware of Jacob's deception of both Esau and his father Isaac, Jacob got his just desserts when Laban pointed out the priority of the firstborn.
Speaking of the theft of the birthright and Jacob's bold-faced lies to his father, he used clothing to deceive his father into thinking he was Esau. Later, he is deceived into thinking Joseph is dead by the use of a garment!
These sorts of trickster-gets-tricked is found in an interesting progression in the Patriarchal Narratives. They have always struck me as vastly entertaining, and perhaps the Joseph example is continuing this line of clothing-motifs?
Good posts. I now have looked up Acts 12. 12 with the escaped Peter going to (Jerisalem) Mary's house in Jerusalem where he was known. John Mark was her son and he was selected by Barnabas to accompany him with Paul on their mission.
Whether John Mark is the same mark of the gospel and whether Mark was really the name of the writer is open to doubt. As much as the reliability of Acts, written by Luke whose history and veracity are sometimes questionable.
However, one could still argue that the writer of Mark wrote in a particular detail that nobody knew but him - about following the arresting party and almost being caught, were it not that I am convinced that none of Jesus' disciples or any of his Jewish followers wrote any of the gospels - not even the synoptic original. Because the Jesus and his doings in the Gospels is a Pauline -Christian invention written by Greek Christians.
That at least is my pet theory and I am sticking to it like it was a velcro tracksuit.
I am not really convinced yet by OT correspondences. That was not Mark's style. And it is a very real -sounding (as distinct from Matthew's opening graves and perching angel) inexplicable event. I'm still at a loss to know why he put it in.
A literary device that went nowhere? A stalking fan? A lover? The ancient equivalent of a photo bomber?
I always took it as illustrative of the panic, timidity, and fear amongst Jesus' followers, how everything unraveled when he was arrested and condemned. I assumed that's why the vignette is in there. But who knows, really.
I always took it as illustrative of the panic, timidity, and fear amongst Jesus' followers, how everything unraveled when he was arrested and condemned. I assumed that's why the vignette is in there. But who knows, really.
I take that as well, but with some more nuances of why this was so (the followers of Jesus misunderstood what the Kingdom and their roles would be). Did you read my post earlier on this? I think I make a fairly good argument. Though no comments on it so far, I would like to hear what some think.
I take that as well, but with some more nuances of why this was so (the followers of Jesus misunderstood what the Kingdom and their roles would be). Did you read my post earlier on this? I think I make a fairly good argument. Though no comments on it so far, I would like to hear what some think.
I think you have a point. Jesus specifically promised that anything they had given up in this life would be restored and then some -- in this life -- nevermind the afterlife. Jesus getting arrested and roughed up and condemned by the authorities would have given the lie to that. It would have been very disillusioning. Especially since Jesus seemed content to allow followers to think he was going to usher in a literal earthly kingdom. Sure, he countered that thinking, supposedly, but if he'd been effective and clear in doing so, there would be no panic or falling away. And regardless of what he meant by "kingdom of god", he shouldn't have promised compensations for sacrifices rendered that he could not deliver on.
I think you have a point. Jesus specifically promised that anything they had given up in this life would be restored and then some -- in this life -- nevermind the afterlife. Jesus getting arrested and roughed up and condemned by the authorities would have given the lie to that. It would have been very disillusioning. Especially since Jesus seemed content to allow followers to think he was going to usher in a literal earthly kingdom. Sure, he countered that thinking, supposedly, but if he'd been effective and clear in doing so, there would be no panic or falling away. And regardless of what he meant by "kingdom of god", he shouldn't have promised compensations for sacrifices rendered that he could not deliver on.
It's good to see some confirmation!
I definitely agree that Jesus was more than a little cryptic in how he dealt with questions. It appears it may have been the Gospel writer's purpose to let US - the readers - in on the messianic secret, just so we could revel with laughter at the ineptitude of the apostles!
Very interesting thread, and I am enjoying reading and rereading the inputs.
Look, I think we all agree that the Gospels are not "history" as we know it today. They were written for various reasons by various people as many came to understand that the 2nd Coming was way overdue and it was time to record what folks remembered as said by Jesus.
Too bad the chronicles or interviews or whatever you want to call them of Papius are no longer available. That would have been some insight!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though no comments on it so far, I would like to hear what some think.
