What do we know about Galilee circa 30 C.E.?

[Hope]

If we are to believe Mark. Jesus kept the whole thing secret until just before his death. If we believe John, he proclaimed it at every opportunity. Somebody is telling porkies.

If I remember correctly, Mark tells us that he told the disciples 'at evrery opportunity', as you say, but also told them to keep it quiet until the time was right to spread the news.  As such, both records can be correct.

That's exactly what I am saying because we cannot be traced back to Jesus.

Not aware that anyone is claiming that we can be traced back to jesus.  What I said is that the whole idea of Jesus' divinity pre-dates Paul's arrival on the scene; this suggests that claims that it was he that instigated them are pretty far from the truth.

No, they would disagree with you. If somebody found a document today purporting to describe the real fate of Lord Lucan, do you think the cold case investigators would just believe it? No, they would try to determine its provenance and if they couldn't they would have to discard it as evidence.

But if its provenance was proved and showed that it was legit., they would at least study it with great care.  What some here seem to argue is that because we, in the 20th/21st centuries, don't have written evidence to support the understanding that it was Jesus who claimed that he was divine - not some other person who might have been writing 20 years later, or someone who never met Jesus in the flesh - we have to treat everything has nonsense: despite the fact that they are quite happy to accept other historical details based on no more less evidence than there is for Jesus.

[Dicky Underpants]

Mark reports what Peter, John and James told him.   Jesus claimed the holy Name when getting into their boat after calming the wind (Mark 6:50).

That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"
I don't doubt that Mark and the other synoptics ended up believing that Jesus was 'The Son of God' (whatever that means). That's a bit of a distance from claiming identity with God all the time which is reported in John's gospel. How, if he believed he was God incarnate, could he simultaneously admonish his disciples to keep stumm on the matter, when he was simultaneously proclaiming his own divinity from the rooftops? The scenario is bonkers.

[Hope]

That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"
I don't doubt that Mark and the other synoptics ended up believing that Jesus was 'The Son of God' (whatever that means). That's a bit of a distance from claiming identity with God all the time which is reported in John's gospel. How, if he believed he was God incarnate, could he simultaneously admonish his disciples to keep stumm on the matter, when he was simultaneously proclaiming his own divinity from the rooftops? The scenario is bonkers.

Probably in the same way that subversive folk of all sorts will often teach their disciples/followers about their subversive ideas, but make sure that they don't start shouting them aloud until such time as they - the leader - has been arrested or killed.  Its one simpole way of making sure that the ideas are spread once the leader is no longer in circulation.

[Rosindubh]

That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"

Hi Dicky,

Check the original Greek of Mark 6:50.   It reads "ego eimi" which literally translates "I AM" (not It is I).   Check any study bible or the Greek text.   They all confirm that.

'Ego eimi' is a literal translation of the Hebrew 'ehyeh' which is the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b.  So, Mark reports that Jesus claimed the holy Name in verse 6:50 (same as 4th. Gospel).

Further, Matthew also indicates that this was a divine claim when he says the apostles "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat - see Mt 14:33.

I hope you find this interesting.
God bless

[Hope]

That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"

Which is, in itself, quite an extrapolation (in understanding) from the Greek for the term.

[jeremyp]

Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post.   

Mark reports what Peter, John and James told him. 

That's just wishful thinking. There's no evidence that the author of Mark knew Peter, John or James. In fact, what evidence there is would point to the idea that Mark never met any of them.

Jesus claimed the holy Name when getting into their boat after calming the wind (Mark 6:50).

Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.

The authors of Mark and 4th gospels report just what their witnesses told them.

Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.

Here is a good starting point for the Messianic Secret in Mark.

[Spud]

That's just wishful thinking. There's no evidence that the author of Mark knew Peter, John or James. In fact, what evidence there is would point to the idea that Mark never met any of them.

Can you expand on that, Jeremy, maybe a few examples?

Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.

An interesting detail is that instead of climbing on board and helping to row, Jesus was about to walk past the boat.

Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.

Here is a good starting point for the Messianic Secret in Mark.

I think Jesus was at that point waiting for the disciples to understand his identity and mission. In this passage he seems to be showing them his glory by walking on water. In Exodus 33-34, in the context of a discussion between Moses and God in which Moses is worried about leading Israel to the promised land, God caused his glory to pass in front of Moses. God was also feeding Israel in the desert with manna. It seems Jesus fed the five thousand and was going to pass by the boat so that they would see his glory and understand that  he had come to lead them to a new promised land - God's 'rest' (cf Ex. 33:14)

[Hope]

That's just wishful thinking. There's no evidence that the author of Mark knew Peter, John or James. In fact, what evidence there is would point to the idea that Mark never met any of them.

Ironically, Mark has long been regarded as the Gospel of Peter, jeremy.  From very early days, it was understood that Mark acted as Peter's 'scribe', implyingnthat Mark had met at least Peter, and if Peter, why not James and John?

Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.
Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.

Was this merely in the context of the disciples seeing Jesus walking on water?  Wasn't it equally in the context of the conditions they found themselves in - the Sea of Galilee is notorious for sudden changes in conditions?  More importantly, the use of 'ego eimi' by Jesus would have had a specific meaning for Jews; it is the Greek version of the Old Testament 'I AM that I AM' that God instructed Moses to use when returning to the people of Israel prior to the Exodus.  It is interesting that whilst many seem to assume that John introduces the use of the 'I am' phrase in his gospel dated sometime around the turn of the first and second centuries, Mark uses it in Mark 6 - some 40-odd years earlier.

Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.

And what makes you think this?  After all, both sources use the term 'ego eimi'.

[Rosindubh]

Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.

Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post. 

But we cannot deny that the Greek text reads "ego eimi" which is an emphasised "I AM" without a predicate.   The text does not read 'ego esti'' (it is I).

The English translation "it is I" would answer a question which the apostles do not ask.   They do not ask,'is that you Jesus?'   The text contains no question from the apostles, but if one is implied, then it would be the terrified one of 'is that a daemon coming to kill us?'

To which Jesus replies, "take courage, I am God (not a daemon), do not be afraid".   Matthew says they "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat (Mt 14:33).

God bless

[Anchorman]

Hi Dicky,

Check the original Greek of Mark 6:50.   It reads "ego eimi" which literally translates "I AM" (not It is I).   Check any study bible or the Greek text.   They all confirm that.

'Ego eimi' is a literal translation of the Hebrew 'ehyeh' which is the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b.  So, Mark reports that Jesus claimed the holy Name in verse 6:50 (same as 4th. Gospel).

Further, Matthew also indicates that this was a divine claim when he says the apostles "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat - see Mt 14:33.

I hope you find this interesting.
God bless

I agree here. 'ego eimi' is a wee bit difficult to articulate in modern English, but 'Iam' or 'I will be' come about as close as you're going to get without getting your tongue tied in knots.

[jeremyp]

Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post. 

But we cannot deny that the Greek text reads "ego eimi" which is an emphasised "I AM" without a predicate.   The text does not read 'ego esti'' (it is I).

The English translation "it is I" would answer a question which the apostles do not ask.   They do not ask,'is that you Jesus?'   The text contains no question from the apostles, but if one is implied, then it would be the terrified one of 'is that a daemon coming to kill us?'

To which Jesus replies, "take courage, I am God (not a daemon), do not be afraid".   Matthew says they "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat (Mt 14:33).

God bless

You're just making loads of stuff up to suit your narrative. Why not read what the text says instead of what you want it to sy?

[Rosindubh]

You're just making loads of stuff up to suit your narrative. Why not read what the text says instead of what you want it to sy?

Hi jeremy,
The Greek text says 'ego eimi', an emphatic 'I AM'.   The Greek text does not say 'ego esti' (it is I).   Check any Greek manuscript or any study bible.   They will confirm this.   Facts are Facts.

The Greek 'ego eimi' renders the Hebrew 'ehyeh', the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b.   Matthews says that the apostles 'worshiped' Jesus after he climed into their boat (Mt 14:33).

The English translation 'it is I' an extrapolation, not a direct translation.   It is a made up answer to a question which is not in the text. 

God bless

[jeremyp]

Hi jeremy,
The Greek text says 'ego eimi', an emphatic 'I AM'.   The Greek text does not say 'ego esti' (it is I). 

So? It's not the most unambiguous declaration of being God, is it? In fact it is not one.

Check any Greek manuscript or any study bible.   They will confirm this.   Facts are Facts.

The Greek 'ego eimi' renders the Hebrew 'ehyeh', the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b.   Matthews says that the apostles 'worshiped' Jesus after he climed into their boat (Mt 14:33).

The English translation 'it is I' an extrapolation, not a direct translation.   It is a made up answer to a question which is not in the text. 

God bless

What about all the crap you made up about daemons? You have no idea about any of that, All you have is Jesus telling the disciples, it's him walking across the lake.

[2Corrie]

So? It's not the most unambiguous declaration of being God, is it? In fact it is not one.

The direct reference to, in fact the very same words, as Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint, there is not a smidgen of ambiguity about it.

[SweetPea]

Exactly, 2Corrie.

.... and

Rosindubh

The name 'Ehyeh' sometimes known as 'Ahayah' and also 'Ahayah Ashar Ahayah' is surely the nearest name for God as it translates to I AM, and I AM that I AM..

[Rosindubh]

What about all the crap you made up about daemons? You have no idea about any of that, All you have is Jesus telling the disciples, it's him walking across the lake.

Hi jeremyp,
Calling something 'crap' is not a rational argument.

Mark 6:49 uses the Greek word phantasma'.   Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines this as 'apparition or spectre', the later being unpleasant or menacing.   

Mark 6:50 reports the apostles agitated and screaming, fearful of something unpleasant or menacing.  A spectre, evil spirit, not something helpful.

The text contains no question to which "it is I" would be an answer, especially to something walking on water.    Only God can protect them from that.

God bless

[Anchorman]

We lose much in the translation of Koine into English. Sometimes, in an effort to make the sentence scan in our time, a sense of the original Koine is sacrificed. We don't see the scandalous "I am" in Mark for what it is. Some of those who heard Him woulld have been at least semi literate; many more well versed in the Torah, and Jesus' scandalous words would not have been lost on them. This was a very provocative statement - and compiled with his actions shortly before (feeding the 5ooo compared with Moses) and walking on the water (again compared with Moses) must have stirred many people into asking questions. No wonder, then, when, later, Christ calmed the storm - and the disciples were terrified? Why were they terrified -AFTER - and not before? Because they knew of One, and One only, according to the Scriptures, who had power over the elements. By both His word and His actions, Jesus was making a startling claim to His identity.

[Hope]

So? It's not the most unambiguous declaration of being God, is it? In fact it is not one.

For a Jewish listener, it would have been far from ambiguous, jeremy. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,

Check the original Greek of Mark 6:50.   It reads "ego eimi" which literally translates "I AM" (not It is I).   Check any study bible or the Greek text.   They all confirm that.

'Ego eimi' is a literal translation of the Hebrew 'ehyeh' which is the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b.  So, Mark reports that Jesus claimed the holy Name in verse 6:50 (same as 4th. Gospel).

Further, Matthew also indicates that this was a divine claim when he says the apostles "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat - see Mt 14:33.

I hope you find this interesting.
God bless

Hi Rosinbudh

I do indeed find this interesting, but I also find your argument inconclusive. I checked with my interlinear Greek Testament, to see the context, and you are of course right about the wording. However, as much ambiguity exists about the use of the phrase 'ego eimi' as there does about the use of that other notorious phrase 'The Son of Man' (the latter, according to Geza Vermes can simply be a means of referring to oneself obliquely, as one might say 'yours truly' - or be a direct reference to the Son of Man figure in Daniel).
According to a Catholic source (admittedly, trying to argue for the divine reference of 'ego eimi') does also admit that the phrase can have an everyday usage, just as 'The Son of Man' has:

"'Now, if you know anything about the Old Testament, you know that “I Am” is the divine name (see Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 41:4, 43:10-11). However, ego eimi can also be used in a way to identify oneself, which is the reason why the modern translations render it “It is I.” For example, in Luke 24:39, after the Resurrection, the disciples do not recognize Jesus, so he says, “It is myself” (Greek, ego eimi autos)—that is to say, “Hey guys, it’s me.”'

catholicexchange.com/the-divinity-of-jesus-according-to-mark

The Catholic author, you note, cites a usage of the phrase in Luke which has almost certainly an everyday significance - unless of course you want to argue that the phrase in Luke 24:39 means "It is me, God himself"

In other words, you pays your money and you takes your choice

[Dicky Underpants]

For a Jewish listener, it would have been far from ambiguous, jeremy.

See above, with reference to the quote in Luke.

[Spud]

If Jesus had intended to say simply, "it's me" in Mark 6:50, wouldn't he have said, "ego eimi autos" as in Luke 24:39?

[Hope]

See above, with reference to the quote in Luke.

See above, with reference to Spud's question.  Why the different phraseology?  Remember that Greek exists beyond 1st century Palestine and whilst it might well be the case that 'ego eimi' can be used to mean 'It's myself', Jewish understanding of the term would have a specific connotation.  Interestingly, the Luke passage doesn't use the 'ego eimi' phrase, suggesting that Jesus (and the writer of Luke) was trying to make a different point than in the Mark passage.

[jeremyp]

The direct reference to, in fact the very same words, as Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint, there is not a smidgen of ambiguity about it.

God said I am who I am.
Jesus said I am who I am.
Popeye said I am who I am.

Saying "I am" is not the same as saying "I am God".

[jeremyp]

Hi jeremyp,
Calling something 'crap' is not a rational argument.

Making up nonsense about what the disciples were thinking is not rational argument.

Mark 6:50 reports the apostles agitated and screaming, fearful of something unpleasant or menacing.  A spectre, evil spirit, not something helpful.

The text contains no question to which "it is I" would be an answer, especially to something walking on water.    Only God can protect them from that.

God bless

Bullshit' It's Jesus saying it is Jesus.

[Hope]

Popeye said I am who I am.

I am sure that Popeye never said 'ego eimi'.

Saying "I am" is not the same as saying "I am God".

No Jew would have used the phrase if they didn't believe that they were entitled to, jeremy.  Similarly, there are a number of sayings from the 20th and 21st century that no-one would use, unless than as quotes, other than the original user.