stephan huller

but back to schmidt. this IS the context of the Passion narrative. its rare for scholarship to hit the spot like this. the only question left is what did mark mean by this

stephan huller

And now I am back in the office. There are problems with Schmidt's analysis. If, as he claims the gospel was written for a Roman audience, they would have immediately recognized the 'Christ in the place of Caesar' reference. They would also have undoubtedly recognized the irony or some sort of disparaging reference to the ruler of the world. I still accept his identification of the Roman triumph imagery. I just don't see how this could have been written for a Roman audience.

Of course the question would naturally arise - who was written for? Still an open question.

Next point. I respect Michael greatly. I am friends with Detering (I corresponded with him a lot on the night my son was born). IMO there are problems with the Bar Kochba reference.

Forget the fact that Daniel 9:24 - 27 (referenced in the Little Apocalypse of chapter 13) is always connected to the war of 70 CE. Forget the fact that all the Church Fathers make the same connection between BOTH Daniel and the gospel. Here's perhaps the best argument to connect Schmidt's argument with the war of 70 CE. The rebel leader Simon was thrown off the Tarpeian Rock (Latin, Rupes Tarpeia or Saxum Tarpeium) which was a steep cliff of the southern summit of the Capitoline Hill, overlooking the Roman Forum.

You don't have this occurring after the Bar Kochba revolt.

As such on the one hand you have Jerusalem being renamed Aelia Capitolina. That's significant. But claiming the gospel was written as a triumph procession clearly references an impending military victory where - IMO - the Romans think they have triumphed but really it was Christ victorious. I can't help but think that there is a stronger case (especially with the Semitic substitution myth still surviving in Islam) that Jesus was the guy crucified in 30 CE (Judas? = 'King of the Jews'/King Judas), Simon in 70 CE. The idea that the revolt was inspired by Jesus is also implied in the Little Apocalypse (many will come saying 'I am he' etc.)

I still think that the revolts (which are never properly explained) may well have some underlying connection to a primitive Palestine faith. Don't know enough about it though.

outhouse

there is really not a debate about its intended audience, is there?

its pretty obvious it wasnt written for a jewish audience




jewish trdaitions are exlained very clear for non jews/romans

stephan huller

why is it obvious? we have an edited version of the gospel. when the text quotes an Aramaic original of a saying the implication is that the surviving text is secondary.

stephan huller

Simon was kept for the emperor's triumph at Rome, where he was dragged through the streets and then hurled from the Tarpeian rock

"But for Simon, he was brought to Caesar in bonds, when he was come back to that Cesarea which was on the seaside, who gave orders that he should be kept against that triumph which he was to celebrate at Rome upon this occasion." (BJ 7.2, § 1)

"Now the last part of this pompous show was at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, whither when they were come, they stood still; for it was the Romans' ancient custom to stay till somebody brought the news that the general of the enemy was slain. This general was Simon, the son of Gioras, who had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum, and had withal been tormented by those that drew him along; and the law of the Romans required that malefactors condemned to die should be slain there. Accordingly, when it was related that there was an end of him, and all the people had set up a shout for joy, they then began to offer those sacrifices which they had consecrated, in the prayers used in such solemnities; which when they had finished, they went away to the palace. And as for some of the spectators, the emperors entertained them at their own feast; and for all the rest there were noble preparations made for feasting at home; for this was a festival day to the city of Rome, as celebrated for the victory obtained by their army over their enemies, for the end that was now put to their civil miseries, and for the commencement of their hopes of future prosperity and happiness.

After these triumphs were over, and after the affairs of the Romans were settled on the surest foundations, Vespasian resolved to build a temple to Peace, which was finished in so short a time, and in so glorious a manner, as was beyond all human expectation and opinion: for he having now by Providence a vast quantity of wealth, besides what he had formerly gained in his other exploits, he had this temple adorned with pictures and statues; for in this temple were collected and deposited all such rarities as men aforetime used to wander all over the habitable world to see, when they had a desire to see one of them after another; he also laid up therein those golden vessels and instruments that were taken out of the Jewish temple, as ensigns of his glory. But still he gave order that they should lay up their Law, and the purple veils of the holy place, in the royal palace itself, and keep them there" (BJ 7. 5, § 6)

"Accordingly, they all met with such ends as God deservedly brought upon them in way of punishment; for all such miseries have been sent upon them as man's nature is capable of undergoing, till the utmost period of their lives, and till death came upon them in various ways of torment; yet might one say justly that they suffered less than they had done, because it was impossible they could be punished according to their deserving." (BJ 7.8, § 1).

outhouse

the text is composed from many sources, some old and some newer.


But "sources" has nothing to do with the author.

the surving text isnt secondary and there are more then two sorurces.



we do have a author obviously writing to a roman audience, its not up for debate, nor is the dating even up for debate.


now if you want to guess at the possible date of certain sources, feel free

as well if you want to discuss the evolutionary path of said sources, as written or oral and make a case for why, feel free

stephan huller

FWIW it is interesting to note that the Coptic narrative of Mark's martyrdom in Alexandria bears an eerie resemblance to the description here:

stephan huller

The Acts of Peter too seem to draw upon the image of St Peter falling from the sky (even though he was supposedly crucified upside down):

Compare with this scene John 21:18-20 “I tell you the truth, when you were young, you were able to do as you liked; you dressed yourself and went wherever you wanted to go. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will dress you and take you where you don’t want to go.” Jesus said this to let him know by what kind of death he would glorify God. Then Jesus told him, “Follow me.”

stephan huller

the point is only that where the evidence is suspect, nothing can be said with any certainty. The only thing I am sure of in all my years of looking at this stuff is that Schmidt is right about the context. There can be no doubt and as such the idea that the gospel narrative = history implodes. One can argue that Jesus 'must have been' actually crucified or that there 'must have been' a real Jesus. But the gospel doesn't prove anything because it is obviously arranged to fit a theological contrivance. This is NOT how history unfolded.

sotto voce

Spot the difference (and the attempt to seem expert). Back to front, in true modern 'scholarly' style. And total, basic misrepresentation, despite appearance. Ignorance or worse, that deserves to be ignored.

This event is predicated on the concept of Jesus as God, with us. The Bible puts it differently, and far more within its own context. The curtain separated the greater part of the Temple from the Most Holy Place, that even the High Priest could enter only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, to offer a sacrifice with blood on behalf of the people. It was torn from top to bottom, signifying the action of Jesus as perfect, therefore singularly divine agent, fulfilling much prophecy, that had begun conceptually in Genesis 3 (or earlier, but we won't go there), and chronologically with Abram and Melchizedek the priest king, who 'brought out bread and wine'. Prophecy of removing the barrier of estrangement between deity and mankind because of wickedness, by atonement. So the premise upon which Abraham's friendship with his deity was founded, and the promise to him of many descendants, were 'made good'. This event was proof, in the biblical context, that justification is by faith, and not by works.

Fair enough.

Or not.

'When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.' Col 2:13-15 NIV

Obviously, Jesus disarmed no Romans, but evil spiritual powers could be said to be so incommoded. 'There is no condemnation' by those powers, by the Bible. So the victory was over death, not people. Not physical death, but over 'the gates of Hades', that led the soul to eternal sorrow.

Quite a difference.