Rick Sumner

This is a rather bold (and rather unorthodox, at least so far as more recent scholarship goes) assertion. Perhaps you'd care to start another thread on why you don't think Mark was Jewish? Certainly he wished to distinguish his "brand" of Judaism (being Christianity), from those that had recently sparked wars and the like, but "not Jewish"? I think you overstate your case to make the claim so certainly.

Rick Sumner

Diogenes the Cynic

I've already made my case for this multiple times on this board. The abstract is this:

• The author does not claim to be Jewish
• The author wrote outside of Palestine in a gentile language to a gentile audience.
• GMark contains numerous errors as to Jewish laws and customs and some real howlers as to Palestinian geography.
• The author shows an un-Jewish understanding of the Messiah and Jewish scripture.
• The author is anti-Jewish.

I think it needs to be pointed out that it's the assertion that Mark was Jewish that's need to be proven. The author is anonymous and makes no such claim himself. so what would be the basis for assuming he was Jewish?

Rick Sumner

• So what? The author of Genesis doesn't either.
  
  
  Quote:

  The author wrote outside of Palestine in a gentile language to a gentile audience.

  He certainly wrote outside Palestine. But so what? Paul wrote to Gentiles in a gentile language too, yet Paul was certainly a Jew. As criteria, these are moot.
  
  
  Quote:

  GMark contains numerous errors as to Jewish laws and customs

  Which errors specifically?
  
  
  Quote:

  and some real howlers as to Palestinian geography.

  Ever heard of the Diaspora? Do you think there were no Jews outside Palestine?
  
  
  Quote:

  The author shows an un-Jewish understanding of the Messiah and Jewish scripture.

  This is another rather bold claim. Jewish understandings of the Messiah were incredibly diverse. What would you suggest is un-Jewish?
  
  
  Quote:

  The author is anti-Jewish.

Matthew is more vociferous in what might be called anti-Semitism than Mark. Yet I'd suggest that Matthew is certainly a Jew.

And while he may speak against "the Jews" (though nowhere near as much as John, of course), it is important to remember that "the Jews" represent an opponent. It refers to some Jews, not all Jews. Genuine "anti-Jewish" ness is irreconcilable with Mark's narrative, which is steeped highly with the narratives of Elijah and Elisha, features a Jewish protagonist, and rounds his cast out with 12 Jewish disciples.

I haven't made an assertion, I've asked you the basis of yours.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Diogenes the Cynic

Rick, I have to be away from my computer for a few hours. I'll answer your post later this evening when I have the time to do so in detail.

Diogenes the Cynic

The author of Genesis wrote in Palestine, wrote in Hebrew and wrote in terms of Jewish theology. Mark does none of those things.
The reason you know Paul is Jewish is because he told you. Mark does not. Paul also wrote in an earlier era when a Jewish Jesus movement still existed in Jerusalem. Paul representing the beinning of that movement going out to the gentiles. Mark's community was descended from Paul's gentile movement, not from the Jewish Jerusalem cult.
I've already mentioned several in this thread- namely the host of procedural and legal errors in Mark's trial before the Sanhedrin, including an erroneous belief that claiming to be the Messiah was blasphemy under Jewish law. In addition to the trial, mark makes a couple of other errors. He doesn't know Jewish divorce law, for instance. In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce:

11He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not.

Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws. From 7:3-4:

3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

Those laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

The trial alone, though, is sufficient to establish Mark's galloping ignorance of Jewish law.
That's true but it's also an argument from absence. The fact that Mark knew nothing of Palestinian geography certainly doesn't help to establish any Jewish credentials. Since the majority of the world was not Jewish, I think the default presumption for any anonymous work of literature is that it probably wasn't written by anyone who was Jewish. In the case of mark we have no evidence at all that he was Jewish and every single point that might inform us as to his cultural identity shows either ignorance of, distortion of or hostility towards Judaism. Occam slices this to ribbons.
The idea that the Messiah was the "divine son of God" (albeit, by adoption in Mark's case), Mark's' assertion that the Messiah was "David's lord" rather than David's son," the notion that the Messiah was not literally the King of the Jews, the belief that the Messiah could be killed or resurrected, and the fact that Mark believed the Messiah could die without fulfilling the prophecies are all fundamentally un-Jewish premises.
I would actually argue that Matthew is not as anti-Jewish as Mark is. Matthew shows more respect for Mosaic law and is a little more nuanced about the differences between the Pharisees and "the Jews" as a whole. I don't know if Matthew was Jewish. Of all the Evangelists, he has the best chance. Of course, his seeming Jewishness could have as much to do with his reliance on Q as anything else. I don't think it's an established fact that matthew was Jewish.
You sound like a Christian apologist with this stuff (but all his FRIENDS were Jews). Did you miss the fact that Mark depicts the apostles as dunces and as failures who do not understand who Jesus is, who flee when Jesus is arrested and who are offered no redemption nor witness of the resurrection afterwards. Did you miss that Mark invents a villain named "Jew" to be the one who betrays Jesus? The message is that the Jews didn't get it. Mark's community (who are gentiles) are the elect. The Jews failed.
And now you have it. There is no reason to believe the author is Jewish and every reason to believe he is not. Is it safe to declare categorically that "Mark was not Jewish, period?" I think it's safe enough to not have to qualify it. I also think it's safe to say he wasn't Chinese. Could I theoretically be wrong about that? I suppose so but I'm pretty comfortable with my conclusions. I say the default presumption has to be that he belonged to the ~93% of the Roman world who was not Jewish until we see some kind of evidence to indicate otherwise.

Rick Sumner

I'd know Paul was Jewish if he didn't tell me. He boasts of blamelessness under the Law. He hopes his followers are found likewise. He writes in terms of the covenant. He is unmistakably Jewish. What language he writes in is irrelevant.

At what point does Paul's movement stop being a Jewish one? I'd suggest that Paul never viewed his sect as anything but a Jewish one, and his adherents as anything but converted Jews. His followers were the Gentiles turning to Israel in the Messianic Age, at least in the mind of Paul. The break is not so easy to determine as you imply.

Jewish legal proceedings were rather complicated. Most Jews probably wouldn't have known what they are. This is something made clear throughout Rabbinics--that your average Jew was not schooled in these areas. It's why we end up with adages about what the "whole Law" entailed.

There is no reason to presume that the average Jew is familiar with such things, and every reason (most notably, that the Rabbis say as much), to presume that they weren't.

I saw you mention this above. The Tract Sanhedrin was written sometime after Mark wrote. An awfully long time, at that, and at a time after a great deal of Judaism had changed. How do you know that the Tract Sanhedrin represents first century Law? To be sure, uttering the name of YHWH was the most egregious sin (something we learn from the DSS as well), but the only means of blaspheme? You can't know that. To connect Rabbinics with first century Judaism we need to presume a very stable line of oral transmission. Oral tradition is one of those things that's reliable and stable when it's convenient, and fluid and transient when it's not.

We cannot safely trace the Tract Sanhedrin to the first century. The evidence simply isn't there.

Wow. This couldn't be much more out of context. Mark knows the Law just fine, he mentions it in 10.4. 10.11-12 is, quite clearly, an addition, of sorts. Something not at all uncommon in a great many Jewish texts. He's not showing ignorance of the Law here, he's showing dissatisfaction with it--the Law is slack, it should be more rigid.

It should also be noted that the preceding section (10.6-10.8) is purest Halacha, and this Halacha is identical to the one found in the Damascus Document, (CD.4.20-5.1). They use the same Halacha, to argue the same position. That is, they use Gen.1.27 to indicate that it is unlawful for a man to take another wife while his first still lives.

This pattern, stating the Law (10.4), Halacha (10.6-10.8), new interpretation of the Law based on the Halacha (10.11-12), is unmistakably Jewish.

This one I'll grant you, but your overall case here is pretty weak.

Nothing here mentions the Law, nor even implies it is drawing from it. In fact, it is quite emphatic in stating the contrary--it is a "tradition of the elders." For someone so keen to cite the Tract Sanhedrin in defense of other positions, I should expect you would know the difference.

And the Talmud is rife with traditions on handwashing (which don't only apply to the priests). There is, in fact, an entire tract on it: Yadayim. It seems that it began as something for special occasions, and later trickled down to average occasions, to make them seem a little more "special," before finally becoming a custom (or, at least, this is the suggestion supplied by E P Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism for the development.

But all that is really secondary--he's not showing ignorance of Jewish Law, he's showing knowledge of Jewish customs.

Not unless you know a reason I shouldn't believe the Rabbis. And there's every reason I should. How well do you know legal proceedings regarding violations of the Hazardous Chemicals Act? Joe Citizen is rarely schooled in the intricacies of the law--that holds for all cultures.

It doesn't count against it either. It's a useless criteria.

The prima facie case for Mark (heavy reliance on the Tanach, more than anything else) is substantially against that.

No evidence? It seems to me that I just provided an example of him using Halacha--a Jewish technique. He quotes Jewish books. How good that evidence is is, I suppose, a matter of personal opinion. But to suggest that there's "no evidence" is rhetoric, not fact.

Can this not be accounted for through a progression? Certainly Messianism was entailing a higher and higher Christology as we move from the early canon, to later canonical texts, through the Pseudepigrapha, the DSS, and culminating with the NT. It seems the progression flows rather naturally to that direction. Mark just took it to the next step, as those at every step before him had done.

Again, you've robbed this of its context. Mark knew perfectly well that the Messiah was supposed to be David's son, he says so quite clearly not one verse before. I don't want to get into whether or not his response is an apologetic, at the moment, as I fear that it may lead to tangents, but he is certainly aware of the expectation of a Davidic Messiah--he's not ignorant of it, by any stretch.

He believed his Messiah was Jesus, and knew that Jesus was not the king of the Jews. He struggles to reconcile the two.

Paul realized that his Messiah wasn't literally the king of the Jews too. And, again, he was Jewish.

These, again, are beliefs that must be attributed to Paul as well, and yet Paul was Jewish. Unmistakably. And easily identifiable as such even without his confessions on the matter.

The simple fact is that an entire Jewish sect (and later, an entirely new religion) was developed from these beliefs.

I have what, exactly? Confidence in your lack of familiarity with Halacha?

Issue another ad hominem ("You sound like a Christian Apologist"), and I assure you my participation in this discussion will end. I have better things to do with my time than trade flames--it's the reason my participation on these boards has largely waned to the occasional passing comment.

That has no place in serious discussion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

The writer of Mark was probably not a Jew although he knows a lot about Judaism. He

has a man fetching water

has the Passover meal on the wrong day

doesn't know that it is Passover custom to spend the night in Jerusalem, and thus does not apologize when Jesus and the apostles leave it

doesn't know anything about trials by the Sanhedrin -- even such basic knowledge as there were no legal proceedings permitted on Passover

has a Passover amnesty that makes no sense as the prisoner freed during the day would not have been able to participate in the Passover (which had already taken place in the previous evening)

mentions the Sadduccees but does not seem aware that the chief priest was a Sadduccee

adds 'do not defraud' to the Commandments

doesn't appear to know much about the geography of Palestine

thinks Jews wash when they get back from the marketplace

has jews divide the night into four watches, although that was a Roman practice

of course, it should be noted that the "errors" may reflect narrative purposes, or the fact that Mark is a fiction and the writer just didn't give a damn. Hence reasoning from the text is fraught with danger.

Maybe it's Halacha, maybe it is a coincidence of argument. Nevertheless, on the other side, the author of Mark knows scripture inside and out -- but then that could also be the mark of a fervent convert, who are often more pious than the pious. The writer knows the OT but from a Christian perspective.

I don't think it is really possible to resolve the issue, although I personally do not believe he was Jew.

Michael

Rick Sumner

Upon further reflection, some points become patently obvious:

• You don't recognize obvious Halacha
  You aren't familiar with Jewish traditions, especially as distinguished from the Law. This is made especially clear in your confusin the Tract Sanhedrin with Law (the Tract Sanhedrin is where your definition of blaspheme comes from), and again in your misunderstanding of Hand washing.
  You are ready to misrepresent Mark to fit your conclusion (as in the case of purporting that Mark was unaware of the Davidic line--something he explicitly makes his awareness of clear)

All of this points to the inescapable conclusion that you don't know the first thing about Palestinian Judaism in antiquity, and thus are hardly versed enough to determine whether or not Mark was a Jew.

Mark may or may not be Jewish (I'd tend toward viewing him as Jewish, but would suggest the question is ultimately unanswerable with any measure of certainty), but that wasn't the question: Rather I was wondering what you based your certain conclusion on. Now I know. I'm content to leave it at that, and happily invite the readers to reach their own conclusions about whether or not you are justified in the degree of certainty with which you state that Mark wasn't Jewish.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Do you know what Halacha is? The "coincidence of argument" is that they both use Halacha. Gen.1.27 used as a way to explain addendum to marriage Law. That is Halacha. They can do it independently, dependently, coincidentally, it doesn't matter, they are still both making a halachic argument.

Whether or not it is Halachic has nothing to do with whether or not the texts knew each other.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

I'm really sorry. I guess I wasn't clear. You cite a specific case in Mark which in turn follows the Damascus Document.....

It should be noted that the the writer's argument uses both Gen 1.27 and Gen 2.24, the latter also being used by Paul. The form here has been identified by you as a Halacha; it is identified by Mack as a Cynic Chreia. The two forms of argument have similar patterns and thus this identification of Jewishness is not as strong as you think, IMHO. The Jewishness of the argument is questionable as the writer uses it to dismiss Mosaic Law, whereas the whole point of Halacha was that it was handed down from Moses.

Additionally, both the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll make this argument, but they only apply it to kings, not everyone. The writer has instead sourced this from 1 Cor 7, IMHO. Hence it cannot be used to demonstrate his Jewishness.

Vorkosigan