Layman

Let me put it this way, the only thing that exists to commend the explanation is that it fits Vork's own predispositions.

Yes. Most of them were Gentiles. Do you think they were all circumcision-observing Jews?

I agree, it was not something Jesus had to deal with directly during his ministry.

Mathetes

Sorry if this is off-topic, but how much do we know for certain about Mark's community?

I have read that it is generally assumed that it was a Gentile community because of Mark's ignorance of the geography of Palestine, but not much more.

Vinnie

Sorry if this is off-topic, but how much do we know for certain about Mark's community?

I have read that it is generally assumed that it was a Gentile community because of Mark's ignorance of the geography of Palestine, but not much more. [/B][/QUOTE]

I argued my paper tha Mark was a Gentile writing to Gentiles. I don't remember anyone providing any counter evidence. Mark has to explain Jewish customs to his audience (he says "all the Jews do x. JHe is obviously writing to non-Jews. He gets them wrong, his knowledge of Palestine seems flawed and so on. Chapter 7 as its now framed would suggest a Gentile audience itself.

I don't see any feasible way to disput this unless you take Yuri's route and say the Gentile material was added later.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Vork, what exactly was your argument against Jesus' Gentile tour in Mark 7 We both agree he created it. In your estimation, why?

Vinnie

NOGO

Right... and GJohn's Christ (Son of God) was not human nor was Paul's and other epistles'.

The conclusion is that the Jewish Christian's Jesus was a entity in heaven and the Gentiles who hijacked the faith made him into a human.

Vinnie

Do we have double standards here?

Silence in Pauline corpus and other early writings regarding details of an HJ.

This paucity is relative to what? As Vork might say:

"First you have to demonstrate that relative to some expectation, there is a "paucity" of Jesus-related material in the pauline corpus. You have done nothing of the sort. The fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW what Paul's position is."

Its easy to set one's position up so it can't be refuted and apply different standards to the outlook of others.

How are the cases different?

As Vork might say of Doherty: "Earl, you still haven't demonstrated that there is a "paucity" of Jesus related material in Paul to what we would expect."

And another: "Since you have no idea what Paul was thinking, you can't make that assumption. That is where your thinking starts to go wrong."

So mythicists, I take it Vork's comments from an HJ agnostic apply equally to mythicist and historicist postions. Why do the mythicists feel Vork is incorrect then?

Amaleq13 :Perhaps, but that could easily be true within a mythical context. The hardliner-in-question would then be imposing his own beliefs onto his own conception of Jesus and then Mark later accepts it.

So you then disagree with NOGO who said this?

Nogo: The conclusion is that the Jewish Christian's Jesus was a entity in heaven and the Gentiles who hijacked the faith made him into a human

???

It seems there are as many different versions of HJ skeptics as there are portraits of the historical Jesus. One or two per exegete. So much for being a very clear argument from best explanation.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

No Vinnie, we do not have double standards. What we have is total failure on your part, and now we are witnessing the ignominious flight, with the trail of ad homs, confusions, and sarcasm concealing the backpedal like the ink of a cuttlefish.

It seems that you understand neither your own position nor that of the skeptics.

Look, here is what you've committed yourself to demonstrating.

0. Mark was a gentile not relevant, so not disputed.

1. Mark was writing for a gentile audience. No one disputes that.

2. There is a paucity of Gentile-related material. Relative to what expectation? Your claim is that Mark should be freely creating if he is writing fiction, but no exegete anywhere makes that claim. So again, please supply some kind of data or argument showing how much gentile-related material we might actually expect.

3. The reason there is a paucity of gentile-related material is because

• 3A. The Historical Jesus had a ministry. Unproven, but let's assume it
  3B. This ministry was limited entirely to Jewish parts of Palestine.

so the paucity of material is limited by the historical fact of this ministry being limited to Jews. No other alternative is as acceptable. completely unproven

As an aside, you have not clearly defined "gentile-related material" although in fact there is tons of it. What you mean is really "Jesus ministering to the Gentiles" which is a very different thing than "gentile-related material." Many of Mark's explanations and clarifications are meant to illuminate things for his gentile audience, and all of that would be "gentile-related material."

In any case, that is not important.

The truly incredible thing about your response is that the defense used by apologists is that the amount of HJ stuff in the Pauline letters is what we might expect. And demonstrating that this is a "paucity" is exactly what Doherty does with his arguments on the various kinds of silence in Paul. Whether he succeeds is another issue, but there is no denying he has made the attempt to show that the "paucity" is there.

In other words, the irony of your sarcastic attack is that it exposes how completely you have failed to put forth even the tiniest sliver of an argument that the limited "gentile ministry" material in Mark is due to historical, rather than some other constraints.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

BTW, you are aware that in Mark 3 the "gentiles" come down from -- where else? -- Sidon and Tyre to visit Junior while he's preaching. Obviously Mark had a thing for Sidon and Tyre, and it may not be related to the gentiles. In other words, there is no evidence that the "gentile mission" is in fact a gentile mission, and Mark's audience may be right next door in Tyre and Sidon, as Burton Mack tentatively opined. So there is nothing at all about a gentile mission, which is a more interesting state of affairs, in any case....

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

(I repeated Vork's original statement so as to provide the context.)

I disagree and, apparently, so do the vast majority of scholars (including many Christians). Even Vinnie accepts that the author of Mark created settings for sayings so it is difficult to accept your claim as having any credibility. The development of narrative from sayings collections is consistent with known practices in the ancient world as well as modern understanding of how memory/oral traditions work. Core ideas or sayings are preserved while surrounding details or contexts change when oral memory is the primary conduit. The first attempts to create written records of ancient schools of philosophy seem to have been simple lists of sayings or credos considered fundamental to the school.

I had asked Layman whether he thought circumcision was an issue for Mark's community and he replied:
No, I think they were probably primarily Gentiles who, subsequent to the enormous destruction of the Jewish nation (c.70CE) experienced zero pressure from Jews to conform to their traditions. That, unlike your own suggestion, is entirely consistent with the absence of any evidence in Mark that there existed any controversy regarding circumcision.

If, as you suggest, circumcision was an issue, how do you explain the absence of any reference to it in Mark? As you earlier stated, Paul mentions it frequently because it was something he had to deal with. Why isn't that also true of the author of Mark if he, as you claim, was dealing with that issue?

Amaleq13

I wonder if it is relevant that these same two cities are mentioned in Q (10:14)? It seems relevant that they are offered as positive examples in opposition to the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida.