Steve Weiss

And what is your standard operating procedure in exercising a critical mind in respect of the bible? How do you separate fact from fiction, the true from the false? What significant elements of the bible do you consider correct and valid? And how do you know that? What should be retained as valuable in the bible, in your view? I can't think of anything, but perhaps you can indicate what those nuggets are.

Steve Weiss

No case is to be made for the truth of the bible, and therefore that contention fails. It's simple, as you state. The arbitrary has no cognitive standing.

Doug Shaver

The gospel says Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. The temple was destroyed. What's so faux about that?

If you believe Jesus really was a prophet, then you infer that the gospel author got the story right, and you can make that inference regardless of when you think the author wrote the book. There is no problem.

As for the gospel having "taken the world by storm," I am aware of no evidence that that was the case. Unless, of course, you accept inerrantist presuppositions about the Acts of the Apostles. Aside from that book, I am aware of no documentary evidence that Christianity was anything but a fringe cult for the first century or two of its existence.

stephan huller

The question of when Mark was written has little bearing on the question of the historical Jesus. It is difficult to even ascertain what Mark was a witness of. I proceed in a very different way from most scholars. I am principally interested in 'schools of thought' in early Christianity. Leaving alone for a moment my own suspicion that the Marcionites represented the earliest witnesses to the beliefs of Mark (owing to the highly theoretical nature of my own formulation) we are left asking 'are there any witnesses for the original witness of Mark?' The claim that Mark was written in Rome by Mark as an interpreter of Peter isn't so much a 'Markan tradition' as it is a Petrine one. The fact that the Letter to Theodore distinguishes between 'what Mark wrote for Peter' and 'what was written (later) on the authority of Mark is extremely intriguing owing to the fact that it highlights a perplexing pattern in reports about a tradition associated with Mark.

There is none. How could Mark have written a gospel and that gospel become widely influential AND NOT establish a 'tradition of Mark'? It doesn't make sense.

In rabbinic Judaism schools were developed around teachers of halakhah in the same way that we see schools of Greek philosophy around a particular interpreter. The closest we get to anything 'of Mark' are (a) the Marcionites and (b) the Marcosians and these traditions are frequently 'misidentified.'

Irenaeus (and Papias too but I don't believe Papias can be separated from Irenaeus owing to the fact that Eusebius testimony comes by way of Irenaeus) seems to identify the gospel Mark wrote for Peter at Rome as 'the gospel of Mark' but there something strange about this identification. It seems odd that 'the Gospel of Mark' should be so called if it really was 'the Gospel of Peter.'

This long preamble is developed to point to the only remaining testimony of a 'school of Mark' is the Alexandrian tradition which is at least as old as the Letter to Theodore. For those who dispute its authenticity, Clement's development of Quis Dives Salvetur from Mark rather than the other canonical texts is a slightly weaker testimony to the importance of Mark in Alexandria in the period.

The point now is that the most common title for Mark in the Alexandrian tradition is that of 'theorimos' which means 'beholder of God.' I think this strongly testifies to the idea that Mark was understood by the Alexandrian tradition to be a witness for the idea that Jesus was God first and foremost. I think this strand of thought is present in the Passio Petri Sancti. I don't think that we understand Arianism well enough to prove that this idea was present in the communities distinction between a 'creature' Christ and God but Origen also testifies to a two part 'advent' which seems to distinguish between 'Christ' expected by the Jewish prophetic tradition and the god 'Jesus.'

Origen is a slippery fish which helps explain how he managed to stay influential for so long. But it is very difficult to exactly pinpoint what his beliefs are.

All that we are left with in our reconstruction of the Alexandrian tradition's understanding of Mark's original witness is scholarship recognition that early Alexandrian testimonies seem to prefer the title 'God' for Jesus. I think this evidence can be marshalled to suggest that 'the tradition of Mark' understood that Mark beheld and understood Jesus's secret testimony that he was God Almighty - even the Father - come down to earth in the form of a man.

But that's just my take on things.

stephan huller

I am not saying that this would make Jesus's prophesy false. What I am saying is that if the gospel was written after 70 CE questions would be raised about the authenticity of Mark's witness. It's easy to get it right when you already know the outcome.

And just one more thing. Jesus is not simply predicting that the temple would be destroyed. He is actually pointing to Daniel and saying 'all that was predicted in Daniel (9: 24 - 27; our chapter division being unknown to the period) will now come to pass. This is an important distinction.

Why doesn't Jesus just say 'I predict the temple will be destroyed on such and such a day'? Why bring in Daniel?

The Catholics would argue that it has something to do with him 'witnessing the Law and the prophets.' I am not so sure. I think there is a secret agenda here which goes beyond merely identifying the destruction of the old religion. I think Daniel was also being used to point to what would replace the old covenant. Look at what Irenaeus says about the followers of Mark in AH i.19.2

For they falsely hold, that the Creator was seen by the prophets. But this passage, "No man shall see God and live," they would interpret as spoken of His greatness unseen and unknown by all; and indeed that these words, "No man shall see God," are spoken concerning the invisible Father, the Maker of the universe, is evident to us all; but that they are not used concerning that Bythus whom they conjure into existence, but concerning the Creator (and He is the invisible God), shall be shown as we proceed. They maintain that Daniel also set forth the same thing when he begged of the angels explanations of the parables, as being himself ignorant of them. But the angel, hiding from him the great mystery of Bythus, said unto him, "Go thy way quickly, Daniel, for these sayings are closed up until those who have understanding do understand them, and those who are white be made white." Moreover, they vaunt themselves as being the white and the men of good understanding.

The common rabbinic term for Christian is Notsrim which I think is developed from the Aramaic term behind the familiar concept of 'the Passion.' It is my suggestion to read the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle). I believe this deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed”.

Just look at the verse in Isaiah that says God will set notsrim on the walls of Jerusalem. Look in BDB under NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle, look at the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser” (nature).

Indeed as Schiffman notes the concept of the two spirits in the Community Rule bears some relationship to the rabbinic concept of two yetsers or 'natures' in man.

What I am suggesting is that various sects related to Mark must have understood God as wanting to come down to earth in the Passion as a means of 'reforming' or 'transforming' humanity from a material being to a spiritual being. Think about what is introduced just before - ritual washing and the consumption of his spiritual flesh and blood. This why Irenaeus's Marcosian sect identify themselves as the 'white.' Epiphanius makes reference to the Zacchaeans ('the pure') who are connected with ritual baptism. All of this assumes I think that God (Jesus) came for the purpose of union with mankind through baptism.

Having Jesus as a man gets in the way of the original logic. It doesn't fit.

Juststeve

Toto:

What you dismiss as common wisdom is what I call the considered opinion of respected experts in the field. When dealing in a field in which I am not an expert I feel justified in relying upon the opinions of those who are. As far as I can tell virtually all of those experts date Mark in the first century around 60-70 C.E. Not imagining myself to be better at dating Mark, and not really having a dog in the fight, I draw conclusions based on the assumption that Mark is correctly dated by the experts.

By the same token if I want to get information about how the pyramids were built I consult the kind of Egyptologists who are at major universities. I could check the internet or people who write popular books and find out about the alien connection, but I don’t. Do you think I should?

Steve

Juststeve

Steven Weiss:

Libraries of books have been written addressing the several questions you asked. If you are interested in the answers to your questions, which I doubt, I suggest you consult the books written by experts. They deal and length with the issues you raise.

Steve

Toto

The term is "conventional wisdom." It's something that everyone believes is true, but is based on outdated research that turns out to be wrong.

If you want to find out how the pyramids were built, you will find people with actual expertise in engineering and ancient practices. Many of them write for popular audiences. There's no need to bring in space aliens.

When you look at Biblical studies, people comparable to the alien theorists have gotten PhD's and captured a lot of university positions. This allows Christian apologists to proclaim that "experts agree" that there was a historical Jesus, and it's just beyond questioning by anyone who is not willing to put up with ridicule and mockery.

If you are going to rely on these so called experts, without even testing their expertise, there's not much for you to discuss here.

show_no_mercy

The vast majority of the experts you appeal to also believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I take it you also believe Jesus rose from the dead since the scholars you are appealing to who are experts believe as much?

On the other hand, a more robust consensus like Evolution or Atomic theory have no such ideological consistency. Which is why I trust a consensus in those fields a lot more.

Juststeve

Mercy:

On this thread and on this forum generally I have stated repeatedly that I do not think Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water or performed miracles. That you "take it" that I believe Jesus did rise from the dead explains a lot about your thinking. Very impressive. You must know me better than I know myself.

As to your notion that the theory of evolution, which I believe in, has no "ideological consistency" makes me wonder whether you have any understanding of science at all.

Steve