spamandham

We haven't ruled out the idea that a Jew wrote it, we've only ruled out the idea that a militant or conservative Jew wrote it (did conservative Jews even exist in the first century? I don't know.). IMHO, we've also ruled out that a Roman crony wrote it, but we obviously don't agree on that.

If we start with the idea that the target audience is militant Jews, we end up with a quagmire of unsubstantiated specultaion at all turns. That doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation. Your position rests on a whole series of unsubstantiated interdependent propositions, some of which are reasonable, others ...not so much. Every unsubstantiated assumption puts the entire scenario at risk. Based on simple estimates, even if we generously gave you 50% chance of correctness at each of these 10 steps, the odds your entire scenario is correct is less than 1 in 1000. I think 50% is being overly generous. It's a nice tail, but nothing more unless you can back up some of the points.

My proposition has really only 1 unsubstantiated assumption - that someone wrote Mark as a symbolic work of fiction. Just because I can't explain what the symbolism of the contortions related to Pilate are all about, doesn't mean there is no significance.

As a work of symbolic fiction, the author was constrained by the following:
- The Jews had to be guilty because that's what the prophecy fortold
- The messiah (actually symbolic for the Jewish people here) had to be innocent, because that's what the prophecy fortold
- There had to be a trial, because that's what the prophecy fortold
- The descriptions regarding the suffering fit a flogging and crucifixion. Granted, another death could have been concoted, but why not pick something that was common and horrific?

So how do you spin a story that involves an official trial (which would need to involve Rome and the types of punishments they would administer), the guilt of Jews, the innocence of the defendant, and a death that sounds like flogging and execution? I'd say what the author of Mark came up with achieves those goals. Sure, he could have come up with something else, but so what? The story fits the clear pattern he has established of symbolism back to Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

So my assumption is not totally unsupported, even I can't 'prove' it.

Koyaanisqatsi

As well as any "Hellenized" Jew. Or did they hate their fellow Jews (themselves included) so much as to choose to unleash a progrom down upon them just to try to convert other Hellenized Jews to what they were already converted to (i.e., paganized)?

It is the "festival crowd of Jews" (plural, non-specific) that forces Pilate to kill Jesus. According to Mark, they (plural, non-specific) are the final nail in Jesus' empty tomb.

Presumably there would be at least a handful or two Hellenized Jews that would make the journey to the Temple for Passover, so if it were written by a "liberal," Hellenized Jew, don't you think Mark would specify that "all Jews but the Hellenized Jews" are to blame for killing their own Lord?

Assuming as you are that any Jew would write a story that blames all Jews for killing their own messiah.

I must have missed where you effectively argued that, so, yes, we do not agree.

Late first century insurrectionists among many. Remember the Jewish Revolt? Do you think that just sprang up out of nowhere? Peace, peace, peace, then, ATTACK!

Such a revolution had to have been growing and percolating for some time and again, if you look at the chronology it falls perfectly in place with a polarizing moment of some kind thirty to forty years prior.

"Unsubstantiated speculation" is redundant and the only one that keeps insisting this is any kind of quagmire is you, in spite of the fact that I have consistently and logically countered every single one of your observations with the most plausible, real-world scenario that fits all of the events in an historical context.

Do not continue to subjectively characterize my posts in place of counter-argumentation if you please.

Far more reasonable than assuming any Jew would write a story in which Romans are exonerated and Jews are to blame for killing their own Messiah, IMHO.

No, it doesn't, since the entirety is speculation as we both acknowledged pages ago. Please stop trying to make an argument that does not exist; we both know we're necessarily speculating and that the only documents we have to "substantiate" what we're speculating about are Paul's letters and Mark's Gospel as it stands more or less today.

:huh:

This is granted so you never again need to use the word "unsubstantiated" or "assumption" or any other word to imply that I have no concrete evidence and that all we're both engaging in is speculation.

Are you serious with this? I'll assume you're kidding, because, this is ridiculous.

You would also have to explain why a Jew--any Jew--would write a story that condemns all Jews as Christ Killers. Josephus springs to mind, but then he turned Roman and we're right back to my theory.

What prophecy foretold that Jews would be blamed for and ultimately guilty of killing their own Messiah, even though the actual killing of their messiah was by the enemies of the Jews?

And if the Jewish people are the ones to blame for his death, how can they be innocent? The Jews killed themselves, through Pilate? Are you sure you're not Chile's sockpuppet?

There was a trial; a trial by the San Hedrin; the very Jews who are then later implicated in Jesus' death, so with Mark you get two trials; one by the Jews and then one by the enemies of the Jews.

Anything in OT prophecy that mentions two trials; one by the Jews and one by the enemy of the Jews, who then are incongruously coerced into killing a man they just declared innocent?

No, they do not. That is nothing more than later Christian apologetics you're employing and once again would not have come from a Jew. Jews did not crucify people, so how/why in the world would a Jewish writer equate OT prophecy with non-Jewish practices?

Because it has nothing to do with Jewish beliefs or practice. Nothing.

That was already conducted by the San Hedrin.

For no logical reason at all if it were written by a Jew for Jews.

At the trial by the San Hedrin.

Who is symbolic of Jewish innocence being killed by....whom again? The Jews.

You mean like, stoning and hanging from a tree? Like in one of the actual OT prophecies?

It is not possible for you to say that. Sorry. Not possible.

And, just to note the obvious, you're doing exactly what you accused me of doing.

You have just described a Jewish author writing a story at the height of the Jewish revolt that instructs the world at large to obey Roman authority to the point of total docility, while at the same time blame all Jews for killing their own God and you ask, "so what?"

I'm flabbergasted at this point.

Which, again, do not in any way shape or form prophecy that a Jewish messiah will be sent by Jehovah to be crucified by the enemies of Jehovah's chosen people, that the Jews will ultimately and legitimately be blamed for over the ensuing millenia.

You do yourself too much credit sir; your assumption is not at all supported for all the reasons I keep providing and you never counter, merely repeat. At least when I repeat myself, it is to go into deeper, more detailed analysis as to what all is involved and why it is more likely so.

So I would have to ask you again, why would Jews (or Romans) wish to write a story that exonerates Pilate and has Jews killing their own messiah/god in order to target Hellenized Jews who are already paganized right at the same time when massive Jewish revolt and Roman military genocide is occuring in all Jews' holiest of holy Temple/Cities?

spamandham

It's only because you continually assume that Mark was written as propoganda, that you can see no other perspective. As a work of fiction, it need not be a work of propoganda. Have you read Isaiah 23 and Psalm 22? The author is clearly following those passages in the development of the story, which means he is CONSTRAINED to have the Jews be guilty.

We are making no progress. I quit.

Chris Weimer

I'm assuming no progress is being made because you make unsupported statements like that above. Where in Psalm 22 or Isaiah 23 does it indicate that the Jews have to be guilty?

Koyaanisqatsi

Thank you! I was beginning to think I was alone in all of this. Not my theory, just in how spamandham has been responding to my posts.

Also, spamandham, you continue to avoid answering any of my questions; in particular, why would a Jewish author write a fictional story about Jews being guilty of killing their own messiah in the first place, let alone a story wherein it is the Romans who kill the messiah, but it is blamed on the Jews through convoluted, nonsensical twisted and tortured literary cheats?

And, technically, in Mark the festival crowd of Jews are not guilty of doing anything other than the incongruous whim of the San Hedrin. It is Pilate and Pilate alone who orders Jesus' death, regardless of his symbolic washing of the hands or who Mark desperately tries to implicate, so, again, your version doesn't make any sense.

Pilate kills Jesus. Mark tries to blame it on the Jews, but you can't escape the fact that Pilate is the one who kills Jesus, so how is that a story (fictional or not) about the Jews being guilty?

Chris Weimer

spamandham has also refused to answer several questions in other threads as well. I'm starting to think it's time to put him on ignore.