Diogenes the Cynic

You haven't even produced a fundy who would argue with my actual translation.
You presume your own conclusion. You have done nothing to show that such a conclusion is warranted.
All of them.
What does reading Greek have to do with patristic tradition regarding the authorship of Mark?

That's not a translational issue. You have cited Christian "tradition" to support a thesis for the "probable Jewish" authorship of Mark. That longtime Christian tradition stems from 2nd century popular and patristic traditions which have long been debunked by NT scholarship. You have said you agree that those traditions are bunk. So upon what are you basing your theory of Jewish Mark? Do you believe the Christian traditions or don't you? If you don't then what else do you have to support your thesis?

Abd what does any of it have to do with whether fundies can read Greek?
Circumstancial evidence which mitigates strongly against Jewish authorship. No idea...but he wasn't a Jew.
They would assume that the person was not a Jew unless he said that he was. Most people were not Jews. It was not something they felt it necessary to announce.
Sure it does in conjunction with everything else. All the circumstancial evidence points to a Gentile author. Nothing points to a Jewish one.

patchy

You two are chasing each other's tails at this point. I'd like to see this question answered, instead:

When did the earliest unambiguous Christian doctrine of the eternal, lake-of-fire, you're-gonna-burn-forever Hell we're all so familiar with appear, and by what mechanism?

Assuming for a moment that it wasn't simply the mis-translation of Gehenna (or, if "mis-translation" will catch in your throat, Jagella, we could characterize Gehenna as being "hijacked" to have its meaning fundamentally changed) that's responsible for the "lake of eternal fire" we all know and love-- how did that idea originate, and by whose hand--and when?

That seems to be what really matters here. Fascinating thread, btw.

Amaleq13

That isn't the position of your opposition. In fact, that is the opposite of Diogenes' argument. He has been consistently arguing that the interpretation of the word has been changed from the original intent and supports this contention by offering the literal meaning of the Greek text.

I was referring to this debate. I should have worded it: This has never been a debate about the original meaning of "Gehenna". OTOH, I have no knowledge of a debate about the original meaning of the word and you have certainly not provided any evidence suggesting there has been though it might help your case.

How can a literal reading of the original Greek be considered "reinterpretation" let alone "radical"? That makes no sense. The only reinterpretation appears to be that of later Christians who appear to have imposed their own beliefs on the Gospel authors. Are you aware that you have yet to provide any evidence substantiating that this was the original intent of the authors? Appealing to the beliefs of the later Christians and their interpretation is entirely circular since that is what you are trying to prove is true.

I agree but that isn't what Diogenes has been arguing. He has argued that there appears to be no good reason to believe the meaning was altered by the authors. Instead, it appears that this altered meaning is entirely the work of later Christians. As I mentioned above, you have offered nothing to suggest otherwise except the opinions and reinterpretations of those very same Christians.

As you should have seen in the linked article, this allegedly specious argument has been accepted, for over a century, by several Christian scholars. Your assertion would be much more credible if you had presented any evidence suggesting that an appeal to the original literal meaning of the Greek text was, in some way, a "specious" argument.

Jagella

Not true. I posted two fundamentalists—my former pastor and D. James Kennedy—who would argue with your translation.

If they claim to read Greek, then I see no reason how your reading Greek is somehow inherently superior to theirs.

I believe that some Christian traditions are basically correct. My basic reasoning is that I will believe a claim unless I have good reason not to. If you told me you had a dog, for example, I would believe you because I have a good reason to doubt your claim. In this issue, we are discussing the Christian claim or tradition that the writer of Mark was Jewish. Since I see no good reason to doubt this claim, I believe it, and I see the Christian tradition that the gospel writers were Jewish as correct.

Some people also hold that circumstantial evidence proves that the JFK assassination was a result of a conspiracy. I’m not convinced by that circumstantial evidence, and I’m not convinced by yours.

You have no idea who wrote Mark, yet you claim you know he wasn’t a Jew? Again, I would prefer more direct evidence. Such evidence might be comprised of a manuscript dating back to the first century that names a particular person as having written Mark, and this person is said to be a gentile.

Jagella

Chili

You mean fear of hell, don't you? I mean, there is nothing scary about being buried after we die.

What makes fear of hell possible is that when Jesus opened gate to heaven he also warned us that the keen insight of Peter would be the judge (he's our first Pope still presiding in heaven).

Chili

Love it! and could have told you that just by reading his Gospel. He actually lays the foundation for John.I am with you on this, and you know what? It made the whole civilization very attractive . . . which alone is proof that the second coming is a personal event.

Sensei Meela

[quoting because I could not have put it more succinctly]

And:
[ditto...except I'd simply remove 'Christian']

The passages from Mark surely aren't it.

Amaleq13

Thought is clearly tangential to the OP, I'm curious as to whom you attributed this "tradition"? The only tradition with which I am familiar is that the text was written by Peter's secretary and based on Peter's preaching.

Is this the tradition you accept? Peter was Jewish. The work is based on Peter's preaching. Therefore, the author is Jewish?

Diogenes the Cynic

I believe that the first reference in Christian literature to specify a place of eternal torment is in Augustine's City of God in the 4th century. Prior to that, sinners were supposed to be eternally deprived of God but I think that Augustine was the first to describe this as an eternally aware and agonizing experience (although I don't think he mentioned flames). Jerome spoke of eternal flames but I don't think he spoke of eternal torment.

Hell seems to have gotten into Christianity by way of Greek and Persian traditions and then combined with Gehenna to get the lake of fire image.

Dante is the one who really fleshed everything out, though. I don't believe there was a clear and consistent doctrinal or popular concepton of it before Dante.

Jagella

I attribute that tradition to Christians and others who believe that the gospel writers were Jewish. We don’t know for sure who wrote the gospels, but I believe that by making the fewest assumptions, we can consider them to be Jewish.

Yes. Christians are not always wrong, and I have no good reason to doubt that the gospel writers were Jews.

My best guess is that the author of Mark was Jewish. Most of the people that Peter associated with were Jewish, so the author in question was probably Jewish. Nevertheless, I’m more than willing to reconsider my belief if evidence warrants that I do so.

Jagella