JoeWallack

Columpho: Uhm, greetings sir. My name is Inspector Columpho, special
investigator for the Sanhedrin.

Justin: Greetings Inspector. Why are you here?

Columpho: The Sanhedrin has received reports of a "dialogue" between
you and a Jew named Trypho regarding the number of comings of the
Messiah. I've been sent to investigate the reports. May I ask you a
few questions sir?

Justin: Go right ahead Inspector.

Columpho: Thank you sir. First of all let me say that my wife really
loves your writings. Very creative. She wouldn't believe that I'm
talking to you right now. All of those analogies of wood in the
Tanakh foreshadowing the wood of the cross. Very original. Do you
think of wood a lot sir?

Justin: All the time.

Columpho: Why is that sir?

Justin: I was so inspired by Jesus' teaching on adultery that I cut
it off.

Columpho: That's gotta hurt sir. Could you tell me sir where I might
find Trypho?

Justin: Trypho is just a "wool" man.

Columpho: A wool man sir?

Justin: You know, a wool man. A figment of my imagination. A
fictitious character. At first I wrote him as a straw man but the
obvious objections to my two advents arguments and the plain and
simple support in the Tanakh for just one advent were too hard to
answer. So I made him into a wool man with only a vague, general type
question at the start of each subject and then agreement with me at
the end of my lecture.

Columpho: I see sir. Now, can you explain to me exactly where you
think the Tanakh predicts two advents sir?

Justin: Certainly:

"And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures,
sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the
Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of
yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last
curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."
Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures
which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His
generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer
death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be
led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be
two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second,
when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall
mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --
then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things.
But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy
and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have
adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that
remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for
the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired
into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also
spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the
Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that
the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the
earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies
His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus
Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the
times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel
foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is
even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring
things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he
will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the
'time' as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin
must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order
that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel--'and
times'--to be two times only. All this I have said to you in
digression, in order that you at length may be persuaded of what has
been declared against you by God, that you are foolish sons; and of
this, 'Therefore, behold, I will proceed to take away this
people, and shall take them away; and I will strip the wise of
their wisdom, and will hide the understanding of their prudent
men;'(3) and may cease to deceive yourselves and those who hear you,
and may learn of us, who have been taught wisdom by the grace of
Christ. The words, then, which were spoken by David, are these:
(4) 'The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I
make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send the
rod of Thy strength out of Sion: rule Thou also in the midst of
Thine enemies. With Thee shall be, in the day, the chief of Thy
power, in the beauties of Thy saints. From the womb, before the
morning star, have I begotten Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not
repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
The Lord is at Thy right hand: He has crushed kings in the day of His
wrath: He shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill [with] the
dead bodies.(5) He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore
shall He lift up the head.'"

What do you think of my argument Inspector?

Columpho: What do I think sir? I'm no Bible scholar sir. I'm just
taking all of this down for the Sanhedrin to analyze. Did you know
sir that in order to be considered for membership in the Sanhedrin
you have to memorize the entire Tanakh? I can't even remember what I
had for breakfast this morning sir. No, I'm afraid you wouldn't be
very interested in my opinion sir.

Justin: Please Inspector, I want your laymen's opinion.

Columpho: Well sir, since you insist. I think your reasoning takes
more twists and turns than Chubby Checkers trying to make it from the
Castro to the airport to catch a red-eye that leaves in fifteen
minutes after partying all night with Tommy's Tune and Hilfiger and
having the Reverend Jim co-pilot him through the streets of
San Francisco. I also think you use fewer direct quotes from the
Tanakh than the number of black Hebrew Buddhists in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.

Justin: Haven't you ever heard G-d talking to you Inspector?

Columpho: Uhm, no sir. I thought I heard a voice once but it turned
out it was just my wife telling me to take out the garbage. It seems
from your argument sir that you are basing two advents primarily on
Daniel?

Justin: Yea, that's right.

Columpho: You don't think it's strange sir that you are basing such an
important prophecy on someone who was never categorized as a Prophet
and never used the wording of all the Prophets, "thus saith the Lord"?

Justin: No.

Columpho: Also, if Daniel was written in the sixth century BCE as you
believe can you explain why there are Persian and Greek words in the
text since the Jews never came in contact with those civilizations
until much later?

Justin: No.

Columpho: Can you explain sir the unique name for a Greek musical
instrument found in 3:5 which is not mentioned anywhere else in Greek
literature before the second century BCE?

Justin: No.

Columpho: Can you explain to me the special use of the
name "Chaldeans" which was never used in that sense until long after
the exile?

Justin: No.

Columpho: Can you explain sir the fact that Jeshua ben Sira writing
180 BCE lists the heroes of the faith from Enoch to Nehemiah but
makes no mention of Daniel?

Justin: That's interesting, isn't it? Uhm, no.

Columpho: Oh, just one more thing sir. Something that's been
bothering me. All of the other writings from the Tanakh in and around
the sixth century BCE are in Hebrew yet Daniel is written primarily
in Aramaic and not only that but a version of Aramaic not spoken
until long after the exile. Can you explain that sir?

Justin: No inspector, I can't.

Columpho: Well, thank you for your time sir. I think that wraps up my
interview.

Justin: Wait a minute inspector. Don't you want to hear about how
circumcision given as a sign, that the jews might be driven away for
their evil deeds done to christ and the christians, and how sabbaths
were instituted on account of the people's sins, and not for a work
of righteousness and how the jews reject the interpretation of the
lxx., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages and
how the jews expound these signs jejunely and feebly, and take up
their attention only with insignificant matters?

Columpho: No thank you sir. I think I've heard enough already.


JW:
In order to try and determine The Purpose Of "Mark" we need to treat it just like a Detective would which is how almost everyone would operate outside the area of religion. Detectives only consider Possible explanations. Since "Mark" is primarily based on the Impossible we can start with the Assumption that the original author was not a witness to the events described and did not base the story on actual witnesses. The important question regarding The Purpose of "Mark" is did the author intend it to be Primarily history or not? Let's simply choose an Assumption here, just like a detective would, and see how related observations fit with this Assumption:

1) Assumption that "Mark" was not primarily intended as History.
Supporting Observations:

1) "Mark" could not be based on the author's observation of the Impossible.

2) "Mark" could not be based on witnesses' observation of the Impossible.

3) Historical Judaism of the early first century had no Conception of a Messiah that would succeed after being killed.

4) Followers of a captured and killed "Messiah" of this time would assume that capture and execution put an end to that movement.

5) In order for a subsequent audience to take "Mark" as historical sufficient time would need to elapse between the events described and authorship so as to make checking with supposed witnesses diffiCult/Impossible.

6) It would be more likely for an audience outside of the geographical area described to take "Mark" as historical due to the difficulty/Impossibility of checking with supposed witnesses.

7) Possibility that "Mark" was written primarily as an Apology for the failed Jesus Messiah movement 40 years earlier. "Mark" starts with the historical observation that Jesus' followers assumed he Failed when he was captured and executed thus temporarily ending the movement but "Mark" Apologizes that this was part of The Plan, "to fulfill prophecy", and "Mark's" Gospel is the message to his audience to resume the movement.

8) Possibility that the major Disciples in "Mark" are not intended to reflect historical individual characters but rather historical types of characters who all failed Jesus (abandoned the movement):

1) Judas. Peaceful follower who returned to Judaism during the Movement:
Mark 14 (KJV)
10 "And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
11And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him."

The name, "Judas", lack of motive, "return" to the Priests and Temple and overall lack of credible narrative point towards Literary Contrivance as opposed to historicity.

2) Peter. Peaceful follower who abandoned the Movement when Jesus was captured and executed:
Mark 14 (KJV)
66 "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew."

The ironic name "Peter", lack of motive for denying Jesus to a maid ("servants/maids" of "The High Priest" are likely symbolic for Jews of the time), and overall lack of credible narrative point towards Literary Contrivance as opposed to historicity. This was the most common follower to "Mark" and therefore the depiction as the Lead disciple.

3) Fighter. Militant follower who abandoned the Movement when Jesus was captured and executed:
Mark 14 (KJV)
43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
44 And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
45 And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him.
47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
50 And they all forsook him, and fled."

We have the usual Markan contrast here between Jesus/Fighter:

1) Targeted/Not Targeted
2) Identified/Not Identified (Understand Dear Reader?)
3) Passive/Active (the significance of the kiss is to measure Jesus' passiveness. He didn't even resist a kiss).
4) "Healed" Ears/Destroyed Ears
5) Captured/Not captured

We have the Literary Contrivance/Not Believable story then that a Fighter who seriously injured the High Priest's servant with a sword is allowed to go and Jesus' asks the ridiculous related question of why they would come to take him with swords. Note that "John" turns "Mark's" unidentified Fighter into "Peter" and creates the comical contrast that Peter was willing to engage in Mortal Combat with trained Killers to protect Jesus but a little later was unwilling to affirm Jesus verbally to a Servant.

4) Lover. The young man whom Jesus loved follower who abandoned the Movement when Jesus was captured and executed because he was just in it for the Love:
Mark 14: (KJV)
50 "And they all forsook him, and fled.
51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."

After they "all" fled the young man fled, who was wearing only a linen which by implication was a more attractive target to the mob than someone who cut off the High Priest's servants' ear (Judas Priest!). More contrivance.

Note that all these Types of failed followers are narrated closely together with the Judas/Peter and Fighter/Lover stories entwined. Even more Contrivance.

Tying all this to the OP here, "Mark", showing greater potential Literary Contrivance as opposed to credible historicity, such as the inclusion of the naked young man, is more likely to be Original than its fellow Sinoptics. Of course it's Possible that direction went the other way, "Mark" contrived a more historical "Matthew". But which direction fits the observations above better?



Joseph

LOVE, n.
A temporary insanity curable by marriage or by removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder. This disease, like caries and many other ailments, is prevalent only among civilized races living under artificial conditions; barbarous nations breathing pure air and eating simple food enjoy immunity from its ravages. It is sometimes fatal, but more frequently to the physician than to the patient.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html