Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 06-06-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

You presented examples to show that Mark is not actual history. Participants agreed. Therefore, you claim, this shows that Mark is not based on history.

No, misunderstanding. I claim that, unless there is extra evidence, we have to take those bits of Mark that look like literary constructions as what they look like: literary constructions. That is the most parsimonious interpretation, unless someone comes up with other (extra-Mark) evidence that the events described by the constructions did (at least in part) happen.

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man · 06-06-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

You presented examples to show that Mark is not actual history. Participants agreed. Therefore, you claim, this shows that Mark is not based on history.

No, misunderstanding. I claim that, unless there is extra evidence, we have to take those bits of Mark that look like literary constructions as what they look like: literary constructions. That is the most parsimonious interpretation, unless someone comes up with other (extra-Mark) evidence that the events described by the constructions did (at least in part) happen.

Gerard Stafleu

You've shown that they resemble literary constructions. You haven't shown that they are and that they only are. And form and source criticism rightly has given, in my opinion, reason to think that sources antedate Mark. Finally, have you done any comparative literature with Mark and other ancient genres to see where Mark fits?

Ben C Smith · 06-06-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

As for the donkey, it too is suspiciously neat. It sets up this great dichotomy between Jesus' humble entrance and the silly reaction to it by the Jerusalem crowd.

The entrance on a donkey was not humble. It was the entrance of the royal personage in Zechariah 9.9. The reaction of the crowd is exactly what Jesus would have intended, based on this echo of scripture.

You call it the Jerusalem crowd. If this scene really happened in any form, the crowd was almost certainly not comprised mainly of Jerusalemites. This was Passover; these would be pilgrims coming to Jerusalem from other points.

Quote:

Which then gets reinforced by that scene where Jesus gets Pilate to say he is the King of the Jews (as opposed to Jesus saying it himself). Not to mention the crown-of-thorns and purple robe bit, which really drives home the point. Almost too good to be true, no?

Most or all of the stuff in the passion narrative that has people neutral or negative toward Jesus fulfilling prophecy and unwittingly recognizing his kingship is probably too good to be true. (I doubt, for example, that anybody offered Jesus a drink on the cross to fulfill the psalm about vinegar and gall.)

Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey and the crowd picking up on the symbolism, however, is not the same thing. Jesus could have intentionally echoed Zechariah; the crowd reaction implies only that the crowd was already well disposed toward Jesus, which is exactly what most of the rest of Mark shows.

Again, to be clear, I myself harbor doubts about the triumphal entry; however, the notion that the scene is too tightly written or too good to be true is not valid, IMO.

Ben.

JoeWallack · 06-07-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

I am admittedly not the most well versed in OT prophecy, and it's been a while since I read all of that anyway. But I don't recall from my reading any passage that might indicate that Messiah was to come twice. It seems to me that when the Messiah came, it would be showtime. Can anyone point out a prophecy or prophecies that would indicate that the Messiah was intended to come twice--i.e., that he would come, depart, and then come a second time, when the real business would start?

JW:
I Am afraid it's even worse than that. From the original Gospel narrative:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Quote:

16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

This looks like the twice. But, as Roger Elizabeth Debris said in the classic, Springtime For Hitler, "But wait, there's more":

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_13

Quote:

13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

13:25 and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken.

13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

This looks like the third time. It also looks like the source for "Mark's" Jesus' future audience's tribulation was Paul's audience:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Romans_8

Quote:

8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Another complication is the split personality of "Mark's" Jesus:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15

Quote:

15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

As Ehrman has righteously pointed out, this would be better translated as "My God, my God, why hast thou left me?" and supports the Separationists. Did "Mark" believe in split personalities? Apparently so as his Gospel is Legion with them. A related question I have which has never been satisfactorily answered by Christians is, say you had a split personality and only one personailty believed in Jesus. Would the believing personality save the entire body or would the damning personality damn the entire body? Everybody is welcome to answer except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

DIVINATION, n.
The art of nosing out the occult. Divination is of as many kinds as there are fruit-bearing varieties of the flowering dunce and the early fool.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

gstafleu · 06-08-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The entrance on a donkey was not humble. It was the entrance of the royal personage in Zechariah 9.9. The reaction of the crowd is exactly what Jesus would have intended, based on this echo of scripture.

Unless you go with a precursor of the rabbinic story, of course.

Quote:

You call it the Jerusalem crowd. If this scene really happened in any form, the crowd was almost certainly not comprised mainly of Jerusalemites. This was Passover; these would be pilgrims coming to Jerusalem from other points.

By the Jerusalem crowd I meant the Sanhedrin et al. It was they who overreacted by interpreting a humble entry (if that is what it was) by zapping Jesus.

Gerard Stafleu

jules? · 06-08-2008, 11:12 AM

I suppose it depends on what messiah, kingly or cosmic and the nature of the herald of the apocalypse. A sacrificial lamb and suffering servant would be rewarded following their death and when confused with son of Man, kingly messiah, two messiahs, twins, representative messiahs on earth awaiting judgement day etc as well as the return of king David as messiah or even 'some one like Moses or Noah' then coming again is an easy mistake to make. It seems that orthodox christians were really quite confused when they inhereted Jewish apocalyptic belief.

Ben C Smith · 06-08-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The entrance on a donkey was not humble. It was the entrance of the royal personage in Zechariah 9.9. The reaction of the crowd is exactly what Jesus would have intended, based on this echo of scripture.

Unless you go with a precursor of the rabbinic story, of course.

No; even if the rabbinic tradition predates the triumphal entry, the basis is still rather clearly Zechariah 9.9.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2008, 11:12 AM	#26
jules? Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: mind the time rift, cardiff, wales Posts: 645	I suppose it depends on what messiah, kingly or cosmic and the nature of the herald of the apocalypse. A sacrificial lamb and suffering servant would be rewarded following their death and when confused with son of Man, kingly messiah, two messiahs, twins, representative messiahs on earth awaiting judgement day etc as well as the return of king David as messiah or even 'some one like Moses or Noah' then coming again is an easy mistake to make. It seems that orthodox christians were really quite confused when they inhereted Jewish apocalyptic belief.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.