michael wellenberg

Joining the current debate about Mark´s view of the disciples at this stage there seems to be a minor consensus about the disciples´being in fact criticized. But to what extent ? Is Mark´s a balanced review of the disciples´ behaviour from a distance, or is it a polemic eben hostile account of their failures ? In the latter case I suggest that Mark´s treatment could be a clue to his biography and to the time when he wrote.
If Mark´s description of the behaviour of the Twelve is hostile, and his attacking of them, foremost Peter but also James and John, is intentional then the dark picture on the one hand would show a close though negative relationship between contemporaries. Mark´s attacks aiming directly at the Twelve´s incomprehension and misconception may on the other hand intend to challenge their leading position in the early community to that they claim to have been authorized by Jesus himself. Mark seems to deny their legitimation to act and preach as successors of the risen Lord on the ground that they never understood, misconceived, abandoned and denied the earthly Jesus.
So Mark´s negative treatment of the Twelve makes a time for writing his gospel more plausible when the attacked still played a leading role in the Jerusalem community. Since the leadership had apparently gone over to James at least at the Jerusalem Council usually dated 48/49 it could be reasonably argued that this time is the terminus ante for Mark´s account. I think it possible to make the date even more precise in linking 7:14-23 with Gal 2:11-24. In 7:14-23 Mark has Jesus make clear that the food laws are not to be strictly observed.
The question of a complete observance of the food laws became a problem for a large mixed community in the forties, a problem that we become aware of first through Paul´s letter to the Galatians when he reports of Peter´s having stopped the table fellowship with his Gentile brethren in Antioch. This problem had to be solved and was partly solved at the Jerusalem Council. The situation when Peter gave up the table fellowship, a behaviour Mark disapproves by writing 7:14-23, might be the trigger for Mark´s writing which then could be dated around 46/47.

JoeWallack

JW:
Velcome die avenue, velcome. Here at II Cabaret everything is beautifully Skeptical. Even the Christians are Skeptical. Your English is ReMarkably good for someone from Germany (Vienna). I'd say it's as good as a Professor at the University of Rice. You guy's X-Uh-Jesus is the best. Instead of all trying to learn Greek here we would have been better off learning German. I mean, why reinvent the Weltenschang? Regrettably, the only step I've taken in that direction is to acquire a love of German wine, beer, food and capitalization of Nouns.

"The situation when Peter gave up the table fellowship, a behaviour Mark disapproves by writing 7:14-23, might be the trigger for Mark´s writing which then could be dated around 46/47."

Hmmm, as Roger Elizabeth Debris said when asked if he would do Springtime For Hitler, "Of course...Not!". Nein, I think "Mark" is primarily an account of Impossible Jesus. Since the Historical Jesus was Possible Jesus "Mark" is full of Impossible claims. Making Impossible claims in your time or even within the time of contemporaries is very bad for your Credibility. Just ask the Bush Administration. Impossible claims must be made sufficiently in the Past or Future, after potential Witness is whoosh (gone). This observation by itself makes 46/47 implausible.

Also, "Mark's" Jesus is aware of the destruction of the Temple in 70 which also dates "Mark" to post 70. Note that Paul is unaware of this prediction (it'd be nice for mainstream Christianity to address this problem once in a while) mainly because Supernatural prophecy is Impossible but also because the Possible prediction didn't exist at the time he wrote. Ja, this dating works well with "Mark's" Impossible claims. Whatever Jesus was, if anything, was at least 40 years ago and supposedly ended in Jerusalem while "Mark" is written anonymously in NotJerusalem. Now it's not so easy to dispute "Mark" with historical witness to Jesus and we see the advantage of Anonymous authorship. It's Impossible for Subsequent Christianity to Prove the Impossible. The best that can be done is to make it as hard as Possible to disprove the Impossible.

Liberal Christian Bible scholars, Weeden, Kelber and Fowler are all, as Max Bialystock, says, "Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant" when it comes to Confessing that "Mark", is largely a Condemnation of The Disciples as Total Failures. But just like "Mark's" Peter who knows Who "Mark's" Jesus is, they don't know What it means. In Order to keep their brand of Faith they all Minimize What it means to a Specific context:

1) Weeden - Church Leadership Polemic

2) Kelber - Definition of Messiah function

3) Fowler - Who the Audience is

And Herr Wellenberg, if The Jew fits...

Der X-Uh-Jesus:

Mark 7: (NIV)
1 "The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[b] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Matthew 15: (NIV)
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[d]"
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"
13 He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[e] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15 Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

Luke:
" "

JW: (Ni!)
It's always 7:14, isn't it?
In this Pericope "Mark" has a primary theme of Cleaning the "Inside" as Opposed to the "Outside". "Inside" is morals and ethics and "Outside" is ritual practice. "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing". "ceremonial washing" is a mistranslation/dishonest translation. The word means "closed fist". This fits perfectly with "Mark's" context. Washing a closed fist would make the Outside clean but not the Inside. Note that "Matthew" exorcises the word not willing to sacrifice historicity for theology. Regarding "Mark" wanting to teach that it was kosher for the Goyim to eat Treif he cleverly illustrates that food going in doesn't defile, but what goes out does. Very good eScatologically. Very guten fit with the Inside vs. Outside theme. But the declaration is an Editorial comment "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")". It's not something "Mark's" Jesus says directly. No, I think it's just something the Author saw an opportunity to work into the Pericope and not a Major theme to the Author. Overall I think what people ate was relatively unimportant to "Mark's" main Theme that all that was/is/willbe important is having Faith in ("Mark's") Jesus.

Note that "Matthew", with a more Jewish audience, exorcises this Editorial comment while "Luke" exercises the whole story in anticipation of Peter's unclean buffet in the sky in Acts. As your famous fellow Viennite would say,
"Somtimes a See Gar is just a See Gar."

You seem to be in the Weeden camp limiting the significance of "Mark" to Polemic between early Church leadership. I Am afraid that The Problem, even for Liberal Christianity, is much bigger than that. "Mark" is saying that the people who knew Jesus didn't know Jesus and the people who didn't know Jesus, know Jesus. Paul says the same thing. Therefore, Orthodox Christianity which claims to know Jesus was started by people who Confess to us that they didn't know Jesus and tell us not to Hear those who did. This does help explain why Jesus' own Country never believed Paul or "Mark" and every country that "Mark's" Jesus was familiar with turned out NotChristian while it was Countrys that didn't know "Mark's" Jesus who are now Christian.

Now that's Ironic!



Joseph

"If England, to the North, has always been the brain of Europe, calm and sensible, and France to the South is the Naughty Bits, Than Germany in the Center is the Heart of Europe, Emotional and easily swayed." - Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

It was Great when it all began,
I was a regular Yeshu fan.
But it was over when "Mark" had The Plan,
To make him more than just the son of man.



JW:
Continuing:

5: (NIV)
30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, "Who touched my clothes?"
31 "You see the people crowding against you," his disciples answered, "and yet you can ask, 'Who touched me?' "
32 But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."
35 While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," they said. "Why bother the teacher any more?"
36 Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, "Don't be afraid; just believe."
37 He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. 38When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. 39He went in and said to them, "Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep." 40But they laughed at him.
After he put them all out, he took the child's father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!" ). 42Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.


Matthew 9: (NIV)
18 While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, "My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live." 19Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.
20 Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak. 21She said to herself, "If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed."
22 Jesus turned and saw her. "Take heart, daughter," he said, "your faith has healed you." And the woman was healed from that moment.
23 When Jesus entered the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the noisy crowd, 24he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him. 25After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up. 26News of this spread through all that region.


Luke 8: (NIV)
40 Now when Jesus returned, a crowd welcomed him, for they were all expecting him. 41Then a man named Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, came and fell at Jesus' feet, pleading with him to come to his house 42because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.
As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. 43And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years,[d] but no one could heal her. 44She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.
45"Who touched me?" Jesus asked.
When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you."
46 But Jesus said, "Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me."
47 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. 48Then he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace."
49 While Jesus was still speaking, someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," he said. "Don't bother the teacher any more."
50 Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, "Don't be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed."
51 When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. 52 Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."
53 They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" 55Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. 56Her parents were astonished, but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened."


JW:
Wild stuff huh. And personally, I can't Believe that it was only Tuesday. X-Uh-Jesus:

36 "Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, "Don't be afraid; just believe."

According to "Mark" the effectiveness of Healing is based on the Faith of the Requester and not Provider of the Services (just like our modern HMO's). This is why Jesus instructs the ruler and not The Disciples. "Mark's" point for his audience is that Faith Healing doesn't have to be from a Disciple. Understand dear Reader?

37 "He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James."

"Peter, James and John"? Weren't these the same guys Jesus brought with him to The Garden for The Cup playoffs?:

14:
32 "They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."

Yup.

"After he put them all out, he took the child's father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!" ). 42Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished."

So the Author makes a Point that other than the parents the only Witnesses to Jesus' power over Death were ...Peter, James and John. And their reaction:

"At this they were completely astonished".

So Ben, Jesus just gave a Private, special performance, right in front of their !@#$%^&* faces Demonstration to Peter, James and John that he had power over Death yet they still didn't Believe him. I mean What more could "Mark's" Jesus try to do to convince them? That was his Act, he didn't dance.
Seeing as "Mark's" Peter, James and John didn't Believe in a Resurrection that they Witnessed, What in God's name makes you think they would believe in a Resurrection they didn't witness?

Again, ya gotta just Love this Author. Peter, James and John can not provide credible testimony as witnesses of Jesus because they, unlike the Author, Witnessed Jesus. Wierd! As they say, Fact is often stranger than fiction.

Now for some Bonus material:

"Matthew" -

1) Never mentions "Jairus" which means "Mark" was probably Forged to agree with "Luke".

2) Exorcises the Disciples wondering why Jesus thought someone deliberately reached out and touched him.

3) Exorcises the part about only Peter, John and James being with him as witnesses.

4) No one is "astonished" at Jesus bringing someone back from the dead.



"Luke" -

1) Now only Peter speaks about who touched Jesus.

2) Only the parents end up "astonished".



Joseph

"Ho, ho, ho!" - The son of McMan

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

michael wellenberg

Is ch. 13 a stumbling block for dating Mark´s gospel in the mid-forties ? Is think it is not. Ch. 13 offers no specific details which might prove Mark´s knowledge of the events during the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem. His description of the tribulation in the end time is seemingly based on an apocalyptic source enrichened by his experiences and imagination. The resulting picture does not fit in a defined historical frame, it could in fact be put into any frame. That the end time tribulation for Mark culminates inevitably in the destruction of the temple is only logical.

Vorkosigan

There are other indications in Mark that the writer of it knows the Temple is destroyed. Many of his citations of the OT involve violence occurring in the Temple, or the destruction of the Temple -- the famous cite in the Temple Ruckus marries one reference to the first Temple at Shiloh, destroyed, with a vision of a future Temple where all nations worship.

Further the writer of Mark probably knows Josephus' Wars -- Ted Weeden has uncovered 24 parallels between the trial scene before Pilate and the description of Jesus ben Ananias, building on the work of Craig Evans. Lawrence Wills (1997, p160) describes some of the parallels:


*he enters Jerusalem for a pilgrimage festival (Sukkot)
*he delivers an oracle against Jerusalem, the Temple, and the people
*he is seized by leading citizens
*he is beaten, later scouraged
*he offers no answer to interrogators
*he is taken by them to the Roman procurator
*he is considered a madman (exestokos; compare Mark 3:21 exeste, and also John 7:20)
*he prophesies his own death
*he dies

One should add, of course, that his name was "Jesus." Weeden says he thinks that the gospel dates from 85, at least.

Mark 13 is clearly meant to be read in conjuction with the Crucifixion, for which it functions as a typology.

Mark 13
Jesus Passion

Disciples before Councils
Jesus before Sanhedrin

Disciples beaten in Synagogues
Jesus beaten after Sanhedrin Trial

Disciples before Governors
Jesus before Pilate

Disciples brought to trial and "handed over"
Jesus on trial and "handed over"

Brother betrays brother
Judas betrays Jesus

Disciples hated in Jesus' name
Reaction to Jesus' claim to be the Blessed One.

If you put the Abomination of the Desolation in there, which follows immediately on this, it is a reference to Jesus' Crucifixion. See my blog entry on this (and don't miss the comments) for why this probably indicates that Mark was written after 130.

If the writer of Mark knows Josephus' bio, from which he might derive the Crucifixion scene of three men crucified together and one surviving, then that puts him after 110.

Another late dating datum -- the Gospel of Mark makes extensive use of the conventions of Hellenistic Romantic/Historical fiction -- city entrances, being taken for a divine being, portents while visiting the temple, suffering from jealous enemies, trials before the local potentate, crucifixions, resurrections, empty tombs, and many other aspects of Mark are conventional elements in Greek fiction of the 1-3 centuries. However, this really appears to have gotten going after the second half of the first century, and its heyday was the second and third centuries. Hence Mark belongs to the second century, most likely.

Several references to persecution in Mark also speak to a time long after the founding. So do the anti-Jewish polemics in Mark, which point to a time long after 40 and long after 75 as well.

Mark 13 is not based on a source -- it is vintage Markan style and structure.

BTW, Jesus opines that his followers will be hated for "my name's sake" in Mk 13. Early Christians did not refer to themselves by Jesus' name, but called themselves the Church of God or the Saints or the Elect. "Christian" came into use much later. So in fact, that datum specifically rules out your early date for Mark as well.

Not necessarily. For the writer of Mark could be writing much later than 47/8, since he need merely pick up the animus toward James in Paul's letters, OR he dislikes the disciples for reasons that have nothing to do with Pauline problems, but because he wants to teach a lesson to the faithful hearing his gospel.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

ROFL. I love the writer's hacks on the disciples.

jakejonesiv

Michael,

Just by way of comparison, I would date Mark chapter 13 to the 130's.

THE SYNOPTIC APOCALYPSE (MARK 13 PAR):
A DOCUMENT FROM THE TIME OF BAR KOCHBA by Hermann Detering

Jake

Julian

The belief that the beginning of Mark 13 refers to the temple is an old one. I don't have an apparatus handy but I do believe that Codex Bezae specifically adds a temple reference. I, like Vork and others, have no problem moving GMark into the 2nd century. Throughout early christianity we see church writings refer to, or borrow from, earlier writings. It generally doesn't take too long for a popular document to be used by other writers. It seems hard to swallow that the most popular and important writings, the gospels, would take a half century or more before they were referenced at all.

Julian

JoeWallack

and you know it don't come easy


JW:
Now, for Prophet and Ben-E-Fit let's Turn up the Jews and see what shakes loose:

BeezleJesus! BeezleJesus! BeezleJesus!

Journeying through the Cites of "Mark" let's consider "Mark's" Jesus' Specific
Commendations vs. Condemnations of The Disciples along The Way. While we do, try to think of what "Mark" is Communicating without the Ben-E-Fit of "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" (just like "Mark's" Audience). Enjoy!: (NIV)


4:
35 "That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." 36Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm."
40 He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"


8:
14 "The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod."
16 They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no bread."
17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
"Twelve," they replied.
20 "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
They answered, "Seven."
21 He said to them, "Do you still not understand?"


8:
31 "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."


14:
17 "When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me."


14:
27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.'[c] 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
29Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."
30"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice[d] you yourself will disown me three times."


JW:
Adding up the Numbers I see 5 Specific Condemnations of The Disciples and -0- Specific Commendations of The Disicples. So he appears to be Dissing Disciples. I really think this Author wanted The Reader to see The Disciples as Total Failures.

Now bringing "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" into (the) Play, we seem to have The Following Development:

1) "Mark" - Primary Theme of The Disciples' Failure

2) "Matthew" - Primary Theme of "The Jews"' Failure. Toning down of The Disciples Failure.

3) "Luke" - Mixed treatment of The Disciples with some Positives thrown in.

4) "John" - Now The Disicples have front row seats at the crucifixion.

Nexus - "Mark's" Replacement Theology (but it's not what you think).



Joseph

Jew. Noun. One who has Faith in the Possible.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

Higher Plane Drifter
(The first of the "Kugel Westerns")

Directed by Sergio Leone
Adapted for the Screen by Maimonides
Based on the book, "The Torah", by G-d

Starring:
Clint Eastwood as Abraham
Eli Wallach as the Baaltender
Saddam Hussein as Bart
Yassir Arafat as Maddog
King Hussein as Charles
And
Donald Sutherland as "Shades"

Setting: The Desert Inn, deep in the heart of the Negev Desert. Bart and
Maddog are playing a game of darts with knives. Charles is sitting
at a table, with a puzzled look on his face, reading the story of
Creation. The Baaltender is behind the altar, polishing several idols
on top of the altar.

Background Music: Waah waah waaah, wah wah waah.
Yaah yaah yaaah, yah yah yaah.
Waah waah waaah, wah Yahweh.

Abraham enters the Inn.

Baaltender : Howdy stranger. C'mon in and idol on up to the altar.
Abraham : I have been wandering in the desert. I have not worshiped in
forty days.
Baaltender: How bout an ice cold Baal?
Abraham : I do not worship Baal.
Baaltender : No problem. We've also got Baal lite, Iced Baal, Malt Baal,
and genuine draft Baal.
Abraham : I do not worship any idols.

The Baaltender takes a step backwards with a shocked look on his face.
Bart and Maddog swing around to take a look at the stranger. Charles
raises a monkey skull in one hand and mentally compares it to Maddog's
face.

Bart : What's yer name stranger?
Abraham: Abram. My friend's call me Abraham.
Bart : Well, Abram, folks round here don't take too kindly to
strangers who don't worship Baal. We're just going to have to
fight it out to see whose G-d is stronger. Now, on the count of
three, draw yer G-d. One, two, three, draw!
Abraham : Done!
Maddog : How can you be done, you ain't drawn nuthin?
Abraham : The G-d I worship is incorporeal.
Bart : Okay Abie, that's it. You and me is going to settle this once and
fer all. Choose your weapon.

Abraham : Very well.
"They have put their trust in abundance of chariots,
In vast numbers of riders,
They have not sought the LORD.
For the Egyptians are man, not G-d,
And their horses are flesh, not spirit;
The righteous man perishes,
And no one considers;
Yet he shall come to peace,
He shall have rest on his couch
Who walked straightforward."

Bart and Maddog stand silently with their mouths open as Abraham walks
out of the Inn.

Baaltender : What the heck did he just say?
Charles : (studying map) What he is saying is that G-d is pure spirit
while man consists of the physical and spiritual. When man
dies, the physical part of him dies but the higher spiritual part
of him lives on through the values that he carried and how
they influenced his work and the people he knew.
Bart : So the teaching of G-d's incorporeality by means of
authoritative exegesis, i.e., the most public teaching of G-d's
incorporeality, is indispensable for destroying the last relics
of paganism.
Maddog : And the immediate source of paganism is less the ignorance
of G-d's unity than the ignorance of His radical
incorporeality.
Baaltender : So while the belief in unity leads immediately to the rejection
of the worship of other gods but not to the rejection of the
worship of images of the one G-d, the belief in incorporeality
leads immediately only to the rejection of the worship of
images or of other bodies but not to the rejection of the
worship of other gods, all G-ds may be incorporeal.
Charles : Exactly. So only if the belief in G-d's incorporeality is based
on the belief in His unity does the belief in G-d's
incorporeality appear to be the necessary and sufficient
ground for rejecting forbidden worship in every form, i.e.
the worship of other gods as well as the worship of both
natural and artificial things. Now, can anyone tell me how
to get to the Galapagos Islands from here?


JW:
Now let's consider Replacement Theology in "Mark". Where to start?

Vork:
How about at the beginning.

JW:
And what's the first chapter?

Vork:
Chapter 1.


NIV:
1 "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]
2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way"[b]—
3"a voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "[c] 4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with[d] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus
9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."


JW:
And so Jesus just Appears on The Scene, Act 1, with no Introduction or Beginning like one of those Roman SpaGotti westerns:

The Good, The Bad and Theology

Regarding taking Names (and kissing ass) in "Mark" as Evidence of Historical people the biggest Problem is that "Mark" is primarily an Account of The Impossible. So The Author's general Credibility is seriously Impeached at the Start as to Possible claims, such as Names.

If it was Possible to ignore Impossible claims the question is was "Mark" trying to be Historical regarding Possible claims. The big Problem here is that "Mark" doesn't mention Jesus' Father above or anywhere in the Gospel. This would be highly unusual/unheard of in a Biography. Regardless of whether "Mark" knew or cared who Jesus' Father was, the absence of a guess indicates it's not something "Mark" wanted the Reader to know.

Now the next problem:
1.1 "Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ] {C}
The absence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in א* Θ 28c al may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W al in support of υἱοῦ θεοῦ is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
The Metz has Understated the Evidence for Forgery here (with Apologies to Schmuelman!) and The Bart has had to clean up his Metz. The Patristic evidence makes it clear that "the son of god" is a Forgery. So another problem is that in addition to having Motive and Opportunity to Change important Relationships in "Mark" Subsequent Christianity is caught in Flagrante Dereliction of duties in 1:1.

Another Problem is that regarding Possible names for Jesus' Father, the Messiah was sometimes referred to as "Son of Joseph" in Jewish writings. Historically, if a son died, it normally would be the responsibility of the Father to bury him:

15:
42 "It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid."

There's "Joseph of Arimathea" doing the burying. Additionally, "Arimathea" can mean "best disciple town". And for good measure "Mary the mother of Joses" is also there. "Joses" is probably the Galilean version of "Joseph". So we have two "Joseph" connected people, where the parents normally would be and one "best Disciples town" person where The Disciples would normally be (as John's Disciples buried him). So we have pretty good evidence here that "Mark" was Creating names for Theological reasons rather than just reporting historical names.

And, as the Brits like Roger Pearse would say, The Cruncher:

3:
31 "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

"Mark" also has a Primary Theme of Replacement using his own family as the Prime Example! Another reason for "Mark" to create Names rather than just use a historical name.

So in Summary, just considering Jesus' supposed Father so far, we have the following reasons to Doubt the Historicity of Important Names in "Mark":

1) "Mark" is primarily a Fictional account so any Possible claims such as Names must be Doubted.

2) "Mark's" Story indicates there is important information he doesn't want The Reader to know. Important Historical Names are one of them.

3) Subsequent Christianity was perfectly God willing and able to Change potentially improtant information in "Mark". Like important historical names.

4) "Mark" has plenty of evidence that important Names were Created for Theological reasons.

5) "Mark" has a Primary Theme of Replacement using Jesus' own family as The Example. Another reason to Create the same name for a Family and non-Family person in the Story.

Next up:

The Mother of all gods.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page