Freethought & Rationalism Archive

the_cave · 06-21-2008, 08:39 AM

JW, if I may ask, where then do you think the original ending of Mark's gospel fell?

Solitary Man · 06-21-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Um, you are aware, I hope, that the majority of Christians (around 70%) in the US believe every word of the Bible is literally true, and a majority of Christians in the US believe that animals were created in their present form within the past 10,000 years, right?

Do you have statistics for the first number? Moreover, how is that even relevant? Obviously, Christians in America do not outnumber everyone else in the world. I'm still trying to see relevance.

Quote:

Based on the data, it's clear that most Christians think that the Bible is the work of God, not just the work of fallible humans.

Once again, who cares?

Quote:

Sure it is. You said before that we know “99%” of a text. That 1% can put the message on it’s head.

In the same way that the 1% can put the theory of evolution on its head. The numbers are so minute that they're petty.

Quote:

The fact is we do indeed have a pretty good idea of what these texts said in the second century – what changes it took to get them there is anyone’s guess. Most of the Biblical texts have a span of around 50 -100 years between when they were written and our first evidence of what they said (nearly always only from a proto-orthodox source). A text can be changed in a few minutes.

Which is why he have textual criticism.

Quote:

No, we don’t all know that. A large group of Christians, probably a majority, never thinks about the changes made to the Bible. Again, see above.

So what?

Quote:

Come on. Eternal torment is not a greater motivation than love for the classics? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Eternal torment has never bothered me. The backstabbing strumpet Lesbia, she bothered me.

Quote:

OK, fine – let’s say the 18 plays are not representative. Then my point is even stronger – that the collection of stuff in the NT is even less representative because it was specifically chosen to support a certain doctrine of a dominant church.

What?

Quote:

Sure I can. Who did the preserving, copying, etc? The proto-orthodox church. Of course the ones preserved by the preservers tend to be older – they didn’t preserve the contemporary ones that disagreed with them.

Not always true. They preserved Tacitus, who labels the Christians negatively. Also, they preserved in rebuttals those who disagreed with them.

Quote:

OK, whatever. I know a lot more about church theology than most Christians (and that was true when I was still Christian too.)

OK.

Quote:

I don't think a p155ing contest is useful here, so let's focus on more substantive discussions.

I'll be waiting for anything of relevance.

andrewcriddle · 06-21-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
..........................................
"Left behind" (I think "Mark" would find it quite Ironic that the best selling series chose the name of what happened to his Jesus) is the common meaning so that is the starting point.

FWIW Liddell & Scott seems to indicate that although "left behind" is the older meaning going back to Hesiod, "leave in the lurch/abandon" becomes increasingly common from Plato onwards. In later Greek both meanings are frequently found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

If, in addition, we have a good reason for "Mark" to have meant "left behind" than it is Likely that "left behind" is what he meant. "Mark" as a whole is a highly structured and balanced story. Having the Christ Spirit at the End leave Jesus is balanced by having the Christ Spirit at the Beginning come to Jesus. Jesus' cry of "left behind" also fits the Ironically Transferring and Reversal style of the Passion. Jesus Christ's emotions are gradually reduced to -0- while emotion is transferred to everyone else. "Mark's" implication is that during the crucifixion, in which "Mark" literally counts the hours, as opposed to the Ministry which goes by in seconds, Jesus is silent. It is not until the Christ Spirit leaves him and he is left behind, that he shows any emotion or makes any sound. Just as he never did anything noteworthy until he received the Spirit. Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some, like "Mark's" Jesus, have greatness thrust upon them. All this equals "left behind" is likely.

One problem with the claim that in Mark the Christ Spirit leaves Jesus a little while before his death is the things that happen later

Quote:

And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

From a separationist viewpoint the divine response to the death of Jesus and his acknowledgement by the centurion as Son of God occur after the departure of the Christ Spirit has left him a mere man.
This seems improbable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

b/ IMHO the question as to whether or not Mark was separationist may be anachronistic. To ask the question is to regard Mark as trying to answer a question, (how are the human and divine in Jesus Christ associated with each other) , which may not have been asked until later.

JW:
You and the Moderators always make me feel like Billy Jack trying to deal with Bernardo. If "Mark" shows God's spirit as a transferable piece, which can be added to or subtracted from the human Jesus, that by definition is Separationism. That's a fact, Jack. If "Mark" shows Separationism than the question of whether he believed what he showed can not possibly be anachronistic.

Mark can clearly be read that way (some Gnostics did) but it can be read in other ways (the early proto-Orthodox did). What I'm suggesting is that until these different readings have been made explicit (probably after Mark) there are difficulties in meaningfully discussing which reading someone supports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

The External evidence (see The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel) indicates that "Mark" is an early second century product and according to the orthodox there were Gnostics at that time. "Mark" may have been exclusively a Gnostic product until the Forged ending.

Whether right or wrong this is definitely not Ehrman's posiiton. Ehrman makes clear that the overwhelming consensus of scholars dates Mark before 80 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

It's clear that "Mark" supports the Separationists and we can see that the major Forgeries to "Mark", the supposed Birth and Resurrection sightings, are both Reactions against Separationism. I think "Mark" is primarily Literature and not Theology so I don't he was a Separationist. The idea for God's Spirit coming and going is from the David/Saul story, where God's Spirit goes into Saul, leaves Saul and is replaced by a Bad Spirit, and goes into David. David Ironically than plays music to soothe Saul's Bad Spirit.

If "Mark" is primarily theology though than he clearly is Separationist.

Within Markan theology I doubt if Mark is separationist in your sense.
Mark has a clear doctrine of the death of Christ as redemptive eg Mark 10:45

Quote:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

The separationist forms of Gnosticism seem to have regarded the death of Jesus as irrelevant for salvation.

Andrew Criddle

mens_sana · 06-21-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

However, compare that to telling a fundamentalist that 1Tim (or say, the entire NT) is actually a forgery to which parts have since been added and subtracted, and you better run for cover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

A fundamentalist, maybe. But who cares about them? Why get worked up over crazies?

I get worked up over the "crazies." They vote and they've been infiltrating school boards trying to, at minimum, get Creationism recognized as equivalent to Evolutionary theory in grammar/high school curricula. Their beliefs are "imperialist," with no recognition of church/state separation allowed. In the U.S., the kneejerk answer to a survey is "Christian," even though the last church service was 30 years ago. And kneejerk response is what you get from those who have never investigated their beliefs. The "crazies" can carry a number of those kneejerk voters along with them, making many states more "red" than "blue" on many issues. And they don't give up!

That the "crazies" are few on this board does not mean that they are an audience that can (or should) be ignored. The problem is how to phrase posts so as to recognize yet not confuse audiences.

Solitary Man · 06-21-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

However, compare that to telling a fundamentalist that 1Tim (or say, the entire NT) is actually a forgery to which parts have since been added and subtracted, and you better run for cover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

A fundamentalist, maybe. But who cares about them? Why get worked up over crazies?

I get worked up over the "crazies." They vote and they've been infiltrating school boards trying to, at minimum, get Creationism recognized as equivalent to Evolutionary theory in grammar/high school curricula. Their beliefs are "imperialist," with no recognition of church/state separation allowed. In the U.S., the kneejerk answer to a survey is "Christian," even though the last church service was 30 years ago. And kneejerk response is what you get from those who have never investigated their beliefs. The "crazies" can carry a number of those kneejerk voters along with them, making many states more "red" than "blue" on many issues. And they don't give up!

That the "crazies" are few on this board does not mean that they are an audience that can (or should) be ignored. The problem is how to phrase posts so as to recognize yet not confuse audiences.

What does it have to do with textual criticism? You think that those kind of people are vulnerable to arguments from manuscripts? You've got to be kidding me.

mens_sana · 06-21-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

What does it have to do with textual criticism? You think that those kind of people are vulnerable to arguments from manuscripts? You've got to be kidding me.

It has nothing to do with textual criticism. They are never vulnerable to arguments from manuscripts. I'm not kidding. May I suggest that Equinox is perhaps a little closer to this problem than you are, therefore it colors his reply. Personally, I would take this into consideration. Peace.

-Jay- · 06-21-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It has been suggested that he represented the Jewish nation, which was crucified when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

This has occurred to me. The 12 apostles, in my train of thought, represent the tribes of Israel. GMt works in a number of ways as a commentary on the failings of Israel, especially if you stop reading at the original ending.

Solitary Man · 06-21-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It has been suggested that he represented the Jewish nation, which was crucified when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

This has occurred to me. The 12 apostles, in my train of thought, represent the tribes of Israel. GMt works in a number of ways as a commentary on the failings of Israel, especially if you stop reading at the original ending.

Seriously doubtful, considering Paul knows of the Twelve as a distinguished group.

-Jay- · 06-21-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

This has occurred to me. The 12 apostles, in my train of thought, represent the tribes of Israel. GMt works in a number of ways as a commentary on the failings of Israel, especially if you stop reading at the original ending.

Seriously doubtful, considering Paul knows of the Twelve as a distinguished group.

Paul's writings are not without their own issues, of course.

Solitary Man · 06-21-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Seriously doubtful, considering Paul knows of the Twelve as a distinguished group.

Paul's writings are not without their own issues, of course.

Sounds like an ad hoc excuse to dismiss Paul.

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

06-21-2008, 08:39 AM	#111
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	JW, if I may ask, where then do you think the original ending of Mark's gospel fell?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.