stephan huller

the roman origin of Mark is well established in antiquity

spin

1. The writing of Mark implies a Latin linguistic context that doesn't exist outside a big Latin speaking city.
2. The writer's audience lives in the Latin speaking context. (One doesn't write in such a way that your audience won't understand you, when you literally translate Latin idioms.)
3. The writer suggests that his audience knows what Roman money is, given the mention of the Roman coin quadrans as an equivalent to two leptas. Note also the equivalence in 15:16 of a hall (αυλη) and a praetorium, given to explain the former. This is for a Rome aware audience.

The people in Alexandria used Greek as their principle language and the city was built by the Greek Ptolemies. The Jews that lived there spoke Greek. The linguistic environment doesn't seem to reflect what can be gleaned from GMark.

(But I must admit I know nothing significant about Coptic, which was the language of the non-Greek speaking population of Egypt at the time.)

jakejonesiv

There never was an animal or blood sacrifice for death penaty sins in the Jewish scriptures, just the death penalty.

Blood sacrifice was only efficacious for unintentional sins.

Leviticus 4:27-29
‘Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering.


Numbers 15:27-28
‘Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven.


There was no vicarious atonement.Everyone was responsible for themselves.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." - Ezekiel 18:20

Human sacrifice was considered an abomination. Deuteronomy 12:31, Jeremiah 32:34-35, etc.

Yet TedM has the audacity to say that the Jewish scriptures found salvation value in a human sacrifice!

Jake

Sheshbazzar

"he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect...."

"he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering."

What? Not a thirty-year old male lamb?

Where does The Law require sacrifice of a thirty-year old male lamb?

Even a sheep dies of old age before thirty. Isn't thirty years kind old for a lamb?

jakejonesiv

TedM,

In Torah, animal sacrifice was efficacious only for unintentional sins.
In Torah, there was no sacrifice for death penalty sins, only the death penalty.
In Torah, there was no vicarious atonement. Each person was responible for themselves.
In Torah, human scarifice was viewed as an abomination.

TedM, all you have demonstrated is that early Christianity misappropriated the Jewish scriptures and corrupted the Jewish heritiage in an attempt to give themselves the legitimacy bestowed by the assumed venerable age of the Jewish scriptures.
There is no dying and rising godman in the Jewish scriptures. There is no being "in Christ" in the Jewish scriptures. Christianity is based on a lie. And TedM, you have merely followed that same path snout to tail.

Jake

jakejonesiv

jakejonesiv

It seems likely that canonical Mark was composed (or redacted) in Rome. I am suggestig that the urgospel originated in Alexandria before being brought to Rome.

TedM

Settle down.

You support the idea that the writers of 4Q521 changed the 'liberator', the 'healer', etc.. from "the Anointed" (in Isaiah 61), to God himself. After centuries of proof that Israel lacked the ability to be their own Savior, their own Servant, Anointed, there was a need to find a DIFFERENT interpretation of the passage. When they couldn't save themselves, and after several more centuries of looking for a Messiah, instead of looking for a Messiah in a Messianic passage , you say they looked to God himself. Does that make much sense?

Then you say that instead of the Christians using this passage directly, they were 'tapping into common speculation', but that somehow the interpretation of WHO was ushering in the Messianic age changed from God to the Messiah. Does that make much sense?

Lastly, you are right in that 4Q521 does not say that the one who is healing and preaching to the poor and liberating the captives in the Messianic age is the Messiah. That is true. It says it is the "Lord". But, common sense would dictate that the Messiah should have a purpose though, doesn't it? But in fact, according to you he is 'incidental' to what happens when he comes. Now, does that make much sense?

I prefer to go with what makes sense. Through the Lord, the Messiah (the VERY one just mentioned in the beginning of the passage, no less) ushers in the Messianic age by healing, preaching, and liberating.

How possibly can the doings of the Lord be separated from the doings of the Messiah in a Messianic age? What good is the Messiah when the Lord can just do it all himself?

Now, even if you are correct and I am wrong, this DSS passage shows that the ideas the Christian used with regard to their Messiah originated from within the Jewish culture. Their use of this passage shows a willingness to adopt or modify (if you are correct) existing concepts to apply them to their concept of Messiah. It IS close enough spin. I see no need for Roman influences to come up with a resurrected Messiah.

TedM

Hi Jake. My op doesn't say otherwise. Inferences don't require 100% perfect matchups.


So?


I didn't say otherwise. Some are better than others at seeing things vicariously. I'm suggesting that the Jews weren't all too dull and uncreative to see a vicarious atonement from a Passover martyr. Perhaps you disagree.


People keep saying this, but it really doesn't even apply here. No priests were 'sacrificing' Jesus in order to absolve sins.

We really are talking about self sacrifice in order to please God. That takes on a more 'acceptable' flavor, as such a concept permeated through the entire Jewish culture. Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to follow all of those mind-bogglingly detailed and pedantic Laws..


And there didn't have to be in order for some Jews to create one out of such a Passover event. All they needed was the appreciation for self-sacrifice, the link of sacrifice with sins, and a prophet-like figure who had a following. Had Judas the Galilean been crucified during Passover Christians today might be worshiping Judas as the Christ instead.

rlogan

Thanks to everyone on Mark, I take instruction on that readily.