lmbarre

Thank you for the clarification. So here is the text with the alleged interpolation.

1:13 For you have heard of my former way of life26 in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it. 1:14 I27 was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation,28 and was29 extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.30 1:15 But when the one31 who set me apart from birth32 and called me by his grace was pleased 1:16 to reveal his Son in33 me so that I could preach him34 among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from35 any human being,36 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem37 to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia,38 and then returned to Damascus.

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem39 to visit Cephas40 and get information from him,41 and I stayed with him fifteen days. 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles42 except James the Lord’s brother. 1:20 I assure you43 that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you!44 1:21 Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 1:22 But I was personally45 unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 1:23 They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news46 of the faith he once tried to destroy.” 1:24 So47 they glorified God because of me.48 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem1 again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too.

2:2 I went there2 because of3 a revelation and presented4 to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so5 only in a private meeting with the influential people,6 to make sure that I was not running – or had not run7 – in vain. 2:3 Yet8 not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 2:4 Now this matter arose9 because of the false brothers with false pretenses10 who slipped in unnoticed to spy on11 our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves.12 2:5 But13 we did not surrender to them14 even for a moment,15 in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.16

I note that the theme of Paul's persecution mentioned in the insertion (1:23) is also found in the preceding context (1:13-14), thereby indicating that there is not an interpolation present.

lmbarre

And how are we to understand the mention of "the brothers of the Lord" in 1 Cor 9:5?

aa5874

Unless you can show me Exactly where the author of gMark claimed he was writing history then you are simply wasting your time.

I will NOT ever PRESUME gMark is history when it is INUNDATED with blatant Fiction and Implausibilities, when the author used Hebrew Scripture or some similar source for the words and deeds of his main character called Jesus and that there is ZERO corroboration by non-apologetic sources.

Your position on Jesus is FAR worse than the Fundamentalists. At least they BELIEVE the NT is completely true but you accept that the NT is NOT historically reliable but BELIEVE certain selected passages WITHOUT any external supporting credible source.

Your position on gMark is hopelessly WITHOUT rational and is WHOLLY without corroboration.

This is the 21st century.

Why is gMark history???

lmbarre

How do folks explain the reputation of John, Peter and James as "pillars?" What did this mean and how did these men gain their status?

2:9 and when James, Cephas,29 and John, who had a reputation as30 pillars,31 recognized32 the grace that had been given to me . . .

Toto

These criteria have no value. Please see the thread on "Proving History."

aa5874

Why do you CONSTANTLY presume the Pauline writings are historically reliable? I make ZERO presumptions about the historical credibility of the Pauline writer.

Please, please, please!!! You MUST first establish the ACTUAL historicity of the Pauline writer. Can you do that??

Just do it.

There is ZERO corroboration for the historicity of Paul in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

You can't do it.

lmbarre

I am not arguing for historicity of Paul, but rather am asking for a clarification of what the author (whoever that was) meant by the reference to the "pillars."

lmbarre

What do you mean by "corroboration?"

lmbarre

As I stated, I find gMark to be a mixture of historical fact (Jesus was crucified as a messianc pretender) and fiction. The literary genre that most resembles gMark would be a presentation of Jesus as a classic tragic hero. So I regard gMark's version of the story of Jesus to be classified according to its literary genre as a Tragedy, a portrayal to which everything is finally subordinated.

Tragic Hero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A tragic hero is a protagonist with a tragic flaw, also known as fatal
flaw, which eventually leads to his demise.

Jesus' fatal flaw was his belief that he was the expected "Messiah," who
announced and who would usher in a political Messianic Kingdom. This
leads to his demise.

The concept of the tragic hero was created in ancient Greek tragedy and
defined by Aristotle. Usually, the realization of fatal flaw results in
catharsis or epiphany. The tragic flaw is sometimes referred to as an
Achilles' heel after the single fatal flaw of the Greek warrior
Achilles. [citation needed]

The epiphany in gMark is expressed by the centurion. Jesus was a uios
theou.

Aristotelian tragic hero
In a complex Aristotelian tragedy, the hero is of noble birth and is
more admirable than ordinary men.

Jesus was of noble descent from King David. Jesus is portrayed as
admireable and as one who stood out.

He cannot, however, be morally perfect because the best plots arise when
his downfall is the inevitable consequence of some defect in character
(or tragic flaw).

Jesus' fatal flaw and moral inperfection was his grandiose hubris that
moved him to usurp temple authority.

The spectacle of a good man dragged to destruction by a single error
arouses in the audience both pity and fear, leading to the catharsis, a
psychological state through which those emotions are purged; the
audience leaves the theater relieved, or even exalted, rather than
depressed.

The portrayal of Jesus final moments are pitiful. As I interpret it
Jesus first doubted his god and then was forced to doubt himself. Fear
because Jesus' story reminds the hearers that tragedy is a part of the
human condition.

Characteristics
An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:
Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).

Jesus was known for his wisdom.

Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but
denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).

Believing that he was the Messiah was Jesus' excess.

A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero's
tragic error.

Jesus expected as glorious future as the Messianic King but ended up
dying a shameful death.

The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by
the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).

I think it was Jesus' garbled prayer that moved him to self-doubt.

Other common traits
Some other common traits characteristic of a tragic hero:
Hero must suffer more than he deserves.

He did.

Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.

Jesus was doomed to his fate as a result of John's opinion of him as the
expected one.

Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can
see themselves in him.

gMark has Jesus noble but flawed by his religion.

Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things
happening to him.

Jesus discovered his fate as a result of his own actions and by things
happening to him.

Hero must see and understand his doom,
as well as the fact that his
fate was discovered by his own actions.

I take Jesus' final agonized cry to indicate that Jesus was forced to
the conclusion that he was not the Messiah.

Hero's story should arouse fear and empathy.
Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences,
often resulting in his death.

True of Jesus.

Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his
people experience his fall with him.

Jesus thought himself to be a king.

The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

Jesus ultimately came to the intellient conclusion--his certain death
proved that he was not the Messiah.

These shared literary traits convince me that gMark wishes to portray Jesus as a tragic hero. As I find it probable that Jesus was crucified by the Romans is supported by canoncial and non-canoical sources, I conclude that gMark is very much a dramatization in which dramatic irony (surprising outcomes) plays a central role in the narrative. Nonetheless, I think that It is based on a "true story" insofar as Jesus was actually found guilty and crucified as a messianic pretender.

Sheshbazzar

The beginning of your problems.

There is no solid evidence by which anyone could ever reach this position as being a statement of a historical fact.
It is a position arrived at, and held only by persuasions of faith.