Julian

What present tense?

jakejonesiv

None. It was an aorist active ind. εκολοβωσεν

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" gives an even better example of his Peter, James and John's Total Failure. First, let me give it to you in Kelber's words:

"THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD

There is yet one more event which deserves our attention. Following his confrontation with Peter Jesus anounces the conditions for discipleship and his own future coming, and immediately thereafter takes Peter, James, and John up on a high mountain. It is on this mountain that he appears to the three disciples in a transformed state, and a heavenly voice identifies him as Son of God. In a number of ways this transfiguration of Jesus forms the central scene of the whole Gospel. Structurally, in terms of number of verses, it stands almost exactly at midpoint in the Gospel story. It constitutes the only "high mountain" scene in the Gospel. Outside of baptism this is the only time the life of Jesus is marked by divine intervention in visible and audible terms. There will be no divine intervention at Jesus' passion and crucifixion. The literary critic will call this transfiguration story the scene of recognition. At one point in a novel or drama or movie the author lets the reader or viewer have a glimpse of the protagonist's full identity, intimating thereby the final outcome of the story. The transfiguration (not Peter's so-called confession!) is this scene of recognition. For a brief moment Jesus is revealed to the three witnesses as the Son of God in full glory."


JW:
Note that in "Mark's" Gospel the Opposite and Opponent of Faith is Fear. For one who has Fear, no amount of Evidence will produce Faith. Peter, James and John's reaction to the Transfiguration is Fear, same as what their reaction has been in the entire Gospel and the Same reaction all the Demons have to Jesus.

In the Transfiguration "Mark" has provided even better evidence than Jesus himself Demonstrating that he is The One. God Herself identifies Jesus as The One and in "Mark's" world this is the best Possible evidence.

Seeing as "Mark's" Peter, James and John didn't believe Testimony by God Herself that Jesus was The One, What in God's name would make anyone think they would believe in a Resurrection they didn't witness?

A Conclusion that Peter was Behind this Gospel that the Author knew would be going to people who had never heard any Story of this Type does not deserve any mutual respect, teamwork, or human kindness.


I Come Because I Have To I Am The One Who Sees



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

JoeWallack

JW:
Translation = you are not aware of any pre-70 1st century Jewish writings predicting the destruction of the Temple. This by itself makes it likely "Mark" is post 70. Not "certain", just "likely". If there were such good references in Jewish Scripture don't you think Paul would have found them and used/misused them (rhetorical).

Amos and Zephaniah are a little old don't you think? So you are considering it Insignificant that there is no support in the Time you should be looking at and considering it Significant that there is supposed support in a time you shouldn't be looking at. Are you Christian Michael?

No, I think if your references here were worth much you would have given us some details.



JW:

Mark 11: (NIV)

"20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

22"Have[f] faith in God," Jesus answered. 23"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."[g]"


JW:
Obviously what I thought was obvious was not. Jesus has just finished destroying the Fig Tree which we agree represents the Temple. This would create something of a problem for Jews as The Temple was The Means for Forgiveness of Sins. Amazingly, right after this prediction Jesus points out that if you have Faith in God you can pray to Him for Forgiveness of Sins. Quite a coincidence, huh?

JW:
So you are Christian. The simple answer is usually the best one.

I pray you are noticing here that I don't even need Chapter 13 or the Jewrassic Pork story to prove it Likely that "Mark" was written post 70. I can do it just with 11:

"17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[c]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'[d]"

"den of robbers.'[d]" hmmm, not really a very good translation, is it? UBS has "refuge of robbers". An even better translation is "refuge of revolutionaries":

Strong [den]:
4693
σπήλαιον
+ Etymology:neuter of a presumed derivative of σπέος (a grotto);
- Definition: a cavern; by implication, a hiding-place or resort
+ KJV usage:

Zhubert [robbers]:
robber, bandit;revolutionary, rebel

JW:
Christian mistranslators have tried to Spin the phrase to make it refer to the Temple hierarchy. But it actually refers to the Historical revolutionaries who Hid in and used the Temple as a Base. "Mark" uses the same root word to refer to Barabbas and the two crucified with Jesus. Again, quite a coincidence. "Mark" is a Post Jewish war Commentary exemplified by Pilate's presentation of the Choice between Bar Abba and Barabbas. War or Peace? The Historical choice of Revolt and the subsequent Cost.

Getting back to your position, what makes you think that "Mark" would have been aware of revolutionaries hiding in the Temple during 70 if he is writing in the 40s or 50s?

The problem with you Germans is you never finish what you started.



Joseph

Christian Justice. Verb. Killing an Innocent, Immortal God so that Guilty Mortal humans can live forever.

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

michael wellenberg

It can be assumed that Paul knew scripture well but since he does not seem to be concerned of the temple (if I remember accurately he mentions it only three times in his whole opus) his silence does not mean much.
My reference was from Zechariah, not Zephaniah (I erroneously put a "p" instead of a "c").
Zechariah is old, too, but what does it really matter how old prophecies were if they could be used ? Mark is full of scriptural allusions already old at his time. Are Maleachi, Isaiah or Jeremiah much younger ?

The fig tree represents the Jewish leadership - not the temple.
Jesus´action in the temple is an attack on both the traders and the temple hierarchy in Jesus´eyes responsible for the spoiling of the temple. Jesus attempts to force those people to change otherwise their fate will be like the fig tree´s.
The fig tree withers, the leaders´fate becomes explicit.
Consistently Mark continues with having the mountain (the leadership again) throw itself into the sea.
This recalls the fate of the swine in ch. 5, the story of the Gerasene demoniac, throwing themselves into the sea.
The effect is parallel : the Romans and the collaborative Jewish leaders will be destroyed sometime in the future depending of God´s will, thus the prayer.

There is no compelling reason to read spelaion leston as refuge of the historical revolutionaries during the conquest of Jerusalem.
Why not read it as it is written and obviously meant by Mark : as an account of Jesus attacking the present temple system of exploitation ?
The two crucified with Jesus are also called lestai, Barabbas the rebel is not called lestes.
As Jesus is driving out the traders/robbers and the revolutionaries were driven out by the Romans your view would also imply that Mark has Jesus represent the Romans which is most unlikely.

Of course you need ch. 13 because it is about the only passage that could possibly point to a post 70-date for Mark. Likewise and more plausibly it reflects the time after the Caligula crisis and the persecution under Agrippa I. around the Antioch incident, sometime before the late forties.

Michael

Vorkosigan

The problem is that the writer of Mark could cite any scripture, yet his citations have the consistent theme of Temple destruction running through them.

But the writer of Mark DIDN'T witness the conquest. He wrote long afterwards, when it was an established fact that had receded into history. In the second century, in fact.

The writer of Mark isn't describing historical events. He's refracting current events through an historical locus.

Careful. Whatever the writer's attitude toward the main character, the other characters in the book clearly take Jesus for a divine being.

I was referring to Pilate's explanation of why the Jewish elites wanted Jesus dead.

No, resurrection was a general idea in Hellenistic civilization that was already the subject of widespread folk belief (ex: the belief that Nero was resurrected) and parody (Plutarch's tale of Vespasian watching a dog trained to 'die" and "resurrect.") The existence of parody testifies to the existence of a convention.

Empty tombs and resurrections are staple literary devices throughout the period. Certainly the writer of Mark could have borrowed them in the first century. But the heyday was in the second century.

It doesn't "prove" anything. It is simply one more datum that suggests a second century date for Mark.

4:17 as well.

You can remind all you want, but Acts is a total fiction dating from well into the second century. It's not an acceptable source for history of early Christianity at all. Of all the NT texts it is the most like a Hellenistic historical fiction.

On this we agree.

Well....they weren't call the "Jesus-ians!" It doesn't automatically mean that, but it is a rather strong signal!

The portrayal of the disciples in Mark is almost entirely negative. So, yes, it is not only conceivable, but true.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Jake. I was looking for something like this.

Vorkosigan

michael wellenberg

Could you please give an example ?

Pieces like Mk 10:40 and 13:32 are significantly missing in Luke. Since they imply a certain subordination of Jesus this omission strongly suggests that this view of Jesus was not tolerable for Luke writing on a developed stage of Christology.

This infers that Mark´s gospel reflects an earlier possibly adoptianistic stage which is further indicated by the fact that the sonship of Jesus from birth is missing in Mark.
The author establishes Jesus as the expected Messiah (though the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah has no precedence in Jewish scripture) avoiding any association with a biological offspring.
Both for Mark and Paul something like Jesus being God would have been no doubt horrifying, God being One.

Moreover the sonship terminology is not associated with his miracles/exorcisms taking more space in Mark than in the other synoptists. Yet nowhere the impression is conveyed that the onlookers would have concluded that a divine man was at work.

So if you overturn the more or less general opinion that Mark wrote at least in the 1st century when did Matthew and Luke write ? And did they write before or after Mark ?

Michael

michael wellenberg

I did not say at all that Mark witnessed the conquest, on the contrary, I said that if he had any knowledge of the conquest this source would have most likely included the agent of fire destroying Jerusalem.

From this I gather that this Markan passage ought not to indicate a late date.

So this does not tell against a 1st century date either.

Now, this is interesting and needs explanation since Acts being a total fiction is most likely new both for me and all the authors who have referred to Acts to support any argument. Stephen´s being stoned, the Hellenists´being driven out of Jerusalem - total fiction ? Philipp´s mission in Samaria, the killing of James the Zebedee, and so on - everything fiction ? The intra-Christian dissens in the early community invented for what reason ?

To get this clear. In a previous post you stated
Quote:
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.

I answered
Quote:
"For my name´s sake" does not automatically mean that Mark and his community called themselves "Christians".

So where do you see "a rather strong signal" ?
The early church could even have called themselves Christians given that the mission reached Antioch very early. This would not rule out an early date.

Michael

JoeWallack

Dumb Love



JW:
What we have here Michael (other than a failure to communicate) are a number of Possible references by "Mark" to the destruction of the Temple in 70. I would assume you agree that these are such Possible references. You are merely arguing that they are not Probable. Let me know if you think none of them are Possible so I'll know that I Am wasting my time with you (not necessarily others). The More such Possible references there are to said Destruction the more Likely it is that the Cumulative evidence reaches the Probable level. Right?

Regarding some of the Possible evidence I have presented:

1) No pre 70 author of the 1st century shows any conception of the Temple being destroyed. In my opnion you have not offered any meaningful defense so I need say nothing more on the subject.

2) After the Significant Fig Tree/Temple Intercalation Destruction story Jesus immediately soothes with Prayer being able to achieve Forgiveness. In my opnion you have not offered any meaningful defense so I need say nothing more on the subject.

Now you have offered a reasonable defense for my assertion that "Mark's" Jesus refers to the historical rebels hiding in the Temple so I'll strengthen my related argument:



JW:
First, "refuge of rebels" is just as good a translation as "den of robbers". And yes, the historical rebels were driven out of the Temple by the Romans. Thank you for making my conclusion.

"The two crucified with Jesus are also called lestai, Barabbas the rebel is not called lestes."

Well let's look at how "Mark" describes Barabbas:

Mark 15: (NIV)
7 "A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising."

So per "Mark" Barabbas is well placed as a rebel who committed murder in the insurrection. And what was Roman Crucifixion Primarily reserved for Michael?

Here is the Ironic Literary Convention "Mark" is making and to help make it he needs the Temple to be a Hiding place for Rebels:

Mark 14: (NIV)
48 "Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me."

"Am I leading a rebellion,"

"Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple"

More Connection between Rebels and Temple.

"Mark" as Historical Commentary on the Destruction of the Temple climaxes with Rome's (Pilate's) Choice to "The Jews" of Jesus Bar Abba Verses Jesus Barabbas. Peace or Rebellion. The Historical Choice was Rebellion was led to the Destruction of The Temple. "Mark's" Ironic Literary Convention is as Follows:

Jesus Openly Taught Peace in the Temple.

Barabbas Secretly Taught Rebellion in the Temple.

The Historical Jews Rejected Jesus (Peace), who gave Life and Treated him as a Rebel, Arresting, Trying, Punishing and Executing (Crucifixion) him as a Rebel.

Meanwhile, "The Jews" Accepted Barabbas (Rebellion), who gave Death and Treated him as a Saviour, letting him go Free.

Here's another Possible reference to the Temple Destruction which also tithes in nicely to the above:

Mark 12: (NIV)
3 "Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."


JW:
Another Amazing coincidence. In the Temple Jesus is asked about Caesar's Tax. The primary cause of the historical rebellion was probably Caesar's Temple tax. Yea, I know Michael, the Temple Tax existed in the 40s so that could be why "Mark's" Jesus refers to it. But "Mark's Jesus sure seems to be Selecting Topics relevant to the Temple's destruction. Here we again tie into Historical Commentary where "Mark" not only refers to the 70 Rebellion but refers to the Cause, the Temple Tax. Jesus, the Peace, is even giving the supposed reason for Peace, paying Tax to Caesar is unimportant as far as the Kingdom of God is concerned and therefore insufficient reason to make War.


BONUS MATERIAL:
In order to achieve the Ironic Contrast above "Mark's" Jesus gives his blessing to Roman sacrilege of God's Holy Temple by imposing Tax which will be used to fund the Immoral Roman War machine. "Mark's Jesus at the same time prevents lawful moneychangers from doing God's work by permitting all Nations to make required Atonement in God's Temple as required by The Law. Now that's Ironic! The Irony Turns to Comedy at Jesus' supposed Trial when no one can remember that Jesus was Guilty of a Crime, disrupting Temple operations, which was punishable by summary execution.


Joseph

Christian Justice. Verb. Killing an Innocent, Immortal God so that Guilty Mortal humans can live forever.

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