Toto

Hi Peter - I was under the impression that Mack was a Christian. Perhaps I am wrong. I will check when I get home.

As for Allen, her survey has left me with virtual vertigo. She identifies more than one of the Germans who conclude that Jesus is entirely mythical, and many who treat the gospels as fairy tales. (She links this to scholarly contact with the brothers Grimm.) But I do not know exactly how accurate or objective she is. She is Catholic, and she seems to be headed towards a conclusion that the Quest for a Historical Jesus is a wrong-headed Protestant challenge to the authority of the True Church. But I have not finished the book, and I am not sure how she will conclude.

Jayman

I agree. I'm merely asking you to consider it as a possibility - even if you believe it never happened.

I'll try to reply to the rest of your post when I have more time.

Vorkosigan

[b]But I do not know exactly how accurate or objective she is. She is Catholic, and she seems to be headed towards a conclusion that the Quest for a Historical Jesus is a wrong-headed Protestant challenge to the authority of the True Church. But I have not finished the book, and I am not sure how she will conclude.[/QB]

Maybe a review is in order for us here when you are done, Toto!

I have read some of her stuff. She is a longstanding apologist for the Catholic Church and specializes in assaults on other religions -- recently she has had articles in The Atlantic attacking <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2001/01/allen.htm" target="_blank">Wicca</a>, and Confucianism, and also fulminates against Feminism. She is senior editor of the right-wing Catholic rag Crisis, but contributes to the relatively left wing one Lingua Franca, a journal of ideas. I tried to track down Crisis, but all the links appear dead.

Peter Kirby

I have read A Myth of Innocence, The Lost Gospel, Who Wrote the New Testament?, and The Christian Myth. I am confident that Mack gives no indication of being a Christian in these books.

I also have not seen any quote from a Christian that says the Gospel of Mark cannot be used as evidence for a historical Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

That's too bad about Alex not being real. I kind of liked him. You'd make a great agnostic one day, Bede.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I had planned that, but it is taking longer than I thought. She writes as a journalist, but is clearly comfortable with scholarly ideas (as you would expect from her connection with Lingua Franca). She covers a lot of ground, from the Reformation to the Enlightenment to Deism to Hollywood treatments, to a post-modernist critique of the Enlightenment. The strong point of the book is the way she connects the scholarship of Jesus with other events in world history and politics. She attacks liberals with mockery, usually well deserved, but I have not found any indication of why she is a political and religious conservative. But I have a ways to go.

Koyaanisqatsi

Consider that it's possible for dead people to rise out of their graves?

Why in the world would any adult agree to do such a thing?

I look forward to it.

Jayman

All I'm asking is that you don't use this argument (by itself), "People don't rise from the dead and therefore Jesus did not rise from the dead." I just want you to look at the actual evidence. If afterwards you still don't believe that's fine.

By the way, I'll be busy for the next couple of days so I won't be able to respond to the rest of your post until Thursday night or Friday.

Vorkosigan

"Actual evidence." On that evidence, we'd have to take nearly all supernatural claims of antiquity for truth. Consider, in Jesus' case, we have nothing from either Jesus himself or actual witnesses; all reports are second-hand.

But elsewhere in antiquity we have frequent first-person witness to miracles. All of those we would have to rank ahead of Jesus as far as evidence, and none of them are accepted by sober historians.

Part of the "evidence" is always how it relates to what we know of the world. For example, Mark makes some pretty fantastic geographical claims -- is that evidence that the geography of Palestine was different in Jesus' time than in all others? What we know of the world is this: there are no gods, people do not rise from the dead supernaturally; ergo, Jesus did not. Discussion over.

Jayman

Koyaanisqatsi: I got bored with my homework and decided to throw together a response tonight.

On the man in white being an angel
The following verses show that there is a connection between men in white and heavenly beings. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to interpret Mark as describing an angel.

Revelation 19:14: "And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses."

Daniel 7:9: "As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One took his throne, his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire."

Daniel 8:15-17: "When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I tried to understand it. Then someone appeared standing before me, having the appearnce of a man, and I heard a human voice by the Ulai, calling, "Gabriel help this man understand the vision." So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I became frightened and fell prostrate. But he said to me, "Understand, O mortal, that the vision is for the end of time."

Ezekiel 40:4-5: "The man said to me, 'Mortal, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you; declare all that you see to the house of Israel."

Genesis 18:1-2: "The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground."

On the resurrection
My basic argument is that Mark believed Jesus was resurrected from the grave in bodily form. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection multiple times in Mark (8:31-32; 9:9, 30-32; 10:32-34; 14:18-21, 25, 28). It would be quite a suprise if Jesus' mockers (15:29-32) turned out to be correct after Mark's portrayal of Jesus as the Messiah (8:29) and Son of God (15:39). What is more likely? That Mark believed Jesus to be the Messiah and Son of God, but to be unable to save himself from death? Or that Mark believed Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God and to have defeated death? I go for the latter. It makes the most sense that the Messiah and the Son of God was correct in predicting his own resurrection four times.

I believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave because it is implied in the resurrection passage. After reading the entire book of Mark the reader expects nothing else than for Jesus to rise from the dead. The angel/man's words (16:6) confirm this expectation. Jesus' body is nowhere to be found which implies that the body is linked to the risen Christ. Furthermore, the angel/man says that the disciples will be able to see Jesus (16:7). I realize that this isn't conclusive but I think it's just as likely (if not more likely) that a "physical" resurrection is meant instead of a "spiritual" resurrection.

In sum, Mark portrays Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. The reader therefore expects Jesus to tell the truth on all matters. Jesus predicts his own death and resurrection and therefore the reader expects Jesus to be resurrected at the end of the story. When the expectant reader reads the last passage he interprets the words "He is raised" to mean that Jesus has defeated death and been resurrected. Since the body is linked to the risen Christ it could be said that Mark meant a physical resurrection.