Toto

No - he indicates one particular scholar who attempted to date Mark to 71 based on the situation in Rome did not make his case.

What point do you think that you proved? You quote a German scholar who wrote in 1965 as to the range of opinions - does that prove anything? It certainly doesn't prove that Mark was written before the fall of Jerusalem, your original assertion. Nor does it prove that most scholars today date Mark to before the fall of Jerusalem.

Kümmel splits the difference and settles on 70, the date of the destruction of the Temple. How is this before the fall of Jerusalem? I see nothing that indicates Kummel clearly dates Mark before the fall of Jerusalem; in fact, he seems fairly indecisive.

It is not *clear* evidence of the existence of a tradition. The author of Hebrews may have written first, and Mark picked up the idea from him, or from a similar reading of the Hebrew scriptures. You keep trying to create multiple attestation when the evidence is consistant with direct influence.

We know that the Christians of the time read the Hebrew scriptures for clues about Jesus, but their method seems to have been rather idiosyncratic and creative. What do you think that a story created about Jesus based on the Hebrew scripture at issue would have been like, and how can you be sure?

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby quipped:
An ordinary sage/preacher that was lionized? Well, that is a HJ.
A mythical figure that was historicized? well, that is a MJ.

Why not be kind enough as to elaborate to us on this "large" middleground?

My point is that when (if we can) we reach the bottom of the layers of truth/fiction and ambiguities and strip off all the fluff, we will find either a mythical man like hercules or a historical being like Adolf Hitler.
Tell me what irrational about that please. And provide the continuum of possibilities between these two extremes. Or NOGO can do that since he says:
Layman wrote:
We have been through that. What you call evidence is exactly what Doherty is disagreeing with.
You cannot support why Modern Translations and Commentaries Interpret the Term as "Second" or "Again" is any better than Doherty's other than appeal to popularity.

In essence, it betrays the fact that you do not understand why the interpretation is done as such because you cannot articulate the merits of the transactions you cling to. You can only regurgitate the interpretations like a computer without explaining why they are better than Dohertys. Its clear you believe there was a first coming and any translation that seems to support it is correct from your POV.

Its called argument from a position of preconception (apop).

"platonic noises"? very funny. Platonism was a way of understanding the world and it permeated religious ideologies in all aspects in first century Palestine. We are not talking about "something". We are discussing the alleged life, death and resurrection of Jesus - the very core of christianity.

Doherty made the following points which you could offer no substantive responses to:
And...

I am still waiting for your response.

How do you know what they did NOT feel?
The only way people express their thoughts/ feelings is thro their deeds. We cant assume they thought/felt what they did not express.
Going by your line of thought, one can state that the fact that Hitler did not express his love for the Jews does not mean he did not love them.
Arrant nonsense.
You are obviously more interested in overreaching yourself. Why would I take references from you?

That is because he doesn't need to its the same question he is addressing.

Aah, I gave you grief? Poor Layman. Bad IronMonkey. Bad IronMonkey. No wonder the insults and ad hominems. Why not take a break? I will cover for you - or better yet, why not ask Bede to do that?

That is what I have refuted in the previous page. The word camp appears in both references Doherty cited - hence the authors' interest in drawing a parallel. If you want to argue about the poetic taste of the author of Hebrews, thats your prerogative.

I get your point and agree that those contrasts exist. You must also admit however that:
1. Both Jesus and the animals were sacrificed.
2. Both the animals and Jesus suffered during the act of sacrifice.
3. Both of them were sacrificed to redeem (certain) people of sins.

Considering (1.)(2.)(3.) above, the locations, and sequences you mention are rather trivial. An analogy can be drawn between the two because they represent acts of sacrifice.

Doherty isnt the one arguing that the author was forcing "patterns" now is he?

Its not about a "kind-of platonic framework". Its a platonic framework.
Read Supplementary article number 9 for a better understanding of the platinic mindset of the Hebrews author.
In a nutshell, to the platonists, what happened on earth was just a reflection/imitation of a higher truth.

You have not. Not even once. You have only disagreed and complained that the author is "forcing" an analogy.
I have argued with "proof of concept" Attis, Osiris etc.

I dont need to show you I have read anything. Because that is not the main subject in this thread.
And I really wouldnt give a rats ass how you judge the breadth of what I have or have not read.

Your'e pretentious. You just want to draw attention by your posturing.

Thats a subjective statement that is totally meaningless in the context of our discussion.
I can equally say there is no reason to think such an omission is insignificant.
In the absence of evidence, we have no reason to believe the writer(s) believed in a historical Jesus.

Those examples only prove that there are later Christian writers who wrote about the crucifixion and never mentioned its location. But they do not prove that:
1. Mentioning the location was insignificant
2. The authors knew the location (but chose not to mention it).

Unless you can make a case for a conspiracy of silence.

That, up there Layman, is an argument. With premises and a conclusion.
You need to refute it if you are serious about whatever you are claiming.

Tell us how you know what they did not feel and I will turn your question-begging upside down and shake it clean.

Doherty has. Supplementary article number 9.

From the quote you provided Luke T. Johnson, The New Testament Writings, at 422 said:

Apop.

Strawman argument again. You need to be vigilant about this habit Layman.

So we should take you on your word that you have read and understood "about 20 or so commentaries on Hebrews from all different perspectives"? I see.

Oh really!
You are not sure? Not to worry, you will be soon enough.

The discrepancy is trivial. Dont beat yourself to death about it.

He did not say the analogy is inexact. He said (according to your citation):
And the manner in which he said it implies the inexactness does not make it an inapt analogy.
Of course there are differences. Its absurd to quote an author to explain that to us.
The fact is that the three of them do not support your argument that the author of Hebrews "forced" a parallel. You picked it out of the air and cited them to mislead us into thinking your argument had some scholarly support.
Your argument remains totally unsupported, totally unsubstantiated, totally baseless.

NOGO

I thought that I was quite clear.
This is how the statement should have been spoken by Jesus some 30-40 years before.

"For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until then, and never will (after the event).

Jesus is prophesying about an event sometime in the future.
So nothing like it would have been experienced until then
NOT until now. From the speaker's (Jesus) perspective the statement is in error.

From Mark's perspective "now" is the time present time when he is writing the text. If the event is still in the future for Mark then he would have used the words "until then".

vtran31:
I get it means it will be a time of tribulation that is so tribulous that anything in the past, beginning of the creation of God, this present time, now, or the future, ever will be.

Yes, but where do you place the event???
is it
a) creation till present
b) now
c) in the future

Your statement seems to say that the event will never happen.
The logical place to put it is "now". The author is saying that nothing like it happened in the past and nothing like it will happen in the future.

NOGO

Yes, and if Toto's quote is correct, then he also rejects all attempts to date the fall of jerusalem before 70 CE.

Amazing! Layman does not see how his partial quote changes the conclusion which Kümmel states quite clearly " we must be satisfied with the conclusion that Mark was written around 70."

But Toto, this cannot really surprise you. Believers are masters at misquoting references. They learn the basic technique by reading the NT.

Toto

Toto's quote is correct. Thank you for your ability to read plain English.

Layman is trained at this sort of dubious word twisting. It should be clear from the paragraph that I quoted that Kümmel did not reject any attempt to date Mark in any year, other than rejecting the evidence presented by one particular scholar for the year 71. It would be more accurate to say that Kümmel accepts all of the proposed dates as possibilities, and says that the date of 70 CE must "satisfy" us - in other words, it's a best guestimate in the face of uncertain knowledge.

NOGO

If you did get the point just fine, as you say, you certainly show no sign of it.

There is no significance to you because you are unable to step outside the box for just a moment, suficiently long, to even understand someones point of view.

If the author of Hebrews had mentioned Calvary when discussing the sacrifice of animals outside the camp as an analogy to Jesus' sacrifice then we would not be arguing.

The significance is obvious.

Calvary was a hill outside Jerusalem so the analogy is good. Jesus was sacrificed outside the "camp". Why then not state it since it is a benefit to the arguement presented?

You should also see that presenting a million verses discussing Jesus' sacrifice without the above analogy does not help your case. This is not disctated by the whims of a Jesus myther. It is disctated by the logic of the argument.

For this reason I must conclude that you still don't get the point although you claim that you do.

Layman

Actually, it is of no significance because it is of no signifiance. But I do thank you for the clarification.

I'm not willing to take your word on that.

I disagree.

First, you are wrong. Jesus was not sacrificed outside the "camp." He was sacrificed outside the "gate." (meaning large gate, as to a city or temple).

Second, it would not benefit the argument presented to say "Calvary." The analogy is between outside the camp and outside the gate. Since you JMers like "parrallels," why do you ignore that here? To say, the animal was sacrificed "outside the camp" is roughly similar to "outside the gate." It's not the same, however, as saying, "outside the gate, near Calvary." It adds nothing to the argument. Nothing at all.

Not that you have shown.

Layman

E.P. Sanders is a german scholar who wrote in 1965?

Kummel doesn't buy a dating after the fall of Jerusalem. That is very clear from his quote. Not that I really care what is personal opinion is. What I was trying to prove to you I did prove: the majority of scholars date Mark before the fall of Jerusalem:

But inasmuch as there is no clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, most scholars date Mark in the years 64-70.

To what extent Kummel finds the arguments compelling or not is irrelevant to the fact he writes that "most scholars date Mark in the years 64-70."

This, along with Sanders comment, does suggest that the majority of scholars date Mark befor the fall of Jerusalem.

Just a reminder. E.P. Sanders:

Cumulatively, however, the absence of decisive references in mark to events which were post-70 add up, and they make it likely that Mark was written near the end of the first generation of Jesus' followers: approximately 65-70.

E.P. Sanders & Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptics, at 21.

The authors then proceed to note that, regarding their dating of Mark, "The reader will learn that we do not share many of the consensus judgments about the synoptics. This one, however, seems correct...." Id.

What is your evidence that a majority of scholars date Mark after the fall of Jerusalem, Toto?

Toto

Kümmel was. You are the one waving him around as the last word on liberal Christian interpretations.

You have no shame. I have caught you telling less than the whole truth, and you still persist in citing a misleading portion of the entire paragraph from Kümmel.

It is untrue that "Kümmel doesn't buy a dating after the fall of Jerusalem." Kümmel clearly does not take a decisive stand on the issue. He reports that "most scholars" say one thing, others say another, and picks a consensus date in the middle, which has Mark written around the time of the fall of Jerusalem.

Sheesh.

Quote:

This, along with Sanders comment, does suggest that the majority of scholars date Mark before the fall of Jerusalem. . . .

Given your record of selective quotation, I would prefer to see the entire section that Sanders and Davies wrote.

You have, however, managed to change the subject, which was not the majority opinion on the dating of Mark, except that it reflects your ideological assumption that Mark was written by a person named Mark who knew St. Peter in Rome, and got his details from him, making Mark genuine history. You can probably find some faith based scholars who hold that view, who will interpret away any evidence of the fall of Jerusalem in Mark as not "decisive" enough. But modern scholars who are not basing their scholarship on their confessional stance appear to reject this. I don't have any sources here at work, except for Peter Kirby's page on Mark. But you've already rejected that, since Peter is no friend to Christianity.

Layman

As is obvious. I offered more than Kummel.

I never said he was the last word. I just wanted to offer up a liberal source. Obviously, you will only accept extremist scholars as sources.

Since almost any statement is going to be "less than the whole truth," this isn't much of an indictment.

No. He makes it clear that the majority of scholars date Mark before the fall of Jerusalem. It is you who are being dishonest here if you contend otherwise.

Feel free to check them out.

All quotes are selective, Toto. At least I'm offering some. Sanders, Davies, and Kummel agree that the majority of scholars date Mark prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Cute. You are the one that accused me of relying on medieval scholars for this dating. Now that you have (once again) been proven a fool about this issue, you are pretending you never raised it.

I certainly don't think that the Gospel of Mark had to be written by a Mark who knew Peter for it to be "genuine history."

I probably could. But what I found was E.P. Sanders and Kummell, and their description of the majority opinion in Marcan scholarship.

If you don't have any evidence for your assertion, why are you so sure of it? And how did you determine that Sanders and Kummel base their stance on their "confessional stance"?

Quite a lot of hoops you are adding to this (completely unsupported as usual). Basically you seem intent on whittling down who is a "scholar" until only radical liberals are left. And all this without any evidence!

If I said the sky was blue on a clear day in California at noon you'd find some way of disputing that.