Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [GPG] Early Beliefs

Expand Messages
  • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
    To: GPG Cc: Synoptic In Response To: Dennis Goffin On: Josephus From: Bruce DENNIS: Why on earth, Bruce, should we prefer Mark to Josephus when it comes to a
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 14, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GPG
      Cc: Synoptic
      In Response To: Dennis Goffin
      On: Josephus
      From: Bruce

      DENNIS: Why on earth, Bruce, should we prefer Mark to Josephus when it
      comes to a matter of history / By all means prefer Mark to Matthew,
      Luke or John, but Mark is silent on many things that happened in
      Palestine under the Romans, simply because he thought that to speak of
      them was dangerous.

      BRUCE: The truth of this statement will depend on where we date Mark,
      won't it. Answer deferred until agreement on that point is reached.

      DENNIS: That is why,for example, he tries to hide the fact that one of
      the disciples,Simon, was a Zealot. Without Josephus, we would have
      virtually no information on the period and we certainly wouldn't get
      it from Mark.

      BRUCE: Well, to each his metier. Without Mark and with Josephus (minus
      pious interpolations), we would know nothing of Jesus. Literally

      As for the mysterious Twelve, that would need a separate treatise.
      Meanwhile, it is interesting that Luke's list gives much more
      countenance to the idea of a desperado gang than does Mark's. Luke
      also quotes a dispirited Jesus partisan, glumly going home after the
      death of Jesus, and saying, We had thought he was the one to redeem
      Israel. That is, Luke reads Mark much the way Reimarus read Mark and
      Luke together. I think that both Luke and Reimarus were right. The
      final Jesus move was a sort of commando raid, meant to purify the
      Temple (of its moneychangers, etc; Jesus was big on commercial
      morality, see the earlier note on Fraud) and so make it a fit place
      for God to return to.

      This was not a rebellion (as some have been pleased to imagine) to
      overthrow Rome. It was a spot operation, designed to get God to come
      in, and let him finish the job. As we know, all witnesses being
      unanimous on this point, it failed, and Jesus was executed by the
      Romans (as is logical only on the previous reading of Mark; why the
      Romans should pay several soldiers overtime to execute some harmless
      itinerant Cynic preacher, as some have held, passes my understanding).
      Hence the dispiritude of the sojourner reported (or imagined; same
      difference) by Luke.

      It is worth noting, in the sense that Luke's sense of it may be worth
      something, that Luke does not show the sojourner as holding a
      Resurrection belief (and thus exulting that now the Scriptures had
      been fulfilled, and the Way to Salvation was open, etc etc), but as
      disappointed in a particular small-forces variant on the Messiah
      theme. That hope had failed, or so says Luke, and there was no second
      hope to fall back on.

      Did Jesus actually preach this Messiah operation? It seems so. Go back
      to Mark 4 and read it, but without the Apostolic intrusion after the
      first parable. Read it as though it were meant to be understood as it
      stands, and not as the Markan interpolator forced it to be
      reinterpreted, and then ask, What was it trying, albeit covertly, to
      convey? Then check out the countersigns, the safe houses in Jerusalem
      (safe until betrayed by an insider), the secret arrangements for the
      beast of burden for the symbolic Entry, the whole bit. And see if you
      don't think that Mark, who is undoubtedly being discreet, agrees
      tacitly with what Luke more openly if also more briefly lets us see.

      If we think of Mark as reporting in a veiled way, and Luke as
      portraying in a more explicit way, the same Messianic attempted
      Jerusalem exploit, I think we will find a certain amount of agreement.


      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.