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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark's dependence on Paul

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Grolin
    Dear Ron, I have to say that I find your arguments somewhat peculiar. None of the parallels you have offered show signs of textual dependence. All of these
    Message 1 of 25 , Oct 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ron,

      I have to say that I find your arguments somewhat peculiar. None of the parallels you have offered show signs of textual dependence. All of these concepts could have, and I would argue were readily available in the community of the texts in question.

      Regards,

      Daniel Grolin
      Aarhus, Denmark

      Ronald Price <ron-price@...> wrote:

      >BRUCE: Notice (just for starters) the first use of this term ["gospel"]
      >within Mark proper, 1:14. "Now after Jesus was arrested, Jesus came into
      >Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and
      >the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the Gospel." Notice
      >that there is nothing here about any Gospel of Jesus; it is all about God.
      >
      >RON: Paul used the strange phrase "gospel of God" (1 Th 2:2; Rom 1:1;
      >15:16), and as you have pointed out, Mark used it (Mk 1:14). It seems to me
      >very likely that Mark had heard Paul use the phrase, especially if, as I
      >believe, the Mark of Phm 24 was the author of the gospel of Mark.
      >
      >- - - - -
      >
      >RON: . . . the death of Jesus as atoning (Rom 3:25; 5:8; Mk 10:45);
      >
      >BRUCE: Let's catch up on our geometry. There are exactly two places where
      >the specific concept of atonement turns up in Mk. One is indeed 3:45
      >(presumably 3:25 was a typo), RSV "and to give his life as a ransom for
      >many." The other is in the Last Supper scene, at 14:24, RSV "This is my
      >blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." That's the lot.
      >
      >RON: My Rom 3:25 was not a typo - check it for yourself. However your 3:45
      >*was* a typo.
      >
      >- - - - -
      >
      >RON: Then there is the resurrection of Jesus. This can be regarded as the
      >keystone of Paul's theology (Hering on 1 Cor, p.156, with references to
      >Barth and Menaud).
      >
      >BRUCE: ..... the Atonement INTERPRETATION of the Resurrection .....
      >
      >RON: You appear to be proposing a new theology. Atonement in Christian
      >theology is an interpretation of the *death* of Jesus.
      >
      >- - - - -
      >
      >BRUCE: By many accounts, including the implied ending of canonical Mark, and
      >whatever the writer of John 21 is cannibalizing, Peter witnessed the
      >Resurrection, and thus would have accepted it as something important. Here
      >would have been his common ground with Paul.
      >
      >RON: The evidence you cite is feeble in the extreme. Chapter 21 is widely
      >and correctly regarded as a second century addition to the gospel of John,
      >and I don't think he was cannibalizing anything. It was probably composed in
      >its entirety by its writer. You are on record on this List as taking Mk
      >14:28 and 16:7 as interpolations (and here I agree), so canonical Mark is
      >later than Mark as first 'published'. Thus at best your evidence for Peter's
      >acceptance of the resurrection of Jesus is post-Markan, and to me that means
      >after 70 CE.
      >
      >- - - - -
      >
      >Ron Price,
      >
      >Derbyshire, UK
      >
      >http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      ... What does this now tell us about [Mk]10:45 ... I would say that it tells us this: This bit of Pauline Atonement belief was added to the text of Mark very
      Message 2 of 25 , Oct 10, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        A recent posting declared:
        ---------------
        What does this now tell us about [Mk]10:45 ...
        I would say that it tells us this:
        This bit of Pauline Atonement belief was added
        to the text of Mark very late in the compositional
        process of Mark.
        ---------------

        I think care should be taken not to confuse
        different categories.

        Mk 10.45 speaks of a ransom and the wider
        biblical context indicates this refers to
        some kind of rescue effected either by the exercise
        of superior power, or by payment.

        Mk 14.24 speaks of the blood of the covenant as
        resulting in a benefit for (the) many. The reference
        is presumably to a covenant initiation or renewal
        sacrifice.

        Rom 3.25 does allude to atonement by means of blood.
        That connects with Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).
        That is slightly odd as Jesus died close to Passover
        (Spring) and Yom Kippur comes around in the Autumn.

        But my point is that these are three quite different
        ways of understanding how a rescue, or a new covenant,
        or a wiping away of sin might be effected. And the
        Yom Kippur motif is not in Mark at all whether from Paul
        or anywhere else.

        To speak of these in one breath as if they are all
        the same is to ignore "Murdoch's law". Iris Murdoch
        said of philosophy that unless we proceed very slowly
        we will make no progress at all. The same would seem
        to apply to Markan (and Pauline) studies.

        David M.


        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      • Frank Jacks
        Ron, Thanks for reminding me of something I once held, back in the days when I was still enamored by B. W. Bacon s writings, including his take on Mark as the
        Message 3 of 25 , Oct 10, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Ron,

          Thanks for reminding me of something I once held, back in the days
          when I was still enamored by B. W. Bacon's writings, including his
          take on Mark as "the Pauline gospel," but yes, notice the past tense
          for I have had to give up this approach/insight for a variety of reasons
          most especially (and if nothing else) as this gospel (like the others)
          shows Jesus appointing his successors to authority at time and place
          that does not include Paul! I simply can not envision how anyone so
          dependent upon Paul could have given up what was so crucially central
          to him ... and this is what started me wondering about Mark's being
          "the Pauline gospel," a connection which in fact does not connect up
          well with other ideas/concepts central to Paul's ideology, for example
          his seeing the resurrection as when/where/how Jesus "became the Christ"
          as "the Christological moment" to borrow the happy phrase from Ray
          Brown! We simply do not find any of the distinctively "Pauline" ideas
          or concepts in this gospel but do find many that do not match up with
          what Paul said in his letters. That there were/are some commonalities
          between this gospel and Paul's letters is doubtless true but there are
          other and probably more plausible explanations for these ... at least,
          this is where I now find myself these days. Still, thanks for reminding
          me of positions I once held!
          > As I see it, Mark's dependence on Paul was considerable. It included for
          > instance, extensive use of EUAGGELION (gospel) and PISTEUW (believe), the
          > death of Jesus as atoning (Rom 3:25; 5:8; Mk 10:45); abrogation of food laws
          > (Rom 14:20; Mk 7:19), and assorted negative views of the twelve.
          >
          > Then there is the resurrection of Jesus. This can be regarded as the
          > keystone of Paul's theology (Hering on 1 Cor, p.156, with references to
          > Barth and Menaud). It was a crucial part of Paul's gospel (1 Cor 15:3-5), a
          > gospel which he received by revelation (Gal 1:11-12). So it should be viewed
          > as Paul's inspired creation, and Mark must also have got the idea of the
          > resurrection of Jesus (Mk 8:31 etc.) directly or indirectly from Paul.
          >
          > Ron Price,
          >
          > Derbyshire, UK
          >
          > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
          >
          >
          Frank

          Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. [Union Theological Seminary, N.Y.C.]
          Professor Of Religion, Emeritus
          Pikeville College
          Pikeville, KY

          (but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: David Mealand On: The Atonement Doctrine From: Bruce DAVID: Mk 10.45 speaks of a ransom and the wider biblical context
          Message 4 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic (GPG)
            In Response To: David Mealand
            On: The Atonement Doctrine
            From: Bruce

            DAVID: Mk 10.45 speaks of a ransom and the wider biblical context indicates
            this refers to some kind of rescue effected either by the exercise of
            superior power, or by payment.

            BRUCE: What "wider Biblical context?" Ransom is how Paul, and the later
            Pauline literature (Titus, Revelation, down to and including 1 Peter) speaks
            of the Atonement doctrine. In the wider context, I continue to find it
            significant that Luke, who does not repeat Mk 10:45 in his own version of
            Mark's Gospel, also does not, in Acts, mention this doctrine as taught by
            Paul; I see a whitewash in both cases. I see an ideologically consistent
            Luke. And more, I see a mid-century doctrinal war in which Luke takes an
            ideologically consistent part.

            Also check the allied economic locution "bought" (1 Cor, 2 Pet), for the
            same doctrine.

            It thus seems to me that Mark in 10:45 is very atypically acknowledging (and
            that Luke in the analogous place is refusing to acknowledge) a doctrine
            which is elsewhere, in Paul and in later Pauline writers, and in the
            contemporary and hostile Epistle of James, associated with Paul. No?

            According to that doctrine, you do not save yourself (by your repentance and
            good actions); Jesus saves you by his death, which buys/ransoms/redeems you
            from your own otherwise inevitable death. Jesus pays your bar tab, and it is
            part of the doctrine that you would never, of your own effort, be able to
            pay your own bar tab. Forget your little good works, your minor abstinences,
            your theological nickels and dimes. Jesus is all.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Ronald Price
            - - - - - - - Daniel Grolin remarked: None of the parallels you have offered show signs of textual dependence. Daniel, A lot depends on the date of the first
            Message 5 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              - - - - - - -

              Daniel Grolin remarked:

              None of the parallels you have offered show signs of textual dependence.

              Daniel,

              A lot depends on the date of the first collection of the letters of Paul. I
              think it likely that it was a decade or more after Mark wrote his gospel, in
              which case we should not expect too much in the way of "signs of textual
              dependence".

              - - - - - - -

              David Mealand wrote:

              Mk 10.45 speaks of a ransom .....
              Mk 14.24 speaks of the blood of the covenant .....
              Rom 3.25 does allude to atonement by means of blood. .....

              But my point is that these are three quite different
              ways of understanding how a rescue, or a new covenant,
              or a wiping away of sin might be effected.

              David,

              A modern scholar may well be correct in seeing these interpretations as
              distinctly different, but surely the crucial question here is whether the
              author of the gospel of Mark would have seen them as distinctly different,
              or as essentially the same. For what it¹s worth, my vote would be for the
              latter.

              - - - - - - -

              Frank Jacks wrote:

              ..... this gospel [Mark] (like the others) shows Jesus appointing his
              successors to authority at time and place that does not include Paul!

              Frank,

              Mark's gospel can be viewed as the first attempt to write a biography of
              Jesus. Paul played no part in the life of Jesus. Mark wisely refrained from
              trying to deny this probably widely-known fact, c.f. "... as to one untimely
              born ..." (1 Cor 15:8).

              "... [Paul] seeing the resurrection as when/where/how Jesus "became the
              Christ" as "the Christological moment" to borrow the happy phrase from Ray
              Brown!"

              You've lost me here.

              - - - - - - -

              Ron Price,

              Derbyshire, UK

              http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Daniel Grolin
              Dear Ron,
              Message 6 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Ron,

                <<A lot depends on the date of the first collection of the letters of Paul. I think it likely that it was a decade or more after Mark wrote his gospel, in which case we should not expect too much in the way of "signs of textual dependence".>>

                Given that the Synoptics were not written that far apart and this group would not exist if textual dependence was not evident with them, I have to ask, Why?

                My point is that your dependence seems indistinguishable from dependence on common communal lore. How are you making a dependence between texts more plausible?

                Given that even the concepts are not exactly the same it seems tenuous at best. I see different conceptualization behind the common tradition, and am far from convinced that Mark was dependent on Paul.

                Regards,

                Daniel Grolin
                Aarhus, Denmark
              • Stephen Carlson
                Those interested in the issue of Mark s interaction with Paul should consult: Joel Marcus, Mark – Interpreter of Paul . *New Testament Studies* *46*.4
                Message 7 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Those interested in the issue of Mark's interaction with Paul should
                  consult:

                  Joel Marcus,"Mark � Interpreter of Paul". *New Testament Studies* *46*.4
                  (2000): 473�487.

                  Stephen
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson
                  Graduate Program in Religion
                  Duke University


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ronald Price
                  ... Daniel, The synoptics are inter-dependent, and this is at the level of the texts. So, for instance, the author of Matthew clearly had the text of Mark
                  Message 8 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Daniel Grolin wrote:

                    > Given that the Synoptics were not written that far apart and this group would
                    > not exist if textual dependence was not evident with them, I have to ask, Why?
                    >
                    > My point is that your dependence seems indistinguishable from dependence on
                    > common communal lore. How are you making a dependence between texts more
                    > plausible?

                    Daniel,

                    The synoptics are inter-dependent, and this is at the level of the texts.
                    So, for instance, the author of Matthew clearly had the text of Mark
                    accessible to him while he was writing his own gospel.

                    I am not positing such a textual dependence between Mark and Paul's letters,
                    but rather that Mark got his Pauline theology and attitude to the twelve
                    either directly or indirectly from Paul. I should further come clean and say
                    that most of what I am proposing is similar (but not wholly derived from)
                    what Joel Marcus argued in the NTS article mentioned by Stephen Carlson.

                    The distinction I see between dependence on the apostle Paul and mere
                    dependence on communal lore relates to the origin of the ideas enumerated in
                    my original post on this thread. What I am claiming is that these ideas were
                    all originated by Paul, and if so, then Mark almost certainly obtained them
                    (directly or indirectly) from Paul. Of course such a claim is very difficult
                    to substantiate because Paul's genuine epistles constitute our only direct
                    pre-Markan evidence of the theology and attitudes of the followers of Jesus.
                    However (to cut a long story short) I have attempted to reconstruct the
                    original 'logia' of Jesus (see the web page below), and if this
                    reconstruction and its proposed Sitz im Leben are correct, then the
                    above-mentioned ideas were not part of the thinking of the original
                    apostles. This would not prove these ideas originated with Paul, but it
                    would make it much more likely.

                    Ron Price,

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David Mealand
                    I agree with A: Mark and Paul both use the notions of rescue, and possibly those of purchase or payment. (Mark is not clear on the latter.) I do not agree
                    Message 9 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I agree with

                      A: Mark and Paul both use the notions of
                      rescue, and possibly those of purchase or
                      payment. (Mark is not clear on the latter.)

                      I do not agree with

                      B: Mark got from Paul the notion that the
                      crucifixion can be compared with atonement
                      motifs related to Yom Kippur.

                      B goes way beyond A

                      David M.






                      ---------
                      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                      --
                      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                    • E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: Daniel Grolin (and Ron Price) On: Mark and Paul From: Bruce One of the problems with the Synoptic Problem is that it can t
                      Message 10 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: Synoptic (GPG)
                        In Response To: Daniel Grolin (and Ron Price)
                        On: Mark and Paul
                        From: Bruce

                        One of the problems with the Synoptic Problem is that it can't be solved
                        without reference to non-Synoptic matters, such as the chronology of Paul,
                        but those matters are technically barred from the "Synoptic" discussion. I
                        think Daniel is right to raise them, however, and I will venture to follow
                        him in exploring them, just a tiny bit.

                        Daniel (to Ron): My point is that your dependence seems indistinguishable
                        from dependence on common communal lore. How are you making a dependence
                        between texts more plausible?

                        Bruce: Proper question. If the doctrine of the Atonement is unique to Paul,
                        then its presence in Mark indicates that at least that passage in Mark is
                        aware of Paul. If the doctrine is more general, then that conclusion does
                        not necessarily follow. We are now interested to know if Paul originated the
                        Atonement doctrine, as a development of the prior Resurrection belief, or if
                        he found it ready to hand. I don't know of any immediate evidence either
                        way. Does anyone? It would be helpful if Paul's earliest extant letter
                        (there is some support for the idea that it is 1 Thess) showed no trace of
                        the doctrine, whereas later ones did. So what is the situation with 1 Thess?
                        That is a more delicate question than one might like.

                        1 Thess: Structure and Date

                        First, as with any text, our question must be: Is this one thing or many?
                        The answer is that it is many, so we can't yet operate with our usual list
                        of interrogations. One undoubted interpolation is 1 Thess 2:13-16 (see
                        Walker 210). This invites a date of post-70 for the text, as likely
                        referring to the destruction of the Temple as a judgement on the Jews (and
                        why else would the writer refer to the churches in Judaea?). OK, we now have
                        two layers, 1 Thess proper (during Paul's lifetime, and most put it in the
                        early 50's), and the later (post-70) passage. Can we say anything more about
                        them? Yes, a certain amount. First, since Paul died in the early 60's, he
                        cannot have gloated over the discomfiture of the Jews in 70. So the
                        interpolation seems dumb. But did everyone think Paul had died in the early
                        60's? No, some believed that he had gone on from Rome to missionarize Spain,
                        and had died only in a second captivity. Is this true? No, because if it
                        were, the Spanish churches would revel in being founded by Paul, but their
                        traditions have been extensively looked into, and the answer is that no such
                        claim was made until centuries later. So we now have two things about this
                        interpolation: it was probably made very soon after 70, since these things
                        are likely to be exploited while they are hot, and it was made by, and
                        addressed to, people who would find it plausible, namely those who believed
                        in the Second Captivity. Do we know of any such people? Yes, they are
                        present behind the Pastorals. They are also present in yet another
                        interpolation: Romans 16, which (in disagreement with Romans 1) states an
                        intention to go to Spain. Then these Second Imprisonment interpolations are
                        spotted throughout the Pauline corpus. Is there a plausible occasion for
                        this? Yes: at the time of their collection into a corpus. OK, we now have
                        reason to think that the corpus was collected after 70, but perhaps not long
                        after 70. Getting back to matters recognizably Synoptic, since Luke knew the
                        Pauline letters (his not quoting them is because they would not serve his
                        purpose in reconfiguring Paul for a kinder and gentler posterity; Acts is a
                        sort of counter to the Pauline Corpus). This puts Acts, and even the first
                        part of it (up to Ac 15:35) in the post-70 column. Meaning that gLk too was
                        not completed (it has been in several places adjusted to Acts II) until
                        after 70. This we knew anyway, since in contrast to Mk (continued in Mt),
                        who only sees Caligula coming, Luke definitely sees Titus coming.

                        Can we get a little more out of this, before passing on? Yeah, 2 Thess. What
                        about 2 Thess, besides the fact that it is a fake and a phony? Precisely
                        this: 2 Thess is intimately modeled on 1 Thess, and among other things, it
                        betrays awareness of the interpolation, 1 Thess 2:13-16. Then we have an
                        even more detailed sequence: (1) 1 Thess (2) Titus in 70 (3) 1 Thess
                        2:13-16. (4) 2 Thess. Among other things, we have just disposed of the
                        theory of a 2nd century Acts, since the sequence here outlined won't permit
                        it. There are other sequences that prove the same thing. Thus, counting up
                        from late to early, 1 Clement (c96) knows 1 Peter, who knows Ephesians, who
                        knows Colossians - itself probably written to preface the original Corpus
                        Paulinum - but who also knows the Ephesian parting scene in Acts II. Notice
                        that this second series not only puts Luke-Acts in the 1st century (remember
                        that the date of 1 Clement is c96), it also puts the first Corpus Paulinum
                        much earlier than the end of that century; so much for the briefly popular
                        Goodspeed theory. To our Synoptic credit, we have now anchored the final
                        state of Luke-Acts with some assurance not long after the year 70. Why not
                        long? Because as a sign of the End, the Titus destruction also fizzled, and
                        the longer you wait to make the claim that it WAS the sign of the end, the
                        more ridiculous you look.

                        Excursus: Luke-Acts

                        Does this give us anything to think about? Maybe. If both the Pauline
                        Collection and, after it, Luke-Acts, are after 70, and since the later of
                        the two, Luke-Acts, is probably not long after 70, then they must have
                        followed rather close on each other. Since the Collection is earlier, might
                        it not have been a sort of stimulus for the final stage of Luke? Luke-Acts
                        is revisionist as to Paul, whenever it was written, but it may more
                        specifically have been revisionist as to the picture of Paul which was
                        painted, and above all made more powerful for the reading public, by the
                        gathering of all Paul's letters into one huge bombshell. Against this
                        explosion on the right (Paul, the hater of earlier kinds of Christians, the
                        great divisive force in contemporary theology), may not Luke-Acts in their
                        final form have been a countering salvo from the left? A word for peace, and
                        not for further escalating the fierce theological arguments which seem to
                        crop up wherever Paul treads?

                        I venture to suggest it.

                        1 Thess: Doctrine

                        Now back to the Atonement, but this time with leaks repaired and all hands
                        alert. Does the original 1 Thess, the thing with a fair claim to reflect
                        Paul as of the time of writing, hold the Atonement doctrine? Perhaps not
                        very conspicuously. Most of it, including the Gospel of God part (several
                        times repeated), and the advice about good and bad actions (with the
                        implication that good or bad actions make a difference), could easily pass
                        for what I have called an Alpha epistle. The only line in which Jesus seems
                        to be given a role in salvation is, I think, 1 Thess 1:10, "and to wait for
                        his Son from Heaven, whom he raised from the dead; Jesus, who delivers us
                        from the wrath to come." And just how does he do this? That is the question.


                        Now we get the commentators. I have not many to hand, but: (1) Neil 1950;
                        nothing either way. (2) Bailey 1955; uses "redemption" in his paraphrase,
                        but not really in his argument. Perhaps a natural reflex? (3) Best 1972;
                        "Taken together, these facts indicate that we have a pre-Pauline statement
                        of the Church;'s faith; others have been identified; in 1 Cor 15:3-5 Paul
                        clearly states that he is using one. The evidence in our present case is
                        reinforced when we observe that 1:9b, 10 can be set out in two three-line
                        stanzas:

                        You turned to God from idols
                        to serve the living and real God
                        (and to wait for his Son out of Heaven
                        Whom he raised from the dead:
                        Jesus, who delivers us
                        from the approaching anger

                        . . . if this is a pre-Pauline fragment, where did it originate? Several
                        things suggest that its provenance was Jewish-Christian rather than
                        Gentile-Christian . . . Munck denies that Paul would have used this as a
                        formula since the cross is not central to it . . . Rejecting Munck's
                        argument, we note more generally that Paul could use traditional formulae
                        which are not wholly in agreement with his own theology . . . (4) Bruce
                        1982, "This is not exclusively Paul's report; it summarizes the Thessalonian
                        Christians' response to the preaching of his colleagues and himself
                        together, and represents teaching which they held in common with other
                        Christian leaders of the first generation." And, "This is the only place in
                        the Thessalonian letters where Jesus is called the Son of God."

                        I think that Best has it about right, pretty much seconded by Bruce. The
                        passage in question no more requires the assumption of an Atonement
                        (redeeming sacrifice) doctrine than does the Eucharistic formula in the
                        Didache, or the Hymn in Philippians 2 (this one IS a real hymn; I think that
                        in 1 Thess Paul is not quoting a new hymn - the direct address is against it
                        - but influenced by the Philippians 2 hymn, or by things in that same
                        category). It is then the judgement of our critics, except perhaps for
                        Bailey, that 1 Thess as it stands is innocent of Atonement preaching,
                        leaving the possibility that, as Best says, Paul is here being eclectic and
                        ecumenical, and articulating the common ground rather than pushing his more
                        distinctive beliefs.

                        Then the answer to our large question is most likely this: Paul personally
                        held the Atonement doctrine throughout the period for which we have the
                        witness of his letters. The doctrine thus arose prior to c50, and was
                        accepted by Paul as of that time. Who thought it up, and when, does not
                        appear. But we are not entitled to refer its creation to a date later than
                        50. It is most likely pre-50.

                        Mk 10:45, the passage in which a clear mention of the Atonement doctrine
                        occurs, is also a prediction of the death of James (and maybe John) Zebedee,
                        an event which happened in c44. The Mk passage, the latest firmly datable
                        one in Mk, might then be from any time after that, as a cautious working
                        first guess say c45. This puts Mark's acknowledgement of the Atonement
                        doctrine into the time frame when, as we have just seen, that doctrine
                        probably arose. Nothing so far proves that Paul himself originated it,
                        merely that, throughout the documented part of his life, he held it. Then
                        its presence in Mark is right on time, chronologically speaking, but
                        ambiguous as to specific Pauline influence. It may instead be just influence
                        from the latest thing, theologically speaking. Paul need not be involved, at
                        least not at the origin.

                        This is perhaps a long way of agreeing with Daniel's caution about a generic
                        rather than a Pauline Atonement doctrine, but perhaps it may contribute
                        something to underline that caution.

                        AUTHORSHIP OF MARK

                        Daniel: Given that even the concepts are not exactly the same it seems
                        tenuous at best. I see different conceptualization behind the common
                        tradition, and am far from convinced that Mark was dependent on Paul.

                        Bruce: I still think that "dependent" is a misleading way to state the
                        alternatives. But that the touch of Atonement theory in gMk is not a
                        guarantee of contact with Paul still seems the way to go. On the other hand,
                        it doesn't RULE OUT contact with Paul. Thinking now of one possible author
                        of gMk, namely jMk (John Mark of Jerusalem), do we know that Paul had
                        visited Jerusalem? Never mind Acts, which is assimilating everything to
                        everything else as fast it can; consider Paul. He says so, and therefore he
                        probably did (that would not be Paul's kind of lie). jMk, in his role as
                        aMk, is also thought to have had contact with Peter, and gotten some
                        material from him. Could that have occurred in Jerusalem, with jMk still
                        living at home? Sure; Paul mentions he met Peter in Jerusalem. About when
                        was that? Well, for starters, probably not after the Agrippa I persecution
                        (and the death of James Zebedee) in c44, so maybe 43 or at earliest early
                        44. How old was jMk at that time? Well, suppose he was a teenager at the
                        time he appears as a cameo in his own text, the naked young man in the
                        Arrest scene (and he writes Peter as a sort of Hero of Persistence a little
                        later in that chapter). That was 30, so in, let us say, early 44, jMk would
                        have been, oh, maybe in his early thirties. Paul, around the same age as
                        Jesus, and for that matter of Peter, maybe around 45. jMk will then have
                        been young enough to be impressed, but also old enough to embark on a voyage
                        of his own. Did he go to join Paul? Acts says so, and dates it around this
                        time. Did Luke (assuming for a moment that he was the author of Acts) know
                        Mark? He had read aMk's book. Did he know the actual guy, or anyway, facts
                        about him? That would be spooky. But not impossible. If he had known jMk,
                        and wanted to subtly plonk him before the readers of the future, how might
                        he have proceeded? He might have acknowledged jMk as at one point going to
                        join Paul, but then showing how he washed out as a missionary, and how Paul
                        would have nothing further to do with him. Now, Mk's theology was
                        unacceptable to Luke, since Luke took Mark's book as his own basis, but
                        subtly censored and rewrote and vastly extended it, . . .

                        Well, anyway. I hate this stuff, since the Mark Authorship thing always
                        looked weak to me. My present problem is that the more I go into it
                        (including the Gerasa bit; that was a shock), the more it looks like the
                        literal jMk scenario after all has quite a bit going for it.

                        Well, you can't win them all, I guess.

                        Bruce

                        E Bruce Brooks
                        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                        Ron: I am having some trouble with this. First, what evidence do you have that would point to a) dependence on Paul, or even b) that Paul invented the key
                        Message 11 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ron:

                          I am having some trouble with this. First, what evidence do you have that would point to a) dependence on Paul, or even b) that Paul invented the key idea of resurrection (or atonement)? I just don't know where you would go to find supporting evidence for either of these, but especially not the latter.

                          But beyond that, I would really like to explore the key issue of atonement. Is Mark's language of "ransom" really the same as Paul's idea? And I am not convinced that Paul even has a clear atonement idea, certainly not the "propitiation" or "substitution" approach. The issue of hilasterion, and even the syntax of the sentence in Rom 3:34-35 is notoriously difficult and subject to various readings. And Rom. 5:8 simply says Christ died for us (huper hmwm), and we are justified in/by his blood.

                          I think the linkage you point to here, at least, has to assume a theology of atonement for both Paul (which is rightly subject to great debate), and to impute a similar theology on the gospels where it seems to me to be almost absent.

                          Ron Price wrote:
                          >
                          > I am not positing such a textual dependence between Mark and Paul's
                          > letters, but rather that Mark got his Pauline theology and attitude to the
                          > twelve either directly or indirectly from Paul. I should further come clean and
                          > say that most of what I am proposing is similar (but not wholly derived from)
                          > what Joel Marcus argued in the NTS article mentioned by Stephen Carlson.

                          ... and in a previous post:
                          >As I see it, Mark's dependence on Paul was considerable. It included for instance, extensive use of EUAGGELION (gospel) and >PISTEUW (believe), the death of Jesus as atoning (Rom 3:25; 5:8; Mk 10:45); abrogation of food laws (Rom 14:20; Mk 7:19), and >assorted negative views of the twelve.

                          >Then there is the resurrection of Jesus. This can be regarded as the keystone of Paul's theology (Hering on 1 Cor, p.156, with >references to Barth and Menaud). It was a crucial part of Paul's gospel (1 Cor 15:3-5), a gospel which he received by revelation (Gal >1:11-12). So it should be viewed as Paul's inspired creation, and Mark must also have got the idea of the resurrection of Jesus (Mk >8:31 etc.) directly or indirectly from Paul.


                          Mark A. Matson
                          Academic Dean
                          Milligan College
                          423-461-8720
                          http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                        • Bob Schacht
                          ... Paul had virtually no direct knowledge of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He was traveling among people who, likewise, had no direct knowledge of Jesus.
                          Message 12 of 25 , Oct 11, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 11:01 AM 10/11/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:


                            >[snip]
                            >
                            >Daniel (to Ron): My point is that your dependence seems indistinguishable
                            >from dependence on common communal lore. How are you making a dependence
                            >between texts more plausible?
                            >
                            >Bruce: Proper question. If the doctrine of the Atonement is unique to Paul,
                            >then its presence in Mark indicates that at least that passage in Mark is
                            >aware of Paul. If the doctrine is more general, then that conclusion does
                            >not necessarily follow. We are now interested to know if Paul originated the
                            >Atonement doctrine, as a development of the prior Resurrection belief, or if
                            >he found it ready to hand. I don't know of any immediate evidence either
                            >way. ...

                            Paul had virtually no direct knowledge of the person of Jesus of
                            Nazareth. He was traveling among people who, likewise, had no direct
                            knowledge of Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus did not leave behind a "Guide
                            to my crucifixion and resurrection: meaning and interpretation." The
                            closest thing we have any inkling of is the Markan tradition,
                            repeated a number of times-- e.g. Mark 8, "31 And he began to teach
                            them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by
                            the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and
                            after three days rise again."

                            IIRC, that's about all that Jesus had to say, according to our
                            sources, about his own death and resurrection.
                            So, I rather imagine that Paul had a good many discussions with many
                            people about the meaning of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
                            Furthermore, I suspect that the idea of the atonement took shape and
                            evolved during Paul's lifetime, as he tried to make sense of Jesus'
                            life and death (and resurrection.) And, of course, Paul was not alone
                            in this effort. But I doubt that Jesus had such conversations with
                            Peter or his brother James, unless it was at the "first Apostolic
                            Conference" in Jerusalem.

                            In other words, although Paul may have had a role in shaping the
                            debate, I doubt that it sprung fully formed from his forehead.

                            But most of the analysis taking place here is based on literary
                            sources, so we will probably never know the details of how the
                            doctrine of the atonement developed and came into being. I think the
                            differences between Mark and Paul indicates that the early Christians
                            were kicking the idea around, but had not yet put the idea in writing.

                            Bob Schacht
                            Northern Arizona University






                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • David Mealand
                            Ron replied ... Mk 10.45 speaks of a ransom ..... Mk 14.24 speaks of the blood of the covenant ..... Rom 3.25 does allude to atonement by means of blood. .....
                            Message 13 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ron replied
                              ----------------
                              Mk 10.45 speaks of a ransom .....
                              Mk 14.24 speaks of the blood of the covenant .....
                              Rom 3.25 does allude to atonement by means of blood. .....

                              A modern scholar may well be correct in seeing these interpretations as
                              distinctly different, but surely the crucial question here is whether the
                              author of the gospel of Mark would have seen them as distinctly different,
                              or as essentially the same. For what it¹s worth, my vote would be for the
                              latter.
                              -------------------

                              Not at all. Some-one in the 1st Century of the Common Era is MUCH
                              more likely to have known the difference between a covenant and Yom Kippur.
                              People now can't differentiate these because a) they struggle with
                              understanding the Jewish context b) they view the whole matter down
                              a couple of millennia of amalgamating several diverse motifs into various
                              later syntheses in which the originally separate analogies have lost
                              their identity and individuality.

                              David M.


                              ---------
                              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                              --
                              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                            • Ronald Price
                              I had written: A modern scholar may well be correct in seeing these interpretations as distinctly different, but surely the crucial question here is whether
                              Message 14 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I had written:

                                A modern scholar may well be correct in seeing these interpretations as
                                distinctly different, but surely the crucial question here is whether the
                                author of the gospel of Mark would have seen them as distinctly different,
                                or as essentially the same. For what it¹s worth, my vote would be for the
                                latter.

                                David Mealand replied:

                                Not at all. Some-one in the 1st Century of the Common Era is MUCH
                                more likely to have known the difference between a covenant and Yom Kippur.
                                .....

                                David,

                                I was not referring to "some-one" in general, but to the author of Mark's
                                gospel in particular. Yes, he lived in the 1st century. But we know a fair
                                amount about him through what he wrote. Let's consider the following case.

                                "... all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands" (Mk 7:3)
                                Morna Hooker says this statement is untrue. So much for Mark's knowledge of
                                Jewish affairs - unless of course you would challenge her assessment on the
                                basis that she is viewing the whole matter down a couple of millennia!

                                I concede that this is only one example. You may be able to come up with
                                counter-examples from elsewhere in Mark.

                                Ron Price,

                                Derbyshire, UK

                                http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Ronald Price
                                ... Mark, I ve already given a partial answer to this in my reply to Daniel Grolin, to the effect that these ideas were not in the logia, which I attribute to
                                Message 15 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mark Matson wrote:

                                  > I am having some trouble with this. First, what evidence do you have that
                                  > would point to a) dependence on Paul, or even b) that Paul invented the key
                                  > idea of resurrection (or atonement)? I just don't know where you would go to
                                  > find supporting evidence for either of these, but especially not the latter.

                                  Mark,

                                  I've already given a partial answer to this in my reply to Daniel Grolin, to
                                  the effect that these ideas were not in the logia, which I attribute to the
                                  original apostles.

                                  One further point is worth adding. Paul is the only follower of Jesus we
                                  know who was not one of the original apostles, who died before the gospels
                                  were written, and who also clearly had the intellect and boldness to come up
                                  with ideas/interpretations which must have seemed like heresy to many of his
                                  fellow Jews, yet become the theological foundation of a major new religion.

                                  ..... I would really like to explore the key issue of atonement .....

                                  In addition to my responses to David Mealand, I would argue that Mk 14:22-24
                                  has to be dependent (directly or indirectly) on Paul (1 Cor 11:23-26). "from
                                  the Lord" (APO TOU KURIOU), especially in the light of Gal 1:11-12, should
                                  be taken as meaning "by revelation" in view of the fact that Paul had never
                                  met the historical Jesus. If the historical Jesus had initiated the
                                  statement about his blood of the covenant being poured out "for you", it
                                  makes little sense to *follow* this (as in Mark) with a plea to escape
                                  (14:36) the solemn commitment he has just made. In any case from a
                                  historical viewpoint, Jesus could hardly have formulated a ritual which is
                                  based on his (at that time) future death. The ritual must surely have been
                                  devised in retrospect by an early Christian wanting to present a particular
                                  interpretation of his death. Paul is by far the most likely source of such a
                                  magnificent interpretation. Thus Mk 14:22-24 probably derives from Paul.

                                  Ron Price,

                                  Derbyshire, UK

                                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Frank Jacks
                                  Instead of jumping in with a comment about some of the details raised in this continuing discussion, I wish to back-track to what might be a root cause for
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Instead of jumping in with a comment about some of the details
                                    raised in this continuing discussion, I wish to back-track to what
                                    might be a root cause for some of the differing opinions which have
                                    been being posted here, for I notice that in your response to Bruce
                                    that you made a statement that might well be a premise for your
                                    position/statements (???). At least, I do have a question about
                                    something you said:
                                    > BRUCE: Notice (just for starters) the first use of this term ["gospel"]
                                    > within Mark proper, 1:14. "Now after Jesus was arrested, Jesus came into
                                    > Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and
                                    > the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the Gospel." Notice
                                    > that there is nothing here about any Gospel of Jesus; it is all about God.
                                    >
                                    > RON: Paul used the strange phrase "gospel of God" (1 Th 2:2; Rom 1:1;
                                    > 15:16), and as you have pointed out, Mark used it (Mk 1:14). It seems to me
                                    > very likely that Mark had heard Paul use the phrase, especially if, as I
                                    > believe, the Mark of Phm 24 was the author of the gospel of Mark.
                                    I wonder whether your suspicion that the author of the second gospel
                                    was the "Mark of Phm 24" is the basis for your having sought for
                                    confirmation by finding ideas/images/concepts/vocabulary in Mark
                                    that seem to be derived from Paul or whether it was finding in this
                                    gospel what seemed to you to be such ideas/images/concepts/vocabulary
                                    distinctively "Pauline" that led you to conclude that it was written by
                                    someone who had knowledge about Paul, perhaps the "Mark of Phm
                                    24" (???).

                                    Are you aware of a logical or psychological sequence between these
                                    two?

                                    Thanks,

                                    Frank

                                    Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Seminary, N.Y.C.)
                                    Professor Of Religion, Emeritus
                                    Pikeville College,
                                    Pikeville, KY

                                    (but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)
                                  • Dennis
                                    Ronald said, in part, Paul is the only follower of Jesus we know who was not one of the original apostles, who died before the gospels were written, and who
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ronald said, in part, "Paul is the only follower of Jesus we
                                      know who was not one of the original apostles, who died before the gospels
                                      were written, and who also clearly had the intellect and boldness to come up
                                      with ideas/interpretations which must have seemed like heresy to many of his
                                      fellow Jews, yet become the theological foundation of a major new religion."

                                      Is this is assumption based on history or on the Christian mythology that grew around the "letters?" We read hardly anything about the letters (just a few patristic statements) until the end of the second century, and those as reactions to Marcionism and various Gnostic Christianities. At the same time, I haven't found any early (first through third century, perhaps) non-Christian references about "Paul" yet. (I would love to know of one.)
                                      Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                      Dahlonega, Ga.




                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Ronald Price
                                      ... Frank, It was after concluding that both Phm and Mark were written in Rome, and knowing that tradition ascribed the gospel to Mark , that it seemed
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 12/10/2011 17:08, "Frank Jacks" <cfjacks@...> wrote:

                                        > I wonder whether your suspicion that the author of the second gospel was the
                                        > "Mark of Phm 24" is the basis for your having sought for confirmation by
                                        > finding ideas/images/concepts/vocabulary in Mark that seem to be derived from
                                        > Paul or whether it was finding in this gospel what seemed to you to be such
                                        > ideas/images/concepts/vocabulary distinctively "Pauline" that led you to
                                        > conclude that it was written by someone who had knowledge about Paul, perhaps
                                        > the "Mark of Phm 24" (???).
                                        >
                                        Frank,

                                        It was after concluding that both Phm and Mark were written in Rome, and
                                        knowing that tradition ascribed the gospel to "Mark", that it seemed natural
                                        to put all these together and conclude that the Mark of Phm 24 was probably
                                        the Mark who wrote the gospel. My discovery of Pauline characteristics in
                                        Mark was in no way dependent on the connection with Phm 24. But the two do
                                        seem to tie in nicely together.

                                        Ron Price,

                                        Derbyshire, UK

                                        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Ronald Price
                                        I had written: Paul is the only follower of Jesus we ... Dennis, My statement is based on what little we know from the NT about the pre-70 CE followers of
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I had written:

                                          Paul is the only follower of Jesus we
                                          > know who was not one of the original apostles, who died before the gospels
                                          > were written, and who also clearly had the intellect and boldness to come up
                                          > with ideas/interpretations which must have seemed like heresy to many of his
                                          > fellow Jews, yet become the theological foundation of a major new religion.

                                          Dennis Carpenter replied:

                                          > Is this is assumption based on history or on the Christian mythology that grew
                                          > around the "letters?"

                                          Dennis,

                                          My statement is based on what little we know from the NT about the pre-70 CE
                                          followers of Jesus.

                                          Ron Price,

                                          Derbyshire, UK

                                          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • David Mealand
                                          I don t wish just to critique a view so here is an alternative. Mark and Paul both have passages which connect the death of Jesus with ideas of covenant and
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Oct 12, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I don't wish just to critique a view so here is an alternative.

                                            Mark and Paul both have passages which connect the death of Jesus
                                            with ideas of covenant and the shedding of blood. Given that a covenant
                                            creates or maintains a bond between those who participate, and
                                            involved a shared meal after a sacrifice, one can get some idea of how
                                            this analogy is working.

                                            So Mark and Paul share this motif. Also it may not be the oldest part
                                            of the supper tradition; the eschatological words about not eating the
                                            passover
                                            (again) until the coming of the Kingdom are probably the oldest.
                                            So did Paul invent the motif, and did Mark derive it from Paul? That is far
                                            from clear. For that one would have to argue "my blood of the covenant"
                                            is an adaptation of "the new covenant in my blood". I think I would
                                            find it hard to be convinced of that, and would be more inclined
                                            to think that someone before Paul produced a "cup word", to match
                                            the "bread word". The "bread word" might fit with the use of
                                            interpretative words at first Jewish, then Christian Passover meals.
                                            (What did the followers
                                            of Jesus do after the crucifixion when the next Passover came along?)
                                            I may be making some extended inferences here, and I would be more
                                            definite about thinking it likely that Mark and Paul have similar motifs
                                            about the covenant because they each get them from something which
                                            developed between c.34CE (=33+1) and the time Paul writes to Corinth.

                                            By "Mark" I mean a text that is attributed to someone called Mark, I do
                                            not mean that everything in the text was either all created by Mark or all
                                            derived from tradition. I think in the text of Mark we have some
                                            tradition which reflects the use of one or more Semitic languages - on
                                            this E.C.Maloney,
                                            Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax, did careful work, and more recently
                                            P.M. Casey made a vigorous case for Aramaisms. I would not rule
                                            out Mark having some awareness of Paul, but I am fairly confident
                                            that Mark contains a mixture of material, some of it from the time of Jesus,
                                            some from the period before Paul's letters, and some from any time up to
                                            around 75CE.

                                            One final issue: Mark has two passages which interpret the death of
                                            Jesus. One
                                            flags up the "rescue at the cost of a life" motif, the other a covenant bond
                                            focused on a shared sacrificial meal. Why do we have these two only
                                            in this text when others e.g. Pauline & Deutero-Pauline texts and
                                            Hebrews have further
                                            motifs not found here?

                                            David M.





                                            ---------
                                            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                                            --
                                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                          • E Bruce Brooks
                                            To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: Bob Schacht On: Paul and Atonement From: Bruce BOB: Paul had virtually no direct knowledge of the person of Jesus of
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Oct 13, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              To: Synoptic (GPG)
                                              In Response To: Bob Schacht
                                              On: Paul and Atonement
                                              From: Bruce

                                              BOB: Paul had virtually no direct knowledge of the person of Jesus of
                                              Nazareth.

                                              BRUCE: According to 2Cor 5:16 and other places, Paul was aware of knowledge
                                              of Jesus "after the flesh," but determined not to pay attention to it;
                                              everything for Paul is in Jesus's death. What I get here is not exactly
                                              ignorance but resistance. He does not accept what the direct-knowledge
                                              people say about Jesus during his lifetime.

                                              BOB: He was traveling among people who, likewise, had no direct knowledge
                                              of Jesus.

                                              BRUCE: Depends how far Jesus traveled, and how far the Jesus missionaries
                                              had traveled, before Jesus's death. My impression (from Mark) is that the
                                              range went well into Syria, quite possibly Damascus though less likely
                                              Antioch. Ignoring the Jerusalem-centered career of Paul as a Lukan fiction
                                              (undertaken for the best of reasons, but still a fiction), it is not
                                              necessarily impossible that Paul's first persecutions were among people who
                                              had been reached by those with direct knowledge of Jesus before his death.

                                              BOB: Furthermore, Jesus did not leave behind a "Guide to my crucifixion and
                                              resurrection: meaning and interpretation." The closest thing we have any
                                              inkling of is the Markan tradition, repeated a number of times-- e.g. Mark
                                              8, "31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many
                                              things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,
                                              and be killed, and after three days rise again."

                                              BRUCE: Problem is that one of those predictions is interpolated, which
                                              impugns the whole set. If we follow out the implications, it means that
                                              Jesus's death was unexpected by him and his followers. There is a good deal
                                              of evidence in support; I have previously referred to Yarbro Collins (whose
                                              reconstruction of the original Passion Narrative lacks a Burial and
                                              Resurrection narrative altogether, also Peter Kirby's study of the earliest
                                              tradition of Jesus's death. Then just as the Markan predictions of Jesus's
                                              resurrection are textually secondary, so is the Markan account of Jesus's
                                              resurrection. They are not biographical facts, they are later church
                                              theories, put into Mark's narrative as facts, but not what Mark originally
                                              reported as facts. Mark's gospel ended triumphantly, to be sure, but it was
                                              not that kind of triumph.

                                              BOB: IIRC, that's about all that Jesus had to say, according to our sources,
                                              about his own death and resurrection.

                                              BRUCE: I agree, and I note that it comes to nothing. Jesus had no
                                              presentiment of his death. It suited later believers to think that he had,
                                              but that is a different question.

                                              BOB: So, I rather imagine that Paul had a good many discussions with many
                                              people about the meaning of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

                                              BRUCE: The big event here, I would think, is the impression of Peter and
                                              after him a few others, that Jesus had appeared to them after his death,
                                              giving them assurance that he was, if not still alive "after the flesh" at
                                              least operative in the world. Mk 14:28 and 16:7 make Jesus predict that this
                                              vision will occur, but again, these happen to be the two most obvious
                                              interpolations in Mark, accepted by many as such, though not everyone cares
                                              to explore the implications very far. The implications are that the
                                              reappearance of Jesus was unexpected by those who had that vision, just as
                                              Jesus's death was unexpected by himself.

                                              As for Paul, he himself confines his knowledge to a vision of his own, plus
                                              a few days, later on, with Peter. We should not imagine Paul as at first
                                              curious about Jesus; rather, according to his own account, he hated Jesus
                                              and all that his early followers stood for, as an offense against Jewish
                                              doctrine, and sought to kill them all he could. It was his experience of the
                                              vision, however you visualize it (and Paul visualizes it rather differently
                                              than Luke, a thing we have come to expect from Luke), that turned him
                                              around. More or less literally.

                                              BOB: Furthermore, I suspect that the idea of the atonement took shape and
                                              evolved during Paul's lifetime, as he tried to make sense of Jesus' life
                                              and death (and resurrection.)

                                              BRUCE: Not Paul, but the Jesus followers after Jesus's unexpected death. And
                                              in several stages. First no resurrection, then the idea of a resurrection,
                                              and probably quite a bit later, the reading of an Atonement idea into the
                                              resurrection (the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus's death).

                                              BOB: And, of course, Paul was not alone in this effort.

                                              BRUCE: He was not part of it; see above. And among the Jesus followers, some
                                              stood apart from it, and were content to continue to follow Jesus as a
                                              John-the-Baptist style guide to salvation.

                                              BOB: . . . But I doubt that Jesus had such conversations with Peter or his
                                              brother James, unless it was at the "first Apostolic Conference" in
                                              Jerusalem.

                                              BRUCE: Agreed that no such conversations were held, by anybody, during
                                              Jesus's lifetime. The problem with which any such conversations dealt did
                                              not arise until after Jesus's death. Nor is it necessarily valid to imagine
                                              a "democratic" model of Jesus theory, as arising from the reasoning together
                                              of people on the same authority level. The resurrection was, for a short
                                              time, an idea held only by Peter, later by a few other select persons, but
                                              all of them persons having stature in the movement, not just some Eddie from
                                              Chorazin. I think we are on statistically better ground in imagining these
                                              doctrines as arising among persons of some authority in the movement. As far
                                              as the Resurrection goes, the finger of anecdotal evidence seems to point to
                                              Peter. Which makes it that much more logical that the early Paul would seek
                                              him out for a first-hand account of that experience.

                                              BOB: In other words, although Paul may have had a role in shaping the
                                              debate, I doubt that it sprung fully formed from his forehead.

                                              BRUCE: Paul did not invent the Resurrection, a concept which arose among
                                              Jesus's early followers already in the early Thirties. We have not so far
                                              succeeded in finding anyone but Paul who held the Atonement interpretation
                                              of Jesus's death, but we have pushed its emergence back behind his first
                                              literary leavings, and thus into the Forties. This, as it happens, coincides
                                              with the probable date at which at least one of the two places in Mark which
                                              reflect that doctrine entered the text of Mark, namely, the middle Forties.
                                              So either Paul thought of it, or someone else about that time thought of it.

                                              Who might have thought of it? Someone with a deep sense of the meaning of
                                              sacrifice, that is, the idea that an evil in one place can translate into a
                                              good in another place. No one familiar with soldierly tradition will find
                                              this at all strange, but we seem not to be dealing here with soldiers; more
                                              likely priests. The priests were especially thick in Jerusalem, and it may
                                              be that the doctrine arose among the Jesus followers in Jerusalem; they
                                              would also have been the ones to benefit most from it, in terms of authority
                                              contests with others of light and leading in the movement, especially the
                                              Galilean leaders. Also consider the tourist trade: On Mark's account, both
                                              the preaching of Jesus and the reappearance of Jesus took place Galilee, but
                                              as to the DEATH of Jesus, well, on that the Jerusalemers have an absolute
                                              monopoly. The more the DEATH of Jesus can be developed as central to the
                                              meaning of Jesus, the more the Jerusalemers stand to acquire standing as
                                              those on the scene. That is speculative (though not unreasonable). What
                                              about confirmation? Do we see hints in the record of conflicts of authority
                                              between Jerusalem and Galilee? Wow, do we ever; both Luke and Matthew (and
                                              who copied from whom it is not now necessary to adjudicate) make Jesus side
                                              with the Jerusalemers, and curse the churches of Galilee, above all the
                                              probably leading church of Capernaum. So yes, there was an authority war.
                                              And Matthew and Luke, in some order, were on the Jerusalem side of it.

                                              If the idea arose in Jerusalem, then Paul of Tarsus, whose activities were
                                              confined to the north, did not invent it. If he did not invent it, it must,
                                              when it reached him, have been very agreeable to his sensibilities. Since
                                              Paul was a strict Pharisee, the idea of sacrifice, though perhaps not at the
                                              surface of his consciousness, will have been underneath there somewhere, a
                                              unifying concept ready to be activated by a sufficient stimulus. I here wish
                                              to suggest that contact with the Jerusalem Atonement idea may have been that
                                              stimulus. Now, have we any grounds for thinking that Paul visited Jerusalem
                                              sometime in the middle Forties? Yes, we do. Paul dates just such a visit,
                                              and identifies it as dealing with questions of doctrine, in the fourteenth
                                              year of his conversion. Now, these figures have caused endless worry among
                                              the Paul researchers; they cannot quite be made to jibe with reason or with
                                              other evidence. I suggest that they can be reconciled if we regard Paul as
                                              having (a little inaccurately, but in order not to postdate by too much the
                                              revelations to Peter and the Twelve) inwardly dated his vision of Jesus to
                                              the year of Jesus's death, 30. If so, then his doctrinal visit to Jerusalem
                                              will have been in the year 44. Again, we have a convergence of evidence for
                                              the Atonement doctrine, both Pauline and Markan, in the middle Forties.

                                              BOB: But most of the analysis taking place here is based on literary
                                              sources, so we will probably never know the details of how the doctrine of
                                              the atonement developed and came into being. I think the differences between
                                              Mark and Paul indicates that the early Christians were kicking the idea
                                              around, but had not yet put the idea in writing.

                                              BRUCE: I think its first appearance in writing is the late interpolations in
                                              Mark already referred to. Now we can notice that Mark (according to
                                              persistent anecdotal tradition) was a Jerusalemer. Certainty in detail is
                                              not available in these matters, but I think we have a general chronology
                                              that pretty much works. Then the idea arose in Jerusalem, and existed there
                                              by 44. Mark, who had not originally held it, came to be impressed byh it,
                                              and stuck it in at a couple places in his previously written Gospel, one of
                                              the places being necessarily written shortly after 44. Paul, who visited
                                              Jerusalem in 44, may have picked it up at that time.

                                              As for names and faces, there is more to be done with the exact sequence of
                                              things before and after the execution of Jim Zebedee, but perhaps not very
                                              conveniently in this message.

                                              Bruce

                                              E Bruce Brooks
                                              University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                                              Copyright C 2011 by E Bruce Brooks
                                            • Bob Schacht
                                              ... Yes. And therefore, his knowledge was indirect, not direct. Since your point-counterpoint goes on in the same manner, I ll let you have the last word. Bob
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Oct 13, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 04:15 AM 10/13/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                                                >To: Synoptic (GPG)
                                                >In Response To: Bob Schacht
                                                >On: Paul and Atonement
                                                >From: Bruce
                                                >
                                                >BOB: Paul had virtually no direct knowledge of the person of Jesus of
                                                >Nazareth.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: According to 2Cor 5:16 and other places, Paul was aware of knowledge
                                                >of Jesus "after the flesh," but determined not to pay attention to it;
                                                >everything for Paul is in Jesus's death. What I get here is not exactly
                                                >ignorance but resistance. He does not accept what the direct-knowledge
                                                >people say about Jesus during his lifetime....

                                                Yes. And therefore, his knowledge was indirect, not direct. Since
                                                your point-counterpoint goes on in the same manner, I'll let you have
                                                the last word.

                                                Bob Schacht
                                                Northern Arizona University




                                                >BOB: He was traveling among people who, likewise, had no direct knowledge
                                                >of Jesus.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: Depends how far Jesus traveled, and how far the Jesus missionaries
                                                >had traveled, before Jesus's death. My impression (from Mark) is that the
                                                >range went well into Syria, quite possibly Damascus though less likely
                                                >Antioch. Ignoring the Jerusalem-centered career of Paul as a Lukan fiction
                                                >(undertaken for the best of reasons, but still a fiction), it is not
                                                >necessarily impossible that Paul's first persecutions were among people who
                                                >had been reached by those with direct knowledge of Jesus before his death.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: Furthermore, Jesus did not leave behind a "Guide to my crucifixion and
                                                >resurrection: meaning and interpretation." The closest thing we have any
                                                >inkling of is the Markan tradition, repeated a number of times-- e.g. Mark
                                                >8, "31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many
                                                >things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,
                                                >and be killed, and after three days rise again."
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: Problem is that one of those predictions is interpolated, which
                                                >impugns the whole set. If we follow out the implications, it means that
                                                >Jesus's death was unexpected by him and his followers. There is a good deal
                                                >of evidence in support; I have previously referred to Yarbro Collins (whose
                                                >reconstruction of the original Passion Narrative lacks a Burial and
                                                >Resurrection narrative altogether, also Peter Kirby's study of the earliest
                                                >tradition of Jesus's death. Then just as the Markan predictions of Jesus's
                                                >resurrection are textually secondary, so is the Markan account of Jesus's
                                                >resurrection. They are not biographical facts, they are later church
                                                >theories, put into Mark's narrative as facts, but not what Mark originally
                                                >reported as facts. Mark's gospel ended triumphantly, to be sure, but it was
                                                >not that kind of triumph.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: IIRC, that's about all that Jesus had to say, according to our sources,
                                                >about his own death and resurrection.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: I agree, and I note that it comes to nothing. Jesus had no
                                                >presentiment of his death. It suited later believers to think that he had,
                                                >but that is a different question.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: So, I rather imagine that Paul had a good many discussions with many
                                                >people about the meaning of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: The big event here, I would think, is the impression of Peter and
                                                >after him a few others, that Jesus had appeared to them after his death,
                                                >giving them assurance that he was, if not still alive "after the flesh" at
                                                >least operative in the world. Mk 14:28 and 16:7 make Jesus predict that this
                                                >vision will occur, but again, these happen to be the two most obvious
                                                >interpolations in Mark, accepted by many as such, though not everyone cares
                                                >to explore the implications very far. The implications are that the
                                                >reappearance of Jesus was unexpected by those who had that vision, just as
                                                >Jesus's death was unexpected by himself.
                                                >
                                                >As for Paul, he himself confines his knowledge to a vision of his own, plus
                                                >a few days, later on, with Peter. We should not imagine Paul as at first
                                                >curious about Jesus; rather, according to his own account, he hated Jesus
                                                >and all that his early followers stood for, as an offense against Jewish
                                                >doctrine, and sought to kill them all he could. It was his experience of the
                                                >vision, however you visualize it (and Paul visualizes it rather differently
                                                >than Luke, a thing we have come to expect from Luke), that turned him
                                                >around. More or less literally.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: Furthermore, I suspect that the idea of the atonement took shape and
                                                >evolved during Paul's lifetime, as he tried to make sense of Jesus' life
                                                >and death (and resurrection.)
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: Not Paul, but the Jesus followers after Jesus's unexpected death. And
                                                >in several stages. First no resurrection, then the idea of a resurrection,
                                                >and probably quite a bit later, the reading of an Atonement idea into the
                                                >resurrection (the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus's death).
                                                >
                                                >BOB: And, of course, Paul was not alone in this effort.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: He was not part of it; see above. And among the Jesus followers, some
                                                >stood apart from it, and were content to continue to follow Jesus as a
                                                >John-the-Baptist style guide to salvation.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: . . . But I doubt that Jesus had such conversations with Peter or his
                                                >brother James, unless it was at the "first Apostolic Conference" in
                                                >Jerusalem.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: Agreed that no such conversations were held, by anybody, during
                                                >Jesus's lifetime. The problem with which any such conversations dealt did
                                                >not arise until after Jesus's death. Nor is it necessarily valid to imagine
                                                >a "democratic" model of Jesus theory, as arising from the reasoning together
                                                >of people on the same authority level. The resurrection was, for a short
                                                >time, an idea held only by Peter, later by a few other select persons, but
                                                >all of them persons having stature in the movement, not just some Eddie from
                                                >Chorazin. I think we are on statistically better ground in imagining these
                                                >doctrines as arising among persons of some authority in the movement. As far
                                                >as the Resurrection goes, the finger of anecdotal evidence seems to point to
                                                >Peter. Which makes it that much more logical that the early Paul would seek
                                                >him out for a first-hand account of that experience.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: In other words, although Paul may have had a role in shaping the
                                                >debate, I doubt that it sprung fully formed from his forehead.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: Paul did not invent the Resurrection, a concept which arose among
                                                >Jesus's early followers already in the early Thirties. We have not so far
                                                >succeeded in finding anyone but Paul who held the Atonement interpretation
                                                >of Jesus's death, but we have pushed its emergence back behind his first
                                                >literary leavings, and thus into the Forties. This, as it happens, coincides
                                                >with the probable date at which at least one of the two places in Mark which
                                                >reflect that doctrine entered the text of Mark, namely, the middle Forties.
                                                >So either Paul thought of it, or someone else about that time thought of it.
                                                >
                                                >Who might have thought of it? Someone with a deep sense of the meaning of
                                                >sacrifice, that is, the idea that an evil in one place can translate into a
                                                >good in another place. No one familiar with soldierly tradition will find
                                                >this at all strange, but we seem not to be dealing here with soldiers; more
                                                >likely priests. The priests were especially thick in Jerusalem, and it may
                                                >be that the doctrine arose among the Jesus followers in Jerusalem; they
                                                >would also have been the ones to benefit most from it, in terms of authority
                                                >contests with others of light and leading in the movement, especially the
                                                >Galilean leaders. Also consider the tourist trade: On Mark's account, both
                                                >the preaching of Jesus and the reappearance of Jesus took place Galilee, but
                                                >as to the DEATH of Jesus, well, on that the Jerusalemers have an absolute
                                                >monopoly. The more the DEATH of Jesus can be developed as central to the
                                                >meaning of Jesus, the more the Jerusalemers stand to acquire standing as
                                                >those on the scene. That is speculative (though not unreasonable). What
                                                >about confirmation? Do we see hints in the record of conflicts of authority
                                                >between Jerusalem and Galilee? Wow, do we ever; both Luke and Matthew (and
                                                >who copied from whom it is not now necessary to adjudicate) make Jesus side
                                                >with the Jerusalemers, and curse the churches of Galilee, above all the
                                                >probably leading church of Capernaum. So yes, there was an authority war.
                                                >And Matthew and Luke, in some order, were on the Jerusalem side of it.
                                                >
                                                >If the idea arose in Jerusalem, then Paul of Tarsus, whose activities were
                                                >confined to the north, did not invent it. If he did not invent it, it must,
                                                >when it reached him, have been very agreeable to his sensibilities. Since
                                                >Paul was a strict Pharisee, the idea of sacrifice, though perhaps not at the
                                                >surface of his consciousness, will have been underneath there somewhere, a
                                                >unifying concept ready to be activated by a sufficient stimulus. I here wish
                                                >to suggest that contact with the Jerusalem Atonement idea may have been that
                                                >stimulus. Now, have we any grounds for thinking that Paul visited Jerusalem
                                                >sometime in the middle Forties? Yes, we do. Paul dates just such a visit,
                                                >and identifies it as dealing with questions of doctrine, in the fourteenth
                                                >year of his conversion. Now, these figures have caused endless worry among
                                                >the Paul researchers; they cannot quite be made to jibe with reason or with
                                                >other evidence. I suggest that they can be reconciled if we regard Paul as
                                                >having (a little inaccurately, but in order not to postdate by too much the
                                                >revelations to Peter and the Twelve) inwardly dated his vision of Jesus to
                                                >the year of Jesus's death, 30. If so, then his doctrinal visit to Jerusalem
                                                >will have been in the year 44. Again, we have a convergence of evidence for
                                                >the Atonement doctrine, both Pauline and Markan, in the middle Forties.
                                                >
                                                >BOB: But most of the analysis taking place here is based on literary
                                                >sources, so we will probably never know the details of how the doctrine of
                                                >the atonement developed and came into being. I think the differences between
                                                >Mark and Paul indicates that the early Christians were kicking the idea
                                                >around, but had not yet put the idea in writing.
                                                >
                                                >BRUCE: I think its first appearance in writing is the late interpolations in
                                                >Mark already referred to. Now we can notice that Mark (according to
                                                >persistent anecdotal tradition) was a Jerusalemer. Certainty in detail is
                                                >not available in these matters, but I think we have a general chronology
                                                >that pretty much works. Then the idea arose in Jerusalem, and existed there
                                                >by 44. Mark, who had not originally held it, came to be impressed byh it,
                                                >and stuck it in at a couple places in his previously written Gospel, one of
                                                >the places being necessarily written shortly after 44. Paul, who visited
                                                >Jerusalem in 44, may have picked it up at that time.
                                                >
                                                >As for names and faces, there is more to be done with the exact sequence of
                                                >things before and after the execution of Jim Zebedee, but perhaps not very
                                                >conveniently in this message.
                                                >
                                                >Bruce
                                                >
                                                >E Bruce Brooks
                                                >University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                                >
                                                >Copyright C 2011 by E Bruce Brooks
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.