19275Re: [XTalk] From the HJ to the historical disciples
- Jul 4, 2005Joseph Codsi writes
> How do I propose to "prove" my theory?It seems to me, Joseph, that you simply don't have enough evidence yet to
> Everything is based on the gospel of Mark. The proof takes the form of a
> novel reading of the Markan texts. Among the major passages I have
> identified as important, the parable of the sower and the
> misunderstanding about the yeast of the Pharisees play a pivotal role.
> They allow me to identify the question that was troubling the disciples.
> On the one hand, they acknowledge that Jesus initiated them into the
> mystery of the Kingdom of God. He treated them as those who are
> "inside". He told them: "To you has been given the mystery of the
> Kingdom of God" (parable of the sower). On the other hand, they admit
> that Jesus treated them as those who are "outside" (the yeast of the
> Pharisees). This different treatment cannot be pertaining to the Kingdom
> of God. It must be about something else. So the first thing we should do
> is identify the topic in relation to which Jesus kept them "outside".
> Here we do not have a clear identification of the Christian mystery as
> it is said in the Easter revelation. The identification is done
> indirectly, and through the mediation of the Eucharist. The allusions to
> the feedings of the five and four thousand are linked, in the mind of
> the disciples, to the Eucharist. Now the Eucharist is a recollection of
> the death of Jesus and a participation in the Easter mystery. The
> reference to the Eucharist allows me to link the blindness of the
> disciples to the Easter mystery.
> This dual admission, on the part of the disciples, means that they had
> been initiated into the Kingdom of God, not into the Easter mystery.
> This is how I prove that, on the basis of the disciples' own testimony,
> they had not been instructed in the Easter mystery. What follows
> immediately and without any doubt is that all the things that are
> mentioned in the gospel and which locate, in a pre-Easter context,
> things that pertain to the Easter revelation are not historical.
prove your point. Mere plausibility is not enough. There is probably no such
thing as "proof" of such a hypothesis. Even if Mark appeared before us in
the flesh and admitted that he lied, that would not be proof. Even if we
discovered an ancient copy of Ur-Mark that told the story as you claim it
really happened, and all scholars in the field agreed in dating the text to
the early first century, that would not be proof.
But we can amass evidence, and assign a weight of probability. Here is one
example of the kind of evidence I am looking for: You might give historical
examples of other literature (in any field) where other scholars have said
that the text clearly betrays that the writer knows he is creating a lie
because of certain artifacts in the text. Failing that, can you at least
give other examples from the text of Scripture, outside of Mark, where this
same phenomenon occurs?
As soon as you claim to "prove" something or assert that "what follows . . .
without any doubt," you run into trouble. If that were true, then everyone
on this list would immediately agree with you. If instead you would use
language like "it seems compelling to me that . . ." it might be more
- << Previous post in topic