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

ANQRWPOI in the Gospel of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    At Mark 8:33 Mark has Jesus rebuke Peter and call him Satan because Peter has shown himself with respect to his disdain for a Messiah who suffers to be
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At Mark 8:33 Mark has Jesus rebuke Peter and call him Satan because
      Peter has shown himself with respect to his disdain for a Messiah who
      suffers to be thinking the things of "men" (FRONEIS... TA TWN ANQRWPWN).

      I am toying with an idea that that there is a link in Mark between
      "thinking the things of men" and "thinking as do the Markan enemies of
      Jesus" especially the Temple Aristocracy.

      But is there?

      What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
      support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
      a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
      according to Mark, oppose Jesus?

      Thanks in advance.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...
    • Bob Webb
      Jeffrey, I don t think this gets you to where you want to go, but one thing I have observed with respect to 8:33 is that Mark uses the verb EPITIMAW to
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey,

        I don't think this gets you to where you want to go, but one thing I have
        observed with respect to 8:33 is that Mark uses the verb EPITIMAW to
        describe what Jesus does ("he rebukes"). This same verb is used by Mark for
        what Jesus does to demons (1:25; 3:12; 9:25), the wind in the storm (4:39),
        as well as the disciples (8:30; 8:33 [Peter]).

        It may be observed that it draws a parallel between the disciples/Peter and
        forces that oppose Jesus, of which there are three in Mark: the demonic, at
        times nature, and Jewish leaders. But, for your point, this observation is
        weakened by the fact that Mark does not use EPITIMAW with respect to Jewish
        leadership.

        These observations may, however, stimulate your thinking in other
        directions.

        Bob Webb.


        > From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
        >
        > At Mark 8:33 Mark has Jesus rebuke Peter and call him Satan
        > because Peter has shown himself with respect to his disdain
        > for a Messiah who suffers to be thinking the things of "men"
        > (FRONEIS... TA TWN ANQRWPWN).
        >
        > I am toying with an idea that that there is a link in Mark
        > between "thinking the things of men" and "thinking as do the
        > Markan enemies of Jesus" especially the Temple Aristocracy.
        >
        > But is there?
        >
        > What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
        > support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a
        > reference to, or a cipher for, or in some way synonymous
        > with, the Jewish leaders who, according to Mark, oppose Jesus?
        >
        > Thanks in advance.
        >
        > Yours,
        >
        > Jeffrey
        > --
        >
        > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        >
        > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
        > Chicago, IL 60626
        >
        > jgibson000@...
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits
        > for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com.
        > Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
        > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=> 5511
        >
        >
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/wpWolB/TM
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

        The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        List managers may be contacted directly at:
        crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Thanks for this. But is it not more than a little curious that the Markan Jesus declaration that Peter s view of a suffering Messiah is of men follows
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob Webb wrote:

          > Jeffrey,
          >
          > I don't think this gets you to where you want to go, but one thing I
          > have
          > observed with respect to 8:33 is that Mark uses the verb EPITIMAW to
          > describe what Jesus does ("he rebukes"). This same verb is used by
          > Mark for
          > what Jesus does to demons (1:25; 3:12; 9:25), the wind in the storm
          > (4:39),
          > as well as the disciples (8:30; 8:33 [Peter]).
          >
          > It may be observed that it draws a parallel between the
          > disciples/Peter and
          > forces that oppose Jesus, of which there are three in Mark: the
          > demonic, at
          > times nature, and Jewish leaders. But, for your point, this
          > observation is
          > weakened by the fact that Mark does not use EPITIMAW with respect to
          > Jewish
          > leadership.
          >
          > These observations may, however, stimulate your thinking in other
          > directions.
          >

          Thanks for this.

          But is it not more than a little curious that the Markan Jesus'
          declaration that Peter's view of a suffering Messiah is "of men" follows
          hard on the heels of his first prediction that the constituent members
          of the Markan Sanhedrin will reject and execute one who views
          Messiahship in terms of suffering?

          How about the Markan Jesus' continually reference to what the Scribes
          believe as demanded by God is really the views of ANQROPOI?

          Still brainstorming.

          Jeffrey
          --

          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
          Chicago, IL 60626

          jgibson000@...



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bob Webb
          ... 1. I don t think that declaring Peter s view as of men links to the preceding reference to the Markan Sanhedrin in 8:31 (as in your paragraph 1). This
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > Bob Webb wrote:
            >
            > > Jeffrey,
            > >
            > > I don't think this gets you to where you want to go, but
            > one thing I
            > > have observed with respect to 8:33 is that Mark uses the
            > verb EPITIMAW
            > > to describe what Jesus does ("he rebukes"). This same verb
            > is used by
            > > Mark for
            > > what Jesus does to demons (1:25; 3:12; 9:25), the wind in the storm
            > > (4:39),
            > > as well as the disciples (8:30; 8:33 [Peter]).
            > >
            > > It may be observed that it draws a parallel between the
            > > disciples/Peter and forces that oppose Jesus, of which
            > there are three
            > > in Mark: the demonic, at
            > > times nature, and Jewish leaders. But, for your point, this
            > > observation is
            > > weakened by the fact that Mark does not use EPITIMAW with respect to
            > > Jewish
            > > leadership.
            > >
            > > These observations may, however, stimulate your thinking in other
            > > directions.
            > >

            Jeffrey wrote:

            > But is it not more than a little curious that the Markan
            > Jesus' declaration that Peter's view of a suffering Messiah
            > is "of men" follows hard on the heels of his first prediction
            > that the constituent members of the Markan Sanhedrin will
            > reject and execute one who views Messiahship in terms of suffering?
            >
            > How about the Markan Jesus' continually reference to what the
            > Scribes believe as demanded by God is really the views of ANQROPOI?
            >
            > Still brainstorming.
            >
            > Jeffrey

            1. I don't think that declaring Peter's view as "of men" links to the
            preceding reference to the Markan Sanhedrin in 8:31 (as in your paragraph
            1). This seems to be stretching things.

            2. But your observation in paragraph 2 would, I think, carry weight. What
            texts did you have in mind?

            3. One small comment: in paragraph 1 you refer to "Peter's view of a
            suffering Messiah..." Hmmm... My sense is that Peter didn't have a view of
            the _suffering_ Messiah. Rather, his view of the _Messiah_ did not include
            the concept of _suffering_.

            Bob Webb.
          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
            I m writing this from my home computer and thus can t be as specific as I d like to be. Anyway, could the reference to Satan play upon its meaning as
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm writing this from my home computer and thus can't
              be as specific as I'd like to be.

              Anyway, could the reference to Satan play upon its
              meaning as adversary? The impure spirits in Mark
              encounter Jesus as one who has come to destroy them.
              They, in turn, wish to destroy him (though without
              really having the power to do so). Those who crucify
              Jesus would thus be on the side of the impure spirits
              -- and recall that when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of
              casting out impure spirits by the power of Beelzebub,
              Jesus responds by turning the charge on them and
              accusing them of (unforgivably) blaspheming the Holy
              Spirit.

              There is a Markan tendency, perhaps, to divide the
              world into two camps -- those with the impure
              adversary and those with the Holy One of God (which
              draws upon the conflict between holiness and
              impurity).

              Does Mark present "men," generally, as God's
              adversaries? That might make the link between Satan
              and "men."

              I'm not sure if this moves you in the direction that
              you would like to go, but it might spur some ideas.

              Jeffery Hodges

              =====
              Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
              Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
              447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
              Yangsandong 411
              South Korea

              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              http://shopping.yahoo.com
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... It seems like a tough case to make. I d rather attempt to connect 8:33 with 10:27 because both contrast God with humans. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C.
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                At 02:43 PM 10/2/03 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                >At Mark 8:33 Mark has Jesus rebuke Peter and call him Satan because
                >Peter has shown himself with respect to his disdain for a Messiah who
                >suffers to be thinking the things of "men" (FRONEIS... TA TWN ANQRWPWN).
                >
                >I am toying with an idea that that there is a link in Mark between
                >"thinking the things of men" and "thinking as do the Markan enemies of
                >Jesus" especially the Temple Aristocracy.
                >
                >But is there?
                >
                >What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
                >support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
                >a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
                >according to Mark, oppose Jesus?

                It seems like a tough case to make. I'd rather attempt to connect
                8:33 with 10:27 because both contrast God with humans.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
              • Rbsads@aol.com
                In a message dated 10/2/03 3:42:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Dear Jeffery, I am not a regular contributor and generally not qualified to make much
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 10/2/03 3:42:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  jgibson000@... writes:

                  > What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
                  > support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
                  > a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
                  > according to Mark, oppose Jesus?
                  >
                  >

                  Dear Jeffery,

                  I am not a regular contributor and generally not qualified to make much
                  contribution to this list, but it seems to me that TA TWN ANQRWPWN is explained in
                  Jesus' comments to the crowd in the subsequent verses. The things of God
                  involve sacrifice of own life for the goal of following, for the goal of
                  discipleship.

                  That would make TA TWN ANQRWPWN to be something like the pursuit of own life
                  at the expense of discipleship. Such might very well describe Jesus' view of
                  the Jewish leadership, but I don't think it describes them exclusively as a
                  distinct group of ANQRWPOUS.

                  As an aside thought, it has often seemed to me that UPAGE OPISW MOU is less
                  of a rebuke for Satan to go away, as it is a command for the Satan in Peter to
                  follow Jesus, a command to discipleship. I can find no other instance of
                  UPAGE OPISW used as anything other than as a call to follow.

                  Peace,

                  Richard Smith
                  Chattanooga, TN


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                  Rbsads@aol.com wrote: You mean Jeffrey Gibson, not me. Jeffery Hodges ===== Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Rbsads@... wrote:

                    <Dear Jeffery>

                    You mean "Jeffrey" Gibson, not me.

                    Jeffery Hodges

                    =====
                    Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                    447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                    Yangsandong 411
                    South Korea

                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                    http://shopping.yahoo.com
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Here s an noteworthy article for our amusement: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html Two Romanian astronomers, Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu Oproiu,
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 9, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Here's an 'noteworthy' article for our amusement:

                      http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html

                      Two Romanian astronomers, "Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu
                      Oproiu, . . . say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April
                      3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5."

                      Take their views with a grain of salt since they date
                      the crucifixion/resurrection to the year 33 by noting
                      that Jesus died at the time of a full moon (of course
                      -- it was Passover!) and that there was a solar
                      eclipse in 33 (perhaps so -- but not possible during a
                      full moon, so their logic immediately fails).

                      How professional can such astronomers be? (Besides,
                      hasn't this sort of thing already been suggested and
                      rejected for the same reason?)

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      =====
                      Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                      447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                      Yangsandong 411
                      South Korea

                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                      http://shopping.yahoo.com
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... They didn t do what Hoehner already did and better. If you take John s chronology, then 30, 33, and 36 are viable years (for some reason, Mircea and Oproiu
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 01:06 AM 10/9/03 -0700, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                        >Here's an 'noteworthy' article for our amusement:
                        >
                        >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html
                        >
                        >Two Romanian astronomers, "Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu
                        >Oproiu, . . . say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April
                        >3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5."
                        >
                        >Take their views with a grain of salt since they date
                        >the crucifixion/resurrection to the year 33 by noting
                        >that Jesus died at the time of a full moon (of course
                        >-- it was Passover!) and that there was a solar
                        >eclipse in 33 (perhaps so -- but not possible during a
                        >full moon, so their logic immediately fails).
                        >
                        >How professional can such astronomers be? (Besides,
                        >hasn't this sort of thing already been suggested and
                        >rejected for the same reason?)

                        They didn't do what Hoehner already did and better.
                        If you take John's chronology, then 30, 33, and 36
                        are viable years (for some reason, Mircea and
                        Oproiu didn't extend to 36).

                        There usually is one total solar eclipse somewhere on
                        the globe a year, but many are over an ocean or other
                        non-inhabited area. For example, the next total eclipse
                        will occur on November 23, 2003, but you have to be in
                        Antarctica to appreciate it first hand.

                        There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                        visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                        link to the map:

                        http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif.

                        A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                        visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29. Here
                        is a map:

                        http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-2.gif

                        Stephen Carlson
                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                      • Liz Fried
                        I haven t been following this thread, so forgive me if someone already mentioned it, but Leo Depuydt has an interesting article dating Jesus ministry
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if someone
                          already mentioned it, but Leo Depuydt has an interesting article
                          dating Jesus' ministry (beginning and end). He dates it to one
                          year 29-30. The article is in JAOS 122 2002.
                          Liz Fried
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Stephen C. Carlson [mailto:scarlson@...]
                          Sent: Fri, October 10, 2003 3:25 AM
                          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com; crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Crucifixion/Resurrection Dated


                          At 01:06 AM 10/9/03 -0700, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                          >Here's an 'noteworthy' article for our amusement:
                          >
                          >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html
                          >
                          >Two Romanian astronomers, "Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu
                          >Oproiu, . . . say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April
                          >3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5."
                          >
                          >Take their views with a grain of salt since they date
                          >the crucifixion/resurrection to the year 33 by noting
                          >that Jesus died at the time of a full moon (of course
                          >-- it was Passover!) and that there was a solar
                          >eclipse in 33 (perhaps so -- but not possible during a
                          >full moon, so their logic immediately fails).
                          >
                          >How professional can such astronomers be? (Besides,
                          >hasn't this sort of thing already been suggested and
                          >rejected for the same reason?)

                          They didn't do what Hoehner already did and better.
                          If you take John's chronology, then 30, 33, and 36
                          are viable years (for some reason, Mircea and
                          Oproiu didn't extend to 36).

                          There usually is one total solar eclipse somewhere on
                          the globe a year, but many are over an ocean or other
                          non-inhabited area. For example, the next total eclipse
                          will occur on November 23, 2003, but you have to be in
                          Antarctica to appreciate it first hand.

                          There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                          visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                          link to the map:

                          http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif.

                          A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                          visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29. Here
                          is a map:

                          http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-2.gif

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT




                          The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                          To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          List managers may be contacted directly at:
                          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Crosstalk2 Cc: Kata Markon ; Synoptic-L
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000@...>
                            To: Crosstalk2 <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                            Cc: Kata Markon <gmark@...>; Synoptic-L
                            <Synoptic-L@...>
                            Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:43 PM
                            Subject: [XTalk] ANQRWPOI in the Gospel of Mark


                            > What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
                            > support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
                            > a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
                            > according to Mark, oppose Jesus?

                            > jgibson000@...

                            This important question is a difficult one to answer. Jeffrey's
                            startingpoint is, - rightly I think -, Peter's disdain for a suffering
                            Messiah.
                            I believe we can be more precise. Peter's thinking regards 'ta twn
                            anthrwpwn' which stands in immediate contrast to 'ho huios tou anthrwpou',
                            the word 'anthrwpos' creating the parallel. The 'huios tou anthrwopou'
                            (note
                            the arresting article: the 'son of THE man) apparently does NOT think 'ta
                            twn anthrwpwn'.
                            Peter is unwilling to accept the inevitable, that the 'huios tou
                            anthrwpou' MUST suffer. This 'dei' (must) is paradoxical. For Peter's
                            reaction is a rational, human one, hence 'TA TWN ANTHRWPWN'. The saying that
                            the Godsent eschatological 'huios TOU ANTHRWPOU' (the Human One) must
                            suffer, die and rise is therefore self-contradictory. As Carlson underlined,
                            "for humans it is impossible". Yet this suffering and death is within the
                            council
                            of God and therefore the predictions end with an humanly impossible ",,,and
                            after three days rise again".
                            So Jeffrey's question is intimately related to this enigmatic
                            eschatological 'Human One' (Son of Man) in the Gospel.
                            In the term 'ho huios tou anthrwpou' two biblical concepts are combined.
                            (a) The strange article in 'the son of THE
                            man' refers to Adam before the fall in the Genesis story. Adam is named in
                            the LXX 'ho anthrwpos', untill the Fall.After ther Fall the name Adam
                            appears
                            (Joel Marcus). (b) In the Gospel the expression 'ho huios tou anthrwpou'
                            clearly refers to Dan 7,13. Note f.i. Jesus' confession before Caiaphas in
                            Mk 14 and the 'desolating sacrilege' in 13,14.

                            In Daniel the 'bar nasj' is a collective term, refering (a) to a
                            Messianic.redeemer 'like Adam' , a Human One, to whom all dominion will be
                            given in the near future and (b) the 'saints of the Most High' who will
                            share in this dominion. Thus in the passion predictions Jesus does not say
                            "I" must suffer but the "Human One" must suffer. Mark rewrote a Passover
                            Haggadah, a tragic/victorious story, in which key events in Israel's history
                            of the past four decades, including persecution of the apostles, mission
                            among the Gentiles and the fall of Jerusalem -, are referred to in light of
                            the ministry of the Baptist and of the ministry and passion of Messiah
                            Jesus. Mark chose the form of a Greek national tragedy, but its content is a
                            Judean pass-over narrative. In Daniel 7 the God sent Messiah, the 'Human
                            One', is promised in spite of the four worldpowers that like ferocious
                            creatures dominated and at times persecuted the people: Egypt,
                            Babylon/Persia, burgeoning Rome and Hellenic Syria. The
                            Maccabean victory greatly enhanced this pre-Maccabean prophecy with its
                            parousia expectation of justice and glory. This apocalyptic prophecy was
                            still much alive as Judean apocalyptic literature demonstrates. Mark 8,38
                            testifies that the Jesus of history himself related his ministrry to the
                            coming of the Human One. In Dan 7,13ff this 'Human One', of course, does not
                            suffer.The dominion, the power and the glory will be given this 'Human One'
                            who comes with the clouds. In this seminal messianic vision the burning hope
                            for the appeaance of a Godsent, eschatological 'last Adam' is awakened
                            Now Mark is the first post-70 Christian Judean who introduced the
                            theologoumenon of a SUFFERING last Adam. He was confronted with the
                            breakdown of the imminent parousia expectation. It must be remembered that
                            religion and national political hopes were much more intertwined than is the
                            case in modern nations of the West.
                            Thus Gibson's suggestion may be narrowed down within the framework of Mark's
                            Pass-over Haggadah . Mark had a series of highpriestsn in mind, such as
                            Caiaphas and Matthias, high priest under Herod Agrippa (Acts 12!) who were
                            thinking 'ta twn anthrwpwn' in that .they had
                            condemned Jesus and persecuted the apostles and thus in Mark's mind had
                            brought doom on the entire nation.
                            The triple passion prediction concerning the Human One is Mark's
                            christological theme, as is widely ackowledged (8,31; 9.31; 10,33f). It
                            forms the plot of the haggadah. The passion story later unfolds exactly as
                            predicted by Jesus, along the lines of condemnation,.mocking, spitting,
                            flogging and 'handing over' to the nations (10,33), Now the plural
                            'highpriests' stands out as well as the 'handing over' to the 'nations'
                            (!).The plot does not only refer to the Messiah, but to his people as well
                            during the four decades. The apostles too will drink the cup, they must know
                            that 'no stone will be left on the other'. They should understand that not
                            only the 5000 were fed (Israel), but also the 4000 (the nations).The
                            Haggadah is concentrated on the last passion week told as one terse
                            messianic PASS-OVER story, offfering a theodicy of the 'why' of the
                            crucifixion, the tremple's destruction and the new exile.
                            The key to the 'must' of the suffering last Adam is found in the 'mystery'
                            Rom 11,25, in the letter Paul sent to Rome. Mark had studied it there and
                            referred to it in 4,10-12. The 'hardening of a part of Israel (the
                            highpriests and themple authorities, was necessary and the Huiman One must
                            suffer (dei), sothat the Gentiles may 'come in' . It is this theodicy,
                            adapted from Paul, that Mark as the first Christian Judean put forward to
                            explain the tragedy of the destruction of the Temple and the new Exile.
                            Hence the promise ny the angel, "he will go before you in the Galil
                            ha-goyim'.
                            At the time of the crucifixion, there was only one highpriest , Caiaphas,
                            whom Mark does NOT mention by name. So why the plural? Mark clearly and
                            repeatedly states that highpriests (plural) were responsible. Thus
                            Jeffrey's toying with 'temple authorities' appears to meet Mark's
                            intentions. (As I see it, the highpriets belonging to the 'house of Annas',
                            such as Caiaphas and Matthias under Herod Agrippa (Acts 12!) were
                            historically reponsible for the persecution of Jesus' and his movement).
                          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                            Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                            Message 13 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                              <There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                              visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                              link to the map:

                              http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif

                              A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                              visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29.
                              Here is a map:

                              http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-2.gif>

                              Thanks for these links. I'm ever more impressed by
                              what can be found on the internet.

                              Jeffery Hodges

                              =====
                              Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                              Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                              447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                              Yangsandong 411
                              South Korea

                              __________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                              http://shopping.yahoo.com
                            • Steve Black
                              Why are we assuming that this says anything about the date of the crucifixion? Is it not possible that the memory of an eclipse was conflated later with the
                              Message 14 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Why are we assuming that this says anything about the date of the
                                crucifixion?
                                Is it not possible that the memory of an eclipse was conflated later
                                with the story of the crucifixion?

                                Steve Black
                                Vancouver School of Theology
                                Vancouver, BC
                                Canada
                                ---
                                Heretics have all the fun, that is until they get burnt at the stake...


                                On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                                > Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                                >
                                > <There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                                > visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                                > link to the map:
                                >
                                > http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif
                                >
                                > A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                                > visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29.
                                > Here is a map:
                                >
                                > http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-
                                > 2.gif>
                                >
                                > Thanks for these links. I'm ever more impressed by
                                > what can be found on the internet.
                                >
                                > Jeffery Hodges
                                >
                              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                Steve Black wrote:
                                Message 15 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Steve Black wrote:

                                  <Why are we assuming that this says anything about the
                                  date of the crucifixion? Is it not possible that the
                                  memory of an eclipse was conflated later with the
                                  story of the crucifixion?>

                                  I can't speak for the others, but this was not my
                                  assumption. Rather, I was noting some of the flaws in
                                  using an eclipse to date the crucifixion since a solar
                                  eclipse cannot, ever, occur during Passover.

                                  Jeffery Hodges

                                  =====
                                  Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                                  Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                  447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                                  Yangsandong 411
                                  South Korea

                                  __________________________________
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                                  http://shopping.yahoo.com
                                • bobkaster
                                  Hello Steve, I remembered an old reference to an eclipse when Jesus died not being possible. Julius Africanus (A.D. 221) cited Thallus (A.D. 52
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Oct 11, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello Steve,
                                    I remembered an old reference to an eclipse when Jesus died not being
                                    possible. Julius Africanus (A.D. 221) cited Thallus' (A.D. 52
                                    non-Christian) explanation of the darkness as being caused by an
                                    eclipse. He argued that an eclipse is not possible during a full
                                    moon, and Passover always occurs during a full moon.


                                    http://www.synaxis.org/ecf/volume06/ECF06IIITHE_EXTANT_FRAGMENTS_OF_THE_F.htm

                                    XVIII.(8) On the Circumstances connected with our Saviour's Passion
                                    and His Life-giving Resurrection.

                                    On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the
                                    rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other
                                    districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book
                                    of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of
                                    the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day
                                    according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour fails on the day
                                    before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when
                                    the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time
                                    but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last
                                    of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be
                                    supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the
                                    sun?

                                    Bob Kaster,
                                    White Lake, MI

                                    --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Steve Black <sdblack@t...> wrote:
                                    > Why are we assuming that this says anything about the date of the
                                    > crucifixion?
                                    > Is it not possible that the memory of an eclipse was conflated later
                                    > with the story of the crucifixion?
                                    >
                                    > Steve Black
                                    > Vancouver School of Theology
                                    > Vancouver, BC
                                    > Canada
                                    > ---
                                    > Heretics have all the fun, that is until they get burnt at the stake...
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > <There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                                    > > visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                                    > > link to the map:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif
                                    > >
                                    > > A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                                    > > visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29.
                                    > > Here is a map:
                                    > >
                                    > > http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-
                                    > > 2.gif>
                                    > >
                                    > > Thanks for these links. I'm ever more impressed by
                                    > > what can be found on the internet.
                                    > >
                                    > > Jeffery Hodges
                                    > >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.