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

Re: [XTalk] Prelude to Replies: Jesus' Hidden Transcript

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Ted, I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to sketch out the hidden transcript of Jesus. I have time for only a few general remarks, as it is
    Message 1 of 26 , Mar 26 5:35 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:51 PM 3/26/2005, Theodore Weeden wrote:
      >To Stephen Carlson, Bob Schacht et al:
      >
      >Stephen, you have responded to my March 22 post ("Temple Act not Jerusalem
      >Entry Caused Jesus' Death"), and raised in your response some questions
      >about my use of James C. Scott's description of dominant-subordinate
      >cultures, and the power relationship between dominants and subordinates in
      >those cultures, as a basis for my challenging Paula Fredriksen's thesis
      >regarding the cause for Jesus' crucifixion by Pilate. Bob, your own
      >problematic issues with my challenge to Fredriksen's thesis.
      >
      >Because of the length of the essay required to response to the issues you
      >raise, Stephen, as well as you, Bob, I am dividing my response into two
      >essays, in themselves lengthy. In this first essay, I set forth what I
      >consider was Jesus' hidden transcript (using Scott's term), its
      >counter-ideological intent and its public transcript focus, something
      >Fredriksen fails to do. ...

      Ted,
      I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to sketch out the "hidden
      transcript" of Jesus.
      I have time for only a few general remarks, as it is Easter eve.
      Since we are relying here on the Gospels, I think we must remember that
      they were written at a time when the Temple Hierarchy was no longer to be
      feared; hence, with respect to them, the "transcript" had no further reason
      to be "hidden," even though during Jesus' life, that was a factor to
      consider. Thus, that which was hidden, as regards the Temple bureaucracy,
      could at that time be revealed without fear. On the other hand, the hand of
      the Romans, at the same time, lay heavily on the followers of Jesus, who
      were beginning to be designated as Christians in order to distinguish them
      from Jews. And unless you are prepared to defend the thesis that the
      Gospels were written and distributed in secret, and not intended for Roman
      eyes, it is difficult to characterize the Gospels themselves as "hidden"
      transcripts, even though Jesus' original message may be characterized in
      that way. Thus, I am not so sure that Jesus' actual thoughts and speech
      about the Roman Empire are fully and adequately described by the Gospels.
      On that score, the hidden transcript may still be hidden.


      >I. Prolegomena to Jesus' Hidden Transcript and Its Counter-ideological
      >Intent
      >
      >In his book, _Domination and the Arts of Resistance_, James C. Scott makes
      >the following key points about the dominants' public transcript in a
      >dominant-subordinate culture and the subordinates' alternative means to
      >respond to the dominants' transcripts.
      >
      >
      >B. Subordinates, according to Scott, have three different means by which to
      >respond to their dominants' public transcript, its material exploitation and
      >its oppressive dehumanization....
      >
      >(1) "The safest and most public form of political discourse [for the
      >subordinates to engage in vis-a-vis the elites' public discourse] is that
      >which takes as its basis the flattering self-image of elites. Owing to the
      >rhetorical concessions that this self-image contains, it offers a
      >surprisingly large arena for political conflict that appeals to these
      >concessions and makes use of the room for interpretation within any
      >ideology" (18). Thus, "[i]n the short run, it is in the interest of the
      >subordinate to produce a more or less credible performance, speaking the
      >lines and making the gestures he knows are expected of him" (4).
      >
      >(2) Another means for subordinates to respond on stage, where the public
      >transcript of the dominants is the script to be performed, is "a politics of
      >disguise and anonymity that takes place in public view but is disguised to
      >have a double meaning or to shield identity of the actors. Rumors, gossip,
      >folktales, jokes, songs rituals, codes, and euphemism - a good part of the
      >folk culture of subordinate groups - fits this description" (18).
      >
      >(3) The third alternative means subordinates have to respond to the
      >dominants' public transcript is "a . . . sharply contrasting form of
      >political discourse," namely, "that of the hidden transcript itself. Here,
      >offstage, where subordinates may gather outside the intimidating gaze of
      >power, a sharply dissonant political culture is possible" (18). Since
      >subordinates cannot express their opposition to the public transcript
      >without great risk to their very being, '[t]he hidden transcript is, for
      >this reason, the privileged site for nonhegemonic, contrapuntal, dissident,
      >subversive discourse" (25)....

      [Emphasis added.] Here we're going to get into the business of
      "dominant-subordinate culture," and how dominant does a culture have to be
      to qualify. We also get into the business of power vs. legitimacy that I
      raised recently. I gather that you consider the situation to be one in
      which the Romans lacked legitimacy, but had plenty of power. My issue here
      is that the Scott model seems to require that the Romans be willing to
      execute anyone for looking crosswise at them (no pun intended!). My concern
      is that seems too draconian. What evidence do we have, from Josephus or
      anywhere else, that, *merely* for public dissent, someone would be at
      "great risk to their very being"?

      >II. Jesus' Hidden Transcript and Its Counter-ideological Intent and Focus
      >
      >... Jesus does *not* challenge Caesar's right to tax
      >subordinates. In the one other saying of Jesus in which he addresses the
      >issue of Roman rule, and specifically its commandeering of service from
      >subordinates (see Hans Dieter Betz, _The Sermon on the Mount_, 291), Jesus
      >counsels, "[i]f any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two" (Mt.
      >5:41). At one level both of these sayings could suggest that Jesus resigned
      >himself to the inescapable reality of Roman imperial culture, at least until
      >the advent of the kingdom of God. With respect to specific acts of Jesus, I
      >can find none that are explicitly directed against the public transcript of
      >Roman imperial rule. Thus, I can only conclude, based upon the available
      >evidence, that the public transcript of Roman imperial culture was not the
      >focus of Jesus' hidden transcript.

      While I generally agree with your line of reasoning here, if Jesus was so
      careful about not offending the Romans, why were the "Herodians" after him
      (Mark 3:6; 12:13)? Actually, wouldn't the Herodians be natural supporters
      of Galileans who had problems with the primacy of the Temple? Wouldn't they
      want to support a rival authority in Galilee?

      Furthermore, Jesus certainly openly proclaimed the Kingdom of God. Isn't
      that usually painted as an anti-Roman thing? How do you explain that?

      >... when Jesus went public with his hidden transcript in the
      >Temple at the fateful Passover, by his demonstrative act against the Temple
      >cult, he was immediately arrested and subsequently crucified.

      So it is your position then that the Temple incident was the very first
      time that Jesus "went public" with his "hidden transcript"? I think, in
      that case, that I want to know more about what you mean by "going public."

      Thanks, and Happy Easter,
      Bob



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ernest Pennells
      [Ted Weeden] ... dissented from its public transcript and in his hidden transcript set himself in opposition to the cult
      Message 2 of 26 , Mar 27 8:08 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        [Ted Weeden]
        >with respect to almost every aspect of Judean cultic ideology ... Jesus
        dissented from its public transcript and in his hidden transcript set
        himself in opposition to the cult<

        Thank you for your methodical elaboration of this theme, Ted.

        [Bob Schacht]
        >While I generally agree with your line of reasoning here, if Jesus was so
        careful about not offending the Romans, why were the "Herodians" after him <

        Jesus reportedly made uncompromising comment about divorce - a hot topic in
        the domain of Antipas and Herodias that had already cost JBap his head.

        [Bob Schacht]
        >unless you are prepared to defend the thesis that the Gospels were written
        and distributed in secret, and not intended for Roman eyes, it is difficult
        to characterize the Gospels themselves as "hidden" transcripts,<

        Doesn't this line of argument put undue weight upon the time of committing
        tradition to Gospel format? Surely, there was a genuine interest in the
        words, deeds and setting of Jesus himself, not to mention concerns of his
        own generation who contributed something to the shape of tradition.


        Regards,

        Ernie Pennells
        Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
        Level 12 Apartment 4
        28 Corniche el Nil
        Cairo, Egypt
        http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1982.html
      • Karel Hanhart
        Dear Ted, In three posts you were answering Pennels, Codsi and below, Carlson and Schacht et al. I don t know if I am included the et al . . If so, let me
        Message 3 of 26 , Mar 28 1:31 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Ted,

          In three posts you were answering Pennels, Codsi and below, Carlson and
          Schacht et al.
          I don't know if I am included the "et al'.". If so, let me assure you these
          replies do not answer any of my questions.
          I would appreciate your reply 1) to two long standing requests for your
          reply which you promised (April 10 2003 !! and April 10, 2004 !) in
          response to my critique and 2) your reply to my latest contributions (March
          16, 2005) questioning your interpretation of Mark's Passion from Facts to
          Fictive Creation based on certain presuppositions.
          Perhaps, - for the sake of other participants - you may not think it
          necessary to reply but let me assure you I would benefit from your
          rebuttal.

          cordially,

          Karel

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...>
          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 1:51 AM
          Subject: [XTalk] Prelude to Replies: Jesus' Hidden Transcript


          >
          > To Stephen Carlson, Bob Schacht et al:
          >
          > Stephen, you have responded to my March 22 post ("Temple Act not Jerusalem
          > Entry Caused Jesus' Death"), and raised in your response some questions
          > about my use of James C. Scott's description of dominant-subordinate
          > cultures, and the power relationship between dominants and subordinates in
          > those cultures, as a basis for my challenging Paula Fredriksen's thesis
          > regarding the cause for Jesus' crucifixion by Pilate. Bob, your own
          > problematic issues with my challenge to Fredriksen's thesis.
          >
          > Because of the length of the essay required to response to the issues you
          > raise, Stephen, as well as you, Bob, I am dividing my response into two
          > essays, in themselves lengthy. In this first essay, I set forth what I
          > consider was Jesus' hidden transcript (using Scott's term), its
          > counter-ideological intent and its public transcript focus, something
          > Fredriksen fails to do. She refers to the content and tenor of Jesus'
          > message of the kingdom of God, which Pilate and Caiaphas, she posits,
          > knew,
          > but she never identifies what the content or tenor of Jesus' message which
          > Pilate and Caiaphas are suppose to have known.
          >
          > Before describing Jesus' hidden transcript. I begin this essay with a
          > prolegomena in which I provide essential background information on
          > dominant-subordinate cultures, the power relationship between dominants
          > and
          > subordinates and the relationship of the subordinates' hidden transcript
          > to
          > the dominants' public transcript.
          >
          > I. Prolegomena to Jesus' Hidden Transcript and Its Counter-ideological
          > Intent
          >
          > In his book, _Domination and the Arts of Resistance_, James C. Scott makes
          > the following key points about the dominants' public transcript in a
          > dominant-subordinate culture and the subordinates' alternative means to
          > respond to the dominants' transcripts.
          >
          > A. "The theatrical imperatives that normally prevail in situations of
          > domination," Scott observes, "produce a public transcript in close
          > conformity with how the dominant group would wish things to appear. . . .
          > The result is that the public transcript - barring a crisis - is
          > systematically skewed in the direction of the libretto, the discourse,
          > represented by the dominant. In ideological terms the public transcript
          > will
          > typically, by its accommodationist tone, provide convincing evidence for
          > the
          > hegemony of dominant values, for the hegemony of dominant discourse" (4).
          >
          > B. Subordinates, according to Scott, have three different means by which
          > to
          > respond to their dominants' public transcript, its material exploitation
          > and
          > its oppressive dehumanization.
          >
          > (1) "The safest and most public form of political discourse [for the
          > subordinates to engage in vis-a-vis the elites' public discourse] is that
          > which takes as its basis the flattering self-image of elites. Owing to the
          > rhetorical concessions that this self-image contains, it offers a
          > surprisingly large arena for political conflict that appeals to these
          > concessions and makes use of the room for interpretation within any
          > ideology" (18). Thus, "[i]n the short run, it is in the interest of the
          > subordinate to produce a more or less credible performance, speaking the
          > lines and making the gestures he knows are expected of him" (4).
          >
          > (2) Another means for subordinates to respond on stage, where the public
          > transcript of the dominants is the script to be performed, is "a politics
          > of
          > disguise and anonymity that takes place in public view but is disguised to
          > have a double meaning or to shield identity of the actors. Rumors, gossip,
          > folktales, jokes, songs rituals, codes, and euphemism - a good part of the
          > folk culture of subordinate groups - fits this description" (18).
          >
          > (3) The third alternative means subordinates have to respond to the
          > dominants' public transcript is "a . . . sharply contrasting form of
          > political discourse," namely, "that of the hidden transcript itself. Here,
          > offstage, where subordinates may gather outside the intimidating gaze of
          > power, a sharply dissonant political culture is possible" (18). Since
          > subordinates cannot express their opposition to the public transcript
          > without great risk to their very being, '[t]he hidden transcript is, for
          > this reason, the privileged site for nonhegemonic, contrapuntal,
          > dissident,
          > subversive discourse" (25).
          >
          > "The goal [then] of . . . subordinate groups, as they conduct their
          > ideological and material resistance, is precisely to escape detection"
          > (87).
          > "In ordinary circumstances subordinates have a vested interest in avoiding
          > any *explicit* display of insubordination." Subordinates typically pursue
          > "precisely those forms of resistance that avoid any open confrontation
          > with
          > the structures of authority being resisted. Thus the peasantry, in the
          > interest of safety and success, has historically preferred to disguise its
          > resistance" (86: emphasis: TJW).
          >
          > II. Jesus' Hidden Transcript and Its Counter-ideological Intent and Focus
          >
          > Scott declares (14) that "the hidden transcript [of subordinates in a
          > dominant-subordinate culture] is specific to a given social site and to a
          > particular set of actors." That means, therefore, as I understand Scott,
          > that the counter ideology of subordinates' hidden transcript is always
          > directed against the particular ideology of the dominant public transcript
          > of specific dominants in a specific social setting. Thus, Jesus, as a
          > landless peasant and TEKNON, was a subordinate in the context of two
          > dominant-subordinate cultures of Palestine, the Roman imperial culture,
          > whose authority and power-wielder in Palestine was the Roman governor,
          > Pilate, and the Judean Temple culture, whose authority and power-wielder
          > was
          > the high priest, Caiaphas.
          >
          > I maintain that Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God, and all the content
          > of
          > Jesus' teaching which interpreted and elucidated the meaning and
          > actualization of that vision, was Jesus' hidden transcript, a religious
          > ideology formulated against the ideology of the public transcript of
          > dominants, who exercised power and control over Judean and Galilean
          > subordinates. Then which of the two cultures that exercised control over
          > subordinates in first-century Palestine was Jesus' hidden transcript
          > specifically formulated against, the Roman imperial culture or the Judean
          > Temple? Or was his hidden transcript directed against both?
          >
          > In perusing the Jesus Seminar's data base of sayings of Jesus (authentic
          > ["red" or "pink"] or inauthentic ["gray" or "black"]: see Robert W. Funk,
          > Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, _Five Gospels_, 549-553) and the data
          > base of specific acts of Jesus (again, authentic or inauthentic: see
          > Robert
          > W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, _The Acts of Jesus_, 556-569), I can find
          > nothing in either data base that indicates that Jesus' kingdom-of-God
          > ideology was formulated against the ideology of the public transcript of
          > Roman imperial rule. At best, from what I can ascertain from these data
          > bases is that Jesus took at an ambivalent, almost value-neutral position
          > toward Roman rule and domination. The only saying attributed to Jesus in
          > which he specifically mentions the oppressiveness of Roman imperial rule
          > is
          > his saying about paying taxes to the emperor. When shown a coin with
          > Caesar's
          > image, and questioned about payment of taxes to Caesar, Jesus replied,
          > "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that
          > are God's" (Mk. 12:16f.7/GThom 100; cf. Mt. 22:21; Lk. 20:25).
          >
          > In that dictum, Jesus does *not* challenge Caesar's right to tax
          > subordinates. In the one other saying of Jesus in which he addresses the
          > issue of Roman rule, and specifically its commandeering of service from
          > subordinates (see Hans Dieter Betz, _The Sermon on the Mount_, 291), Jesus
          > counsels, "[i]f any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two" (Mt.
          > 5:41). At one level both of these sayings could suggest that Jesus
          > resigned
          > himself to the inescapable reality of Roman imperial culture, at least
          > until
          > the advent of the kingdom of God. With respect to specific acts of Jesus,
          > I
          > can find none that are explicitly directed against the public transcript
          > of
          > Roman imperial rule. Thus, I can only conclude, based upon the available
          > evidence, that the public transcript of Roman imperial culture was not the
          > focus of Jesus' hidden transcript.
          >
          > However, when it comes to the Judean Temple cult, it is a different
          > matter.
          > There is strong and repeated indication that Jesus' ideology of the
          > kingdom
          > of God was fashioned specifically to oppose the ideology of the Judean
          > Temple cult and its material exploitation and dehumanizing oppression of
          > Judean and Galilean subordinates. As Richard Rohrbaugh puts it ("The
          > Social
          > Location of the Markan Audience," _INT_, XLVII. 392): "Very few peasants
          > [in
          > that dominant-subordinate culture] could have observed the Great Tradition
          > [the public transcript of the Judean Temple cult] even if they had wanted
          > to. They came in constant contact with bodily secretions, dead animals,
          > and
          > unwashed foods. They could not always have afforded to keep Sabbaths and
          > holy days: In dry-land farming with marginal or uneven rainfall, each day
          > that passed between the first rains and plowing reduced the final yields.
          > Nor could they always have afforded the prescribed sacrifices or
          > guaranteed
          > the cleanliness of meal companions."
          >
          > There are numerous indications that Jesus was adamantly opposed to the
          > Judean Temple cult, its Holiness Code with its onerous purity regulations
          > and laws, its cultic authorities and its stringent application of Torah,
          > in
          > specific instances. Jesus consistently questions the legal strictures,
          > challenges the prescriptions and countermands, even repudiates, the
          > proscriptions of what constitutes much of the Judean Temple cult's public
          > transcript. Against the Judean cult's Holiness Code, Jesus ate with
          > sinners
          > (including non-observants of the Judean cult, social outcasts, and
          > disreputable persons) and tax collectors (Mk. 2:15f.) and associated with
          > lepers; and, as a healing technique, Jesus even touched lepers (Mk.
          > 1:40f.),
          > who were considered to be among the most unclean in Judean society (cf.
          > Lev.
          > 13:2-14:57; and see Bruce J. Malina, _The New Testament World, 3rd ed.,
          > 167). In effect Jesus made himself unclean and unholy by doing so (see
          > Malina, _ New Testament World_,173-177). As Rohrbaugh puts it ("The Social
          > Location," 392): "The historical Jesus may have been seen as unholy and
          > unwashed by the religious elite, and his behavior may have seen
          > iconoclastic
          > or even perverse."
          >
          > Iconoclastically, I submit, Jesus in his hidden transcript fashioned a
          > counter ideology against the Temple cult's public transcript, - a hidden
          > transcript which Jesus taught and proclaimed parabolically and
          > aphoristically to other subordinates who were not only materially
          > exploited
          > and socially marginalized by the Temple cult authorities, but also, and
          > most
          > important, had been robbed of their human dignity and self-worth by cultic
          > authorities via the authorities public transcript founded on the ideology
          > of
          > the Holiness Code and strict observance of Torah.
          >
          > A. Jesus' Parabolic Attack on the Temple Cult's Public Transcript
          >
          > In his attack upon the cult's purity ideology, Jesus told five parables in
          > which the unclean or unholy is cast in a positive rather than negative
          > light, as the unclean were characteristically depicted by the Judean cult.
          > In Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk. 15:11-32), it is the unclean
          > son - who in his debauchery engages in profligate living and ends up as
          > the
          > feeder of pigs - who stands in positive contrast to the "squeaky clean"
          > older son. In Jesus' Parable of the Great Banquet it is the cultically
          > delineated unclean riffraff of the streets and byways who end up seated at
          > the banquet table of the kingdom (Lk. 14:16-24). In Jesus' Parable of the
          > Leaven (Mt. 13:33; Lk. 13:21; GTh. 96), it is leaven that is featured as a
          > positive symbol for the kingdom in contrast to the negative, corrupting
          > way
          > in which it is viewed in the public transcript of the Temple cult.
          >
          > In his parable about a Samaritan, Jesus told a story in which a Samaritan
          > (Lk. 10:30-35), viewed by the Temple cult as racially, inherently and
          > permanently unclean, responds to dire human need in contrast to a priest
          > and
          > Levite, the holiest in the Temple cult's hierarchal stratification of
          > holiness (see Malina, 173f.), who choose to observe Torah's dictates with
          > respect to preserving their ritual purity (see Lev. 21:1ff) against the
          > risk
          > of contaminating themselves by going to the assistance of a man left
          > "half-dead" by the attack of robbers (Lk. 10:30). In framing the story in
          > the way he did, Jesus lifted up the cultically disreputable and disdained
          > Samaritan as a model of compassion and denigrated the Torah-observant and
          > Torah-restrained priest and Levite.
          >
          > In Jesus' Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Lk. 18:9-14), the
          > conventional cultic expectations are reversed by the story's conclusion.
          > The
          > unclean, unholy tax collector, cultically consigned to outside of the
          > Temple
          > holiness map (so: Brandon. B. Scott, _Hear Then the Parable_, 96), is
          > included within the kingdom of God. Moreover, as Brandon Scott observes,
          > (97), "[t]his parable subverts the metaphorical structure that sees the
          > kingdom of God as temple. Given this metaphorical system, things
          > associated
          > with the temple are holy and in the kingdom, and things not associated
          > with
          > the temple are unholy and outside the kingdom. In the parable the holy is
          > outside the kingdom and the unholy is inside the kingdom." Thus, in this
          > parabolic story the cultically righteous and holy Pharisee ends up outside
          > the map of the kingdom (Scott, 97).
          >
          > B. Jesus' Aphoristic Attack upon the Temple Cult Public Transcript
          >
          > Aphoristically, Jesus attacked and subverted the Temple cult's purity
          > rules
          > and regulations by cryptically dismissing and countermanding them,
          > particularly with respect to four fundamental identity-defining indicators
          > of Judean cultic practice. The Judean cultic indicators I have in mind are
          > the four that Jonathan Reed (_Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus_, and
          > John
          > Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed, _Excavating Jesus_) reports
          > archaeologists have uncovered in Judea and Galilee. They are (1) plastered
          > stepped pools or *miqwaoth* used for ritual cleansing via immersion, (2)
          > chalk (limestone) vessels - including basins, bowls and cups - which were
          > deemed impervious to contamination, and, thus, used to hold and preserve
          > liquids in their purity, (3) ossuaries used for secondary burial in loculi
          > tombs, and (4) bone profiles indicating the lack of pork in the diet (see
          > Reed, _ Archaeology_, 44, cf. 45-50, 53, 177, 217).
          >
          > As I have suggested, there is strong evidence that Jesus aphoristically
          > dismissed or repudiated the cultic ritual observance related to all four
          > of
          > these identity indicators of Judean cultic practice. With respect to the
          > Judean ethnic identity marker indicating absence of pork in the diet,
          > Jesus
          > clearly rebelled against the cult's kosher diet, with its emphatic
          > proscription against eating pork. Jesus in the formulation of his hidden
          > transcript declared that one is not defiled by what one eats. He assured
          > his
          > disciples that "[w]hat goes into your mouth will not defile you" (GThom.
          > 14:5// Mk. 7:14). Not only that, Jesus, in effect, instructed his
          > disciples
          > to disregard any dietary restrictions when they were the guests of others
          > during their itinerant ministry, namely: "If you go into any region and
          > walk
          > about in the countryside, when people take you in, *eat what they serve
          > you*" (GThom. 14:4; translation: Jesus Seminar's _Five Gospels_).
          >
          > In yet a different way, Jesus aphoristically controverted the need for and
          > the Judean cultic requirement of secondary burial. In his article, "'Let
          > the
          > Dead Bury Their Own Dead': Secondary Burial and Matt 8:21-22," _HTR_, 83:1
          > (1990) 31-43, Byron R. McCane makes a convincing case for the basis of
          > Jesus'
          > retort to the man requesting that he be able to bury his father before
          > becoming a disciple. Jesus responds to the man's importuning with the now
          > famous rejoinder, "Let the dead bury their own dead." McCane proposes that
          > what the man was asking of Jesus was not for time to bury his father who
          > had
          > just died. Had that been the case, i.e., the man's father had just died,
          > he
          > would not have been there engaging in an exchange with Jesus on
          > discipleship. For, since the burial of the deceased was expected to take
          > place on the day of death, the man would have been home attending to the
          > burial of his father. Rather, what the man was requesting of Jesus was to
          > delay his commitment to discipleship until he had completed the Judean
          > obligatory, secondary burial of the bones of his deceased father a year
          > after the initial burial following his father's death - that is, a second
          > burial in an ossuary. In Jesus' time, one of the obligatory
          > responsibilities
          > of a son was to rebury his father's bones "as the final act in a long and
          > strictly prescribed ritual of mourning" (McCane, 37). McCane notes that in
          > rabbinic literature such secondary burial was an important event for an
          > observant Jewish family (36f.).
          >
          > Thus, viewed from the obligation of a son to rebury the bones of his
          > father
          > in an ossuary, the exchange between the man and Jesus makes eminent sense.
          > The man was asking to delay his discipleship until he had completed the
          > ossuary burial of his father's bones. Such a delay could have been almost
          > a
          > year in duration. Understood from this cultic context, Jesus' rejoinder is
          > obviously intended to challenge the man's attempt to put off his decision
          > for the kingdom by dismissing his excuse for doing so. The import of
          > Jesus'
          > penetrating quip to the man was directed to the dead within the tomb,
          > namely, those already secondarily buried in their ossuaries should take
          > care
          > of the secondary, ossuary burial of his father. Thus, not only is Jesus'
          > response in effect a directive to the man to dishonor his father, thereby
          > controverting the fifth commandment (so McCane, 40-41; and see below),
          > but,
          > I submit, it was a stinging attack upon the Judean practice of secondary
          > burial in ossuaries, an attack which is one more indication of Jesus'
          > rejection of the Judean Temple establishment's public transcript.
          >
          > The evidence that Jesus also dissented from and disregarded the purity
          > requirements of the Judean cult represented in the other two
          > archaeological
          > indicators to which Reed points is also suggested in Jesus' dismissal of
          > ritual purity washing. Consider the following passage from Mark: "Now when
          > the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered
          > around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with
          > defiled
          > hands, that is, without washing them . . . . So the Pharisees and the
          > scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the
          > tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" (7:1-2, 5). In this
          > instance, as the Jesus Seminar proposes (_Five Gospels_, 66), "the
          > disciples
          > are criticized for '*unJudean behavior*' (emphasis: mine), of behaving
          > like
          > pagans." Now, if Jesus and his disciples were unJudean in their failure to
          > follow the purity code and wash their hands before eating, is it likely
          > that
          > Jesus would have been more Judean in his behavior with respect to the
          > observance of other ritual purity washing, such as the use of *miqwaoth*?
          > Contra Reed (_Archaeology_, 57), I strongly doubt it.
          >
          > Similarly, with respect to the use of stone vessels, per purity
          > requirements, I submit that Jesus did not consider such purity
          > fastidiousness necessary either. For on one occasion he delivered this
          > aphoristic critique of purity: "Why do you wash the outside of the cup?
          > Don't
          > you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made
          > the
          > outside" (GThom. 89:1-2: translation: _Five Gospels_). The Jesus Seminar
          > (_Five Gospels_, 521) posits that "[t]he aphorism [GTh. 89] . . . appears
          > to
          > have been a criticism [by Jesus] of the ritual washing of vessels such as
          > cups," a ritual practice mandated by Lev. 11:29-34 (cf. Jesus Seminar,
          > _Acts
          > of Jesus_, 95). Again, if Jesus was not ritually fastidious about washing
          > the outside of a cup for the sake of purity and in observance of the
          > mandate
          > of Torah - as the Pharisees apparently were in their attention to the
          > proper
          > cleaning of cups, pots and kettles (Mk. 7:4) - would he have paid much
          > attention to the need to use chalk or limestone vessels - considered by
          > the
          > Mishnah, as Reed reports (_Archaeology_, 44), to be "impervious to ritual
          > impurity" - for the purpose of ensuring purity and guarding against the
          > possibility of defilement? Again, contra Reed (57), I doubt it.
          >
          > C. Jesus Versus Strict Application of Torah Commandments
          >
          > But opposition to the Judean purity codes and practice was not the only
          > way
          > in which Jesus rebelled against the oppressive Judean cultic hegemony
          > imposed via its public transcript upon his native Galilee. Jesus also
          > subverted portions of the very heart of the Torah, the Ten Commandments.
          > He
          > controverted the commandment to honor father and mother by (1) stipulating
          > that if one did not hate father and mother, i.e, render parental
          > obligations
          > as secondary to commitment to the kingdom of God, one could not be his
          > disciple (Lk. 14:26), and (2) telling, as noted above, a potential
          > disciple
          > to follow him and disregard his filial responsibility to bury his father
          > ("Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead"). In his own case,
          > Jesus
          > seemingly disregards strict observance of the fifth commandment by
          > appearing
          > to minimize, even dismiss, honoring his own mother, if not disassociating
          > himself from her. When informed on one occasion that "his brother and
          > mother
          > are standing outside" (GThom. 99:1), Jesus declares that "[t]hose who do
          > want my Father wants are my brothers and my mother" (GThom. 99:2;
          > translation: _Five Gospels_; and see Mk. 3:31-35).
          >
          > Jesus also controverted the strict observance of the Sabbath commandment
          > by
          > declaring that "the Sabbath was made for humans and not humans for the
          > Sabbath" (Mk. 2:27). Likewise, Jesus (see Mk. 2:16; and Jesus Seminar
          > [_Acts
          > of Jesus_. 67; _Five Gospels_, 48]), contrary to observant Judeans
          > (including John the Baptist), apparently disregarded mandates of Torah
          > (Lev.
          > 16:29, 31; 23:27, 32; Num. 29:7) and other scriptural directives to fast
          > (e.g. Ezra 8:21-23; Neb. 9:1; Zech. 8:19; and cf., John Muddiman, "Fast,
          > Fasting," in _ABD_, 2. 773f.).
          >
          > D. Jesus versus the Judean Cultic Authorities
          >
          > Not only did Jesus controvert the Judean cultic laws and practices but
          > Jesus
          > also inveighed against the Judean cultic authorities. He denounced, via a
          > stinging caricature, the Judean establishment's zealous cultic proponents,
          > namely, the scribes and Pharisees. He castigated the scribes "who like to
          > parade around in long robes, and insist on being addressed properly in
          > marketplaces, and prefer important seats in the synagogues and the best
          > couches at banquets" (Mk. 12:38; translation: _Five Gospels_). He
          > lambasted
          > the Pharisees for similar offensive flaunting of their cultic status (Lk.
          > 11:43). He excoriated both Pharisees and scribes because "they have taken
          > the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered, and
          > have
          > not allowed those who want to enter to do so" (GThom. 39:1-2; translation:
          > _Five Gospels_; and see Q 11:52).
          >
          > Moreover, as a healer and exorcist (see Stevan Davies, _Jesus the
          > Healer_),
          > Jesus seems to see his healings and exorcisms as an authoritative
          > substitute
          > for the Torah-authoritating function and role of the priests. Consider in
          > this regard Jesus' metaphorical avowal that he casts out demons by "the
          > finger of God," and in so doing - and according to his hidden transcript -
          > the kingdom of God is made manifest in his exorcisms (Q11:20). Jonathan K.
          > Smith has made the case in his article, "Temple and the Magician," (in
          > _God's
          > Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl_, ed. J.
          > Jervell, Wayne Meeks, 233-247) that as early as the second century BCE
          > holy
          > men, who were magicians or miracle workers, presented themselves, and were
          > experienced by those who were drawn to them for healing, as embodying the
          > supernatural power of divinity which could transform debilitating life
          > situations. This embodiment of divine power stood in contrast and, as a
          > result, competed with the Temple, which was considered to be the seat of
          > divine presence, and its cultic rituals, performed by the priesthood,
          > which
          > were considered the sole divinely-ordained mediating agency of healing.
          >
          > Finally, in a provocative condemnation of the public transcript of the
          > Judean Temple cult, its cultic practices and its priestly establishment,
          > Jesus drove from the Temple its "vendors and shoppers" (see Jesus Seminar,
          > _Acts of Jesus_, 121f.). He likely coupled that provocative, demonstrative
          > act against the Judean public transcript with a chastising declaration
          > against the Temple cult (see John Dominic Crossan, _The Historical Jesus_,
          > 355-359; and the Jesus Seminar, _Five Gospels_, 513).
          >
          > The conclusion I draw from this review of Jesus' attitude and behavior
          > toward the Judean Temple cult, its cultic laws, regulations and practices,
          > and its authorities, is that, with respect to almost every aspect of
          > Judean
          > cultic ideology, and its imposed hegemony on Galilee, Jesus dissented from
          > its public transcript and in his hidden transcript set himself in
          > opposition
          > to the cult. And when Jesus went public with his hidden transcript in the
          > Temple at the fateful Passover, by his demonstrative act against the
          > Temple
          > cult, he was immediately arrested and subsequently crucified.
          >
          > To say that is not to suggest that Jesus had not made any trips to
          > Jerusalem
          > before the fateful Passover. It is quite likely that Jesus made earlier
          > trips to Jerusalem were he observed at close hand the operation of the
          > Temple cult and its authorities. But, on those occasions, contra
          > Fredriksen
          > and the Johannine schema of Jesus' appearances in Jerusalem, Jesus did not
          > reveal his hidden transcript "on stage" for the cultic authorities to
          > become
          > aware of or to be confronted by, as John portrays Jesus' adversarial
          > encounters with "the Jews" during multiple feasts. Had Jesus gone "on
          > stage"
          > with his hidden transcript in full awareness of the Temple authorities, as
          > a
          > subordinate in a dominant-subordinate culture, as James Scott has
          > convincingly argued, Jesus would have been done away with by the Temple
          > dominants, in a similar fashion as he was done away with at his last
          > Passover appearance in Jerusalem.
          >
          > Happy Easter!
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Ted
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > 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
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Theodore Weeden
          ... Karel, I apologize for not replying as yet to yure March 16 post and your off-list posts to me of April 10, 2003 and April 10, 2004. Unfortunately, I am
          Message 4 of 26 , Mar 29 5:44 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Karel Hanhart wrote on March 28, 2005:

            > Dear Ted,
            >
            > In three posts you were answering Pennels, Codsi and below, Carlson and
            > Schacht et al.
            > I don't know if I am included the "et al'.". If so, let me assure you
            > these
            > replies do not answer any of my questions.
            > I would appreciate your reply 1) to two long standing requests for your
            > reply which you promised (April 10 2003 !! and April 10, 2004 !) in
            > response to my critique and 2) your reply to my latest contributions
            > (March
            > 16, 2005) questioning your interpretation of Mark's Passion from Facts to
            > Fictive Creation based on certain presuppositions.
            > Perhaps, - for the sake of other participants - you may not think it
            > necessary to reply but let me assure you I would benefit from your
            > rebuttal.

            Karel, I apologize for not replying as yet to yure March 16 post and your
            off-list posts to me of April 10, 2003 and April 10, 2004. Unfortunately, I
            am behind in responding to posts in the last several weeks addressed to me
            by John Staton, John Poirier, Bob Schacht and Rikk Watts. I have the best
            intentions of doing so, but in tryiing to frame a considered, substantive
            reply to many posts, with documentation, I get way behind; and then, I
            confess, something in a XTalk post in a new thread triggers my interest
            because I happen to be working on the subject in question and I jump in to
            address that issue. will respond here to your March 16 post.

            You wrote on March 16:

            > Ted Weeden answered Bob Schacht and below I would like to comment on his
            hermeneutical propositions seriatim.
            His adventurous and necessary explorations I adnire, because he combines
            intuitive insight with logic and an extensive knowledge of NT scholarship.
            His approach and resulting exegetical decisions differ a great deal from
            mine because of the presuppositions re. authorship (John Mark), provenance
            (Rome and/or Alexandria) and genre (Chr. Judean Passover Haggadah).
            Nevertheless, we should plod on and focus on texts that stand in the way of
            our construct.<

            Karel, you have identified the fundamental issues upon which we disagree,
            which means that there are chasms that separate us in the way each of us
            reads Mark and the respective, vastly different interpretations we draw from
            those readings. I do not think that John Mark was the author of the
            Gospel. I am convinced, because of the evidence I have been able to amass,
            that Mark was written in Caesarea Philippi and not Rome. I do not think in
            this regard that Papias is a trustworthy source for the historicity behind
            the composition of the Gospel. I think Papias has an "orthodox" ( or
            "orthocractic") axe to grind. And I do not find Mark to be writing a
            Passover Haggadah, as you contend. The genre Mark employs for his
            composition of his Gospel is neither "history" (as in the case of
            Graeco-Roman histories) nor bios, but, rather, parable, as Gordon Raynal has
            argued on XTalk and a number of Markan scholars have suggested (e.g., John
            Donahue). You, yourself, have admitted to Jeffrey Gibson in your post of
            March 12 to him that there is no evidence of a pre-70 Christian record of a
            Haggadah which Mark could have revised. Moreover, contra, your position, I
            do not find evidence of there being an Ur-Markus or any written
            "proto-Gospel" text prior to Mark, much less one upon which he was
            dependent. Mark did draw upon oral tradition, and he drew upon OT texts for
            composing his passion narrative, as well as, likely, Josephus for his trial
            accounts, as I have argued. I see Mark not just as a redactor but in every
            sense an author, fully capable of creating de novo material for his own
            purpose. In this regard, I do not think that there was a pre-Markan
            passion narrative. Mark alone is responsible for the passion narrative as
            we know it.

            So Karel, we are not only geographically continents apart, but, also, and
            unfortunately, hermeneutically continents apart.

            Best wishes,

            Ted
          • Theodore Weeden
            ... [snip] ... Bob, I am not relying upon the Gospels, per se. But, rather, in my reconstruction of Jesus hidden transcript, I am relying primarily upon oral
            Message 5 of 26 , Mar 29 5:05 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob Schacht wrote on March 26, 2005:

              >> At 01:51 PM 3/26/2005, Theodore Weeden wrote:
              >>To Stephen Carlson, Bob Schacht et al:

              [snip]

              > Since we are relying here on the Gospels, I think we must remember that
              > they were written at a time when the Temple Hierarchy was no longer to be
              > feared; hence, with respect to them, the "transcript" had no further
              > reason
              > to be "hidden," even though during Jesus' life, that was a factor to
              > consider. Thus, that which was hidden, as regards the Temple bureaucracy,
              > could at that time be revealed without fear.

              Bob, I am not relying upon the Gospels, per se. But, rather, in my
              reconstruction of Jesus' hidden transcript, I am relying primarily upon oral
              tradition that goes back to the historical Jesus himself. The five parables
              I cite, along with other aphoristic material identified in the Jesus Seminar
              data base of the _Five Gospels_, in particular, as being authentic sayings
              of Jesus, are cases in point

              > On the other hand, the hand of
              > the Romans, at the same time, lay heavily on the followers of Jesus, who
              > were beginning to be designated as Christians in order to distinguish them
              > from Jews. And unless you are prepared to defend the thesis that the
              > Gospels were written and distributed in secret, and not intended for Roman
              > eyes, it is difficult to characterize the Gospels themselves as "hidden"
              > transcripts, even though Jesus' original message may be characterized in
              > that way. Thus, I am not so sure that Jesus' actual thoughts and speech
              > about the Roman Empire are fully and adequately described by the Gospels.
              > On that score, the hidden transcript may still be hidden.

              However, I am *not* suggesting that the Gospels were written as hidden
              transcripts. With the exception of Luke, I do not think that Gospels were
              written for Roman eyes. Mark, Matthew and John are, in my view occasional
              pieces written for local community purposes and not intended originally for
              distribution beyond the communities for which they were written. It is true
              that any anti-Roman sayings of the historical Jesus could have been excised
              by Mark and Matthew via preventive censorship (see Werner Kelber, _The Oral
              and Written Gospel_, on preventive censorship).

              [sniip]

              >>In his book, _Domination and the Arts of Resistance_, James C. Scott makes
              >>the following key points about the dominants' public transcript in a
              >>dominant-subordinate culture and the subordinates' alternative means to
              >>respond to the dominants' transcripts.

              [snip]

              > Here we're going to get into the business of
              > "dominant-subordinate culture," and how dominant does a culture have to be
              > to qualify. We also get into the business of power vs. legitimacy that I
              > raised recently. I gather that you consider the situation to be one in
              > which the Romans lacked legitimacy, but had plenty of power. My issue here
              > is that the Scott model seems to require that the Romans be willing to
              > execute anyone for looking crosswise at them (no pun intended!). My
              > concern
              > is that seems too draconian. What evidence do we have, from Josephus or
              > anywhere else, that, *merely* for public dissent, someone would be at
              > "great risk to their very being"?

              My point is that, as soon as Jesus went public (on-stage as Scott puts it),
              and began preaching the kingdom of God in a public arena during Passover, as
              Paula Fredriksen argues, and his pronouncement of a new kingdom coming into
              being came to the attention of Pilate, as Fredriksen also contends, Pilate
              would have perceived that pronoucement of the kingdom of God as having
              seditionist implications and would have had Jesus arrested on the spot, much
              as he dealt with the Samaritan prophet, Theudas and the Egyptian prophet to
              which I referred in my post of March 22 ("Temple Act not Jerusalem Entry
              Caused Jesus' Death) Besides, I cannot imagine that Pilate would have *not*
              reacted immediately to remove Jesus and his company if anything like the
              Triumphal Entry occurred, as Fredriksen maintains, with adoring and
              enthusiastic crowds interpreting Jesus entry into Jerusalem as the
              restoration of the Davidic kingdom. Any such demonstration would have been
              perceived by Pilate as a threat to the stability of the Roman rule in Judea
              and a challenge to the Imperial public transcript.
              Scott underscores that such a public revelation of a hidden transcript -
              such as I contend, the Triumphal Entry - would have led to the doing away of
              the subordinate representing and embodying that hidden transcript. For Scott
              observes that dominants are inherently suspicious of subordinates, even when
              subordinates appear on stage to be accepting of the public transcript via
              disguised performances of deference, etc. "Such performances," Scott points
              out, "are seldom . . . entirely successful. Dominant elites may well not
              know what lies behind the facade, but it is rare that they take what they
              see and hear at face value. . . . The white slave master [for example] is
              always wary of being put on by his slaves; an eighteenth-century Japanese
              landlord [to cite another example] can wonder, 'Does anyone lie as much as a
              peasant?' What is notable here" Scott points out, "is not that the dominant
              should assume that wily subordinates will try to get around them. To believe
              this is not to be paranoid; it is merely to perceive reality. They attribute
              such behavior, however, not to the effect of arbitrary power but rather to
              the inborn characteristics of the subordinate group itself" (35). Thus, in
              my judgment, it is quite implausible, contra Fredriksen, that such a public
              event as the Triumphal Entry could have taken place with Pilate's awareness
              and Pilate not have perceived it as a threat to his Roman rule and arrested
              Jesus. See below for a further elaboration of this point.

              [snip]

              >>... Jesus does *not* challenge Caesar's right to tax
              >>subordinates. In the one other saying of Jesus in which he addresses the
              >>issue of Roman rule, and specifically its commandeering of service from
              >>subordinates (see Hans Dieter Betz, _The Sermon on the Mount_, 291), Jesus
              >>counsels, "[i]f any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two" (Mt.
              >>5:41). At one level both of these sayings could suggest that Jesus
              >>resigned
              >>himself to the inescapable reality of Roman imperial culture, at least
              >>until
              >>the advent of the kingdom of God. With respect to specific acts of Jesus,
              >>I
              >>can find none that are explicitly directed against the public transcript
              >>of
              >>Roman imperial rule. Thus, I can only conclude, based upon the available
              >>evidence, that the public transcript of Roman imperial culture was not the
              >>focus of Jesus' hidden transcript.
              >
              > While I generally agree with your line of reasoning here, if Jesus was so
              > careful about not offending the Romans, why were the "Herodians" after him
              > (Mark 3:6; 12:13)? Actually, wouldn't the Herodians be natural supporters
              > of Galileans who had problems with the primacy of the Temple? Wouldn't
              > they
              > want to support a rival authority in Galilee?

              I would contend that neither Mk. 3:6 nor 12:13 is based upon historical
              events in the life of Jesus. Rather, they are historical events experienced
              by the Markan community in the Caesarea Philippi area, events which are
              retrojected by Mark back into the story of Jesus. I contend this is the
              case for the following reasons. First of all, there is a breakdown in the
              logic of the story-line, or at least the hearers' expectation for the
              culmination of the story's plot. While Mark's hearers are alerted early on,
              as a result of Jesus healing on the Sabbath (3:1-5), that the dominants, the
              Pharisees and the Herodians in the story, are aware of Jesus' hidden
              transcript, counsel together to "destroy him" (3:6), and later are charged
              by the chief priest and scribes to entrap Jesus (12:13), neither the
              Pharisees nor the Herodians play any role in the plot of the chief priests
              and scribes to arrest and kill Jesus (14:1). The Pharisees and the Herodians
              vanish from the stage once the drama of the passion narrative begins. And
              they are not mentioned as the Markan Jesus' adversaries in his passion
              predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f.)

              Second, it is inconceivable that the Pharisees, if they had been present
              during any part of Jesus' ministry, which I find implausible (see below),
              would have sought out the Herodians to counsel how Jesus might be destroyed.
              Since the Herodians during Jesus' time would have been the "Antipas"
              Herodians, it is inconceivable that the Pharisees would have had anything to
              do with Herod Antipas and his retainers. In support of this position,
              consider what Richard Horsley (_Galilee: History, Politics, People_) notes
              about Herod Antipas:

              "Three of Josephus's reports fairly clearly suggest that, if anything,
              Antipas was oblivious to the religious-cultural sensitivities of his
              subjects and/or that the Jerusalem authorities and their representatives had
              little or no influence over Antipas. First, Antipas apparently built his new
              'royal' administrative city on the site of a graveyard, which was contrary
              to Judean tradition (Ant.._, 18.38). Second, the royal palace was lavishly
              decorated with the representations of animals in a style forbidden by 'the
              laws' (_Vita_, 65 . . .). If the construction of Tiberias is any indication,
              Antipas was not particularly sensitive to the beliefs of his subjects, let
              alone ready to foster the cultivation of Torah in Galilee. Third, Antipas
              again simply flouted the Judean laws in marrying his brother Philip's wife
              Herodias (_Ant._, 18.136; cf. Lev. 18:16; 20:21). . . . Apparently, [then]
              Antipas had developed a reputation for violating Judean laws" (65). Horsley
              observes further, in his _Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee_ (53):
              "It seems doubtful that the stricter Judeans as as the Pharisees in
              Jerusalem would have viewed "Antipas as the the Jewish King." Given this
              profile of Herod Antipas, I can hardly imagine that or any of his henchmen,
              i.e., Herodians, would have any concern with Jesus violating the strict
              observance Torah by healing on the Sabbath. And it is implausible that the
              Pharisees would have sought out Torah violators to assist them in
              destroying, from the Pharisees' perspective, a Torah violator.

              However, if the Herodians in the Markan text were "Agrippa" Herodians, that
              would be a different matter. As John F. Wilson notes in his recent book
              (2004), _Caesarea Philippi: Banias the Lost City of Pan_, Agrippa I (37-44)
              was "a champion and defender of the Jews and was generally disliked [because
              of that] by his gentile subjects" (25). And his son, Herod Agrippa II
              (53/54-100 CE), was even more committed to the welfare of his Jewish
              subjects and their cultic observance. As Wilson puts it with respect to
              Agrippa II's relation to the sizeable (in the thousands, per Josephus)
              Jewish population in Caesarea Philippi: "Mindful of his Jewish heritage and
              position as protector of Jewish interests, the king took care to clarify or
              confirm the status and rights of the large Jewish community in the city. The
              Jewish community seems to have been recognized as a *politeuma* [a
              quasi-independent, ethnic community], while the non-Jewish community was
              designated a *polis*." The distinction meant that the Jews were given
              special rights to pursue their own cultic and ethnic affairs, without
              interference from other ethnic groups.

              That this was the Agrippa II's protectionist support of the Jews in Caesarea
              Philippi is indicated by his intervention at a critical and potentially
              calamitous event in the life of the Jewish community in Caesarea Philippi.
              Often absent from Caesarea Philippi, his capital, Agrippa II appointed
              viceroys to administer affairs on his behalf. One of these viceroys, Varus,
              a Syrian with a strong hostility toward Jews, formulated a conspiratorial
              plan, that if it had succeeded, would have brought about the annihilation of
              the Jewish community of Caesarea Philippi. Fortunately, before Varus could
              accomplish his objective, news of his attempt to exterminate the Jews of
              Caesarea Philippi came to the attention of Agrippa II. He immediately
              removed Varus and replaced him with Aequus Modius, who took measures to
              protect the Jews of Caeasarea Philippi by assisting them "in barricading
              themselves into their quarter of the city for their own protection." By
              barricading themselves, the Jews were able to exercise "the kind of control
              necessary to maintain their traditions in orderly fashion" (Wilson, 31; and
              see Josephus, _Life_, 46-61, 74).

              The Markan scenario of Pharisees and Herodians being in concert with each
              other is far more plausible if the Herodians are "Agrippa" Herodians of Mark's
              time than "Antipas" Herodians of Jesus' time. And in Mark's time Agrippa II's
              rule included portions of Galilee, namely, Tiberius, Tarichaea and Julius
              (Josephus, _Ant._, XX. 157), and thus, as Wilson points out (27), "all
              important sites around the lake" (Sea of Galilee), as well as territory
              north of the Sea of Galilee, territory which would have included the
              Capernaum area, where Jesus, according to Mark, healed on the Sabbath
              (31-5).

              But what about the Pharisees counseling with the Herodians, if the Herodians
              are "Agrippa Herodians? Could that conjoining of Herodians and Pharisees
              have occurred in Mark's time?

              I have argued in my essay, "Two Jesuses: Markan Jesus Mimesis of
              Jesus-Ananias" II (XTalk files), that the impression which Mark gives that
              the Pharisees were ubiquitously present in Galilee prior to 70 CE does not
              comport with what Josephus tells us about them, and what scholars such as
              Anthony Saldarini and Morton Smith conclude from Josephus. However, after
              the destruction of the Temple and the effective end of the priesthood as the
              power brokers and authorities of the Jews, the Pharisees filled the void and
              engaged in the reconstruction of Judaism. It was then that they fanned out
              over Jewish communities in Palestine and southern Syria to bring about the
              new Jewish order.

              A good case can be made for the fact that the Jewish community in Caesarea
              Philippi was one of the important Jewish communities the Pharisees went to
              in order to help reconstitute the character of Judaism there after the
              Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE. I base such a case upon the character of
              Judaism in Caesarea Philippi from the latter part of the first century CE
              into the second century and beyond, as Wilson reports it..

              Wilson observes that "[t]he city of Banias [Caesarea Philippi] and region
              around it are often mentioned in rabbinic literature. We find here," Wilson
              posits, "the home of some of the great rabbis who were formulating the
              Judaism that survived the destruction of the temple and the disappearance of
              the Jewish state: the Judaism of the Mishna and the _Talmud_." While Wilson
              concedes that some of the rabbinic stories are legendary and some
              generations later in origin than the first century CE, he, nevertheless,
              contends that "some late documents undoubtedly retain very early traditions
              that have historical significance" (73). Wilson cites the noted rabbis
              associated with Banias, such as Rabbi Jose ben Kisma, Rabbi Yehuddah bar
              Illai, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (73-74), and he declares that "if the
              testimony of the Mishna is accurate, the city could actually be described as
              a 'place of the Torah', that is the home of a strong Jewish community with
              an active group of Torah scholars. This," Wilson submits, "would be
              consistent with the picture of the Jewish community in Banias [Caesarea
              Philippi] given by Josephus some fifty to seventy years earlier, in the
              affair involving John of Gischala" (73-74). "Dan Urman's contention,"
              Wilson concludes, "seems valid: that 'some of the important sages of
              Palestine who were involved in creating, editing and perhaps also writing
              parts of the Palestinian Halachah were born, studied and worked in the
              region. Therefore it is possible to assume that a sizeable part of the
              Palestinian Rabbinic sources were edited and written in the region'" (75).

              Furthermore, Caesarea Philippi, Wilson notes, was viewed by the _Jerusalem
              Talmud_ as "the northern limit of the land of Israel." And, "since Banias
              was located on the very border of Eretz Israel, the rabbis were at pains to
              determine just how the Torah's injunctions regarding the land were to be
              interpreted there." The rabbinic material gives strong indication that "the
              Jews of Banias engaged . . . , living as they did at the very border of
              Eretz Israel, [in] strict adherence to the demands of the Torah . . . "(76).

              Wilson posits that there was also a Christian community at Caesarea Philippi
              that dates back to its founding by the earliest followers of Jesus. Wilson
              opines: "The intensively evangelistic new sect, spreading as it did along
              the major routes of travel, probably made its first converts among the
              Jewish population of Banias very shortly after Jesus' own visit to the
              'region of Caesarea Philippi' (Matthew 16:13). Indeed, Jesus himself most
              likely made the first disciples in the area. It is noteworthy that a
              significant block of material from the Synoptic Gospels seem to have the
              region . . . of Caesarea Philippi, the territory Josephus calls 'the
              district of Paneas,, as its backdrop" (78).

              "There is reason to believe," Wilson declares, "that the geographical
              stories [of Mark] comes from even earlier sources . . . Their witness to
              the existence of these communities is therefore very strong. This is
              particularly true of materials sometimes identified as belonging to
              'Ur-Markus', as the materials centered in Caesarea Philippi are. Further,
              the account of these events in Matthew [messianic confession,
              transfiguration and healing of demon-possessed boy] has, in addition to
              Mark, its own sources that seem to pre-date the second gospel. The
              interesting conclusion which may be drawn is that the cycle of Jesus-stories
              associated with the region of Caesarea Philippi is not only extremely early,
              but that it originated with equally early Christian (or more precisely,
              Jewish-Christian) communities in the region. That would place Christianity
              in the Banias district in its most primitive Jewish-Christian form, probably
              before the conversion of Paul, possibly the fruit of missions of Jesus's
              personal disciples. To these indigenous adherents of the new faith were most
              likely added disciples of Jesus displaced by the First Jewish Revolt, first
              from the lakeside towns were Jesus had conducted his most significant
              ministry, and then from Judaea itself. To the already-vibrant theological
              turmoil of the area, through which the Jewish community was trying to come
              to terms with the destruction of the temple and cult of blood sacrifice,
              these disciples of Jesus proposed a solution quite different from that of
              the rabbis" (79).

              "[S]uffice it to say," Wilson submits, "that the district of Banias (and
              perhaps the city itself) appears to have been a major centre in the
              development of Christianity - its structure, its theology and its literature
              . . . We conclude then, that Christianity arrived in Banias during its
              earliest period, and that the Jewish-Christian community of the district of
              Banias left its imprint on the formative documents of the Church. Alongside
              this community, the rabbis of the Mishna, some of the most towering figures
              of the age, engaged in a different approach to the redefinition of Judaism.
              The extent and nature of the interaction between these two movements need to
              be better understood, holding as they do the promise of important new
              insights into the development of both religions" (83).

              While I differ with Wilson regarding his view that Jesus traveled to
              Caesarea Philippi and that the geographical information in Mark is
              pre-Markan, I am convinced that the Jesus movement was situated in the
              region of Caesarea Philippi, likely long before the Roman-Jewish war, and
              that Mark's community was located there certainly in the post-the war years,
              and probably much earlier. I have presented the case for Mark's community
              being located in the region of Caesarea Philippi previously in various XTalk
              posts. And I have presented a case (see "Two Jesuses," II) for Mark
              depicting the interaction between the Jesus movement and the Jewish
              community in Caesarea Philippi in Mk. 13:9-13.

              Given the strong likelihood that the Pharisees led in the reconstitution of
              Judaism in the Jewish community of Caesarea Philipp following the
              Roman-Jewish War, and given Herod Agrippa II's commitment to the best
              interest of the Jewish community in Caesarea Philippi, it is my proposal
              that the reference in Mk. 3:6 to the Pharisees and Herodians counseling to
              destroy Jesus really reflects the situation in Mark's day of Pharisees and
              "Agrippa" Herodians working in concert to persecute and kill Christians in
              order to stamp out the Christian proselytizing of Jews in the Caesarea
              Philippi. It is a Sitz im Leben of Mark's time which he has superimposed
              back on Jesus' time (3:6; 12:13) in order to give comfort to persecuted
              Christian evangelists in knowing that as the Pharisees and Herodians in
              their time try to destroy them, so also Pharisees and Herodians tried to
              destroy Jesus in his time.

              .> Furthermore, Jesus certainly openly proclaimed the Kingdom of God. Isn't
              > that usually painted as an anti-Roman thing? How do you explain that?

              My position is that Jesus did not openly proclaim on stage before dominants
              in either Galilee or Judea his message of the kingdom of God. Jesus
              certainly openly proclaimed his hidden transcript to subordinates in the
              villages and hamlets of Galilee. However, as soon as he went on stage
              before the dominants in the Temple and proclaimed his hidden transcript via
              his provocative act against the Temple, he was arrested and put to death, as
              is often the fate of subordinates who go public on stage before dominants.
              Scott cites an anticolonist rebellion against English rule in Moulmein,
              Burma by the Burmans. "It was led," Scott reports "by a Buddhist monk
              claiming the throne and promising utopia that consisted largely of getting
              rid of the British and taxes. The rebellion was crushed with a good deal of
              gratuitous brutality and the surviving 'conspirators' sent to the gallows. A
              portion, at least, of the hidden transcript of the Burmans had suddenly, as
              it were, leapt onto stage to declare itself openly. Millennial dreams of
              revenge and visions of just kingship, of Buddhist saviors, of a racial
              settling of scores of which the British had little inkling were being acted
              on." (15f.). We are led, in my view, to believe that Jesus' message was
              publicly proclaimed before subordinates and dominants alike because the
              Gospels, in effect, went public with his hidden transcript. And they
              protray Jesus as "going public" in various exchanges with his dominant
              adversaries. But the historical Jesus did not go public on the dominants'
              stage until that fateful Passover in the Temple.

              >>... when Jesus went public with his hidden transcript in the
              >>Temple at the fateful Passover, by his demonstrative act against the
              >>Temple
              >>cult, he was immediately arrested and subsequently crucified.
              >
              > So it is your position then that the Temple incident was the very first
              > time that Jesus "went public" with his "hidden transcript"? I think, in
              > that case, that I want to know more about what you mean by "going public."


              Yes, the Temple incident, in my view, was the first time Jesus had gone
              public with his hidden transcript. Up to that time, he had only articulated
              his hidden transcript, about the kingdom of God off-stage in villages and
              hamlets of Galilee, away from the prying eyes of the Temple establishments
              and its retainers.

              By going public I mean, again, what Scott describes as the subordinate
              moving from off-stage away from the awareness of dominants, off-stage where
              the hidden transcript is formulated and rehearsed in opposition to the
              dominants' public transcript, to "on-stage," as Scott describes it, where
              the subordinate articulates the hidden transcript so that the dominants
              become aware of it.

              As Scott states: "The goal of . . . subordinate groups, as they conduct
              their ideological and material resistance, is precisely to escape detection"
              (87), for they dare not express their opposition to the public transcript in
              public without great risk to their very being (25). "Tactical prudence
              ensures that subordinate groups rarely blurt out their hidden transcript
              directly"(15). Thus, "[i]n ordinary circumstances subordinates have a vested
              interest in avoiding any *explicit* display of insubordination."
              Subordinates typically pursue "precisely those forms of resistance that
              avoid any open confrontation with the structures of authority being
              resisted. Thus the peasantry, in the interest of safety and success, has
              historically preferred to disguise its resistance" (86).

              Regards,

              Ted
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Ted, Thank you for taking my comments seriously and for providing an exhaustive response. However, I do not want the main points to be lost in the thicket
              Message 6 of 26 , Mar 29 11:46 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 03:05 PM 3/29/2005, Theodore Weeden wrote:
                >Bob Schacht wrote on March 26, 2005:
                >
                > >> At 01:51 PM 3/26/2005, Theodore Weeden wrote:
                > >>To Stephen Carlson, Bob Schacht et al:
                >
                >[snip]
                >
                > > Since we are relying here on the Gospels, I think we must remember that
                > > they were written at a time when the Temple Hierarchy was no longer to be
                > > feared; hence, with respect to them, the "transcript" had no further reason
                > > to be "hidden," even though during Jesus' life, that was a factor to
                > > consider. Thus, that which was hidden, as regards the Temple bureaucracy,
                > > could at that time be revealed without fear.
                >
                >Bob, I am not relying upon the Gospels, per se. But, rather, in my
                >reconstruction of Jesus' hidden transcript, I am relying primarily upon oral
                >tradition that goes back to the historical Jesus himself. The five parables
                >I cite, along with other aphoristic material identified in the Jesus Seminar
                >data base of the _Five Gospels_, in particular, as being authentic sayings
                >of Jesus, are cases in point

                Ted,
                Thank you for taking my comments seriously and for providing an exhaustive
                response. However, I do not want the main points to be lost in the thicket
                of a line-by-line rejoinder, so please allow me to try to summarize a little.

                If I recall correctly, you raised two main points about Jesus' message: one
                with regard to the Temple establishment in Jerusalem, and another with
                regard to the Roman occupation of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. You claim
                that Jesus had a problem with the former, but none with the latter. You
                claim (later on in this message) that the Gospels were not themselves
                "hidden transcripts," even though they were not intended for Roman eyes
                (possibly excepting Luke). Nevertheless, you were able to reconstruct
                Jesus' "hidden transcript" about the Temple establishment from the Gospels,
                but fail to find any hidden transcripts in these same Gospels that the
                Romans would find offensive-- until the Temple Incident, when Pilate
                suddenly took such offense that he had Jesus killed.

                I will try to express my point, that I don't think you have addressed
                sufficiently, with greater clarity and brevity
                * Roman power during the period when the Gospels were written was
                greatly to be feared, and Roman persecution of Christians was no merely
                theoretical possibility, but a present danger.
                * The power of the Jewish Temple establishment during the period when
                the Gospels were written had already been thoroughly crushed and not to be
                feared.
                * The gospels were written for the purpose of evangelism, and were
                regarded as open, not secret, books. This is revealed with consistent
                clarity in contrast to the emerging work of the Gnostics by the time of
                Valentinian, and likely sooner.
                * At the time the Gospels were written, there was no need for "hidden
                transcripts" about the Temple Establishment in Jerusalem.
                * During Jesus' life, there probably was a need for "hidden
                transcripts" *in Judea* with respect to any subversive feelings about the
                Temple. However, it is not clear to me that there was any such need during
                the life of Jesus, *in Galilee.*
                * In Galilee, it is clear that Mark has taken pains to depict Jesus as
                at odds with those in power, whether or not his use of Pharisees was
                anachronistic. And it seems that this conflict extends well beyond whatever
                Jesus thought about Herod Antipas' treatment of John the Baptist. However,
                Mark seems to portray these differences in a rather different light than
                Jesus' differences with the Temple authorities in Jerusalem.
                * One of the clearest and most rock solid things we know about what
                Jesus talked about is that he talked about the Kingdom of God. And he seems
                to have done so quite openly, both in Galilee and in Jerusalem. The
                "hidden" part of that transcript, however, is what he meant by it. The
                Parables of the Kingdom are notoriously opaque and unhelpful in this
                regard. But yet its not clear to me that all this talk about the Kingdom
                had anything to do with the Temple incident. I think you are
                underestimating the political repercussions of his Kingdom speech.
                In your effort to follow Scott, you make a great deal of when Jesus was "on
                stage" and when he was not, asserting that it was only in Jerusalem, during
                the Temple Incident, that Jesus finally went "on stage." This seems to me a
                rather peculiar reading of the Gospel of Mark, and must require a very
                technical definition of what it means to be "on stage" that defies popular
                usage. In fact, Mark makes a big deal of when Jesus is "on stage" and when
                he is not throughout the Gospel:

                NRS Mark 3:8 hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great
                numbers from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region
                around Tyre and Sidon.

                In fact, I count the word "crowd" (ochlos) 29 times in Mark before they
                even get to Jerusalem. It is hard not to regard Jesus as being "on stage"
                at these times, especially since he wasn't just hanging out with the boys,
                but "teaching" them, etc.

                But then of course we also have Mark 4
                10 When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked
                him about the parables.
                11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom
                of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables;
                12 in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed
                listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'"

                and Mark 8:14-21, etc., where Jesus and the disciples are clearly
                represented as being "off-stage".

                Thus, your use of Scott seems somewhat contrived or laborious to me.

                Please excuse my snipping of your detailed and learned arguments. I hope I
                have adequately summarized them above, and have not in the process lost or,
                worse yet, trivialized your meaning. If I have overlooked important
                segments of your case, please bring them once again to my attention.

                Thanks,
                Bob


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Karel Hanhart
                ... From: Theodore Weeden To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Prelude to
                Message 7 of 26 , Mar 30 6:34 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...>
                  To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:44 PM
                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Prelude to Replies: Jesus' Hidden Transcript


                  Ted wrote":
                  > Karel, I apologize for not replying as yet to yure March 16 post and your
                  > off-list posts to me of April 10, 2003 and April 10, 2004. ...

                  > You wrote on March 16:
                  >
                  I would like to comment on his hermeneutical propositions seriatim.

                  > Karel, you have identified the fundamental issues upon which we disagree,
                  > which means that there are chasms that separate us in the way each of us
                  > reads Mark and the respective, vastly different interpretations we draw
                  > from
                  > those readings.

                  Dear Ted,

                  You have simply answered by dismissing my presuppositions concerning Markan
                  authorship, provenance, the issue of genre, the oldest extra biblical
                  testimony of Papias and 1 Clemens re. Mark and Peter etc. You wrote "Karel,
                  we are not only geographically continents apart, but, also, and
                  unfortunately, hermeneutically continents apart." I hope you are referring
                  only to the distance between the two of us. It would be a sorry state of
                  affairs when American scholars no longer want to discuss basic questions
                  with 'continental' scholars. In that respect, European scholars have
                  perhaps been more deeply and existentially preoccupied with questions
                  concerning the JUDEAN background of the Gospels. For the Shoah took place
                  within its borders and, as we know, the pre WW II liberal Protestant
                  exegetical exegesis contributed a good deal to what I would call the
                  de-Judaization of the Gospel in pre-World War II Europe.
                  It will do no good, moreover, if we dismiss the exegesis of the TEXT ITSELF
                  by simply flinging presuppositions at each other. In this respect I find the
                  effort of the Funk group commendable to distil from the Gospels through
                  Formgeschichte what may have been authentic saying and parables of the
                  historical Jesus. It is a necessary branch of our science. I have problems.
                  however, with Crossan's presupposed, ORIGINAL so-called "Cross Gospel"
                  distilled from the second century apocryphal, anti-Judean and pro-Roman
                  Gospel of Peter. For this Cross Gospel includes an open tomb story. In other
                  words Crossan assumes the pro-Roman EMPTY TOMB STORY to be the oldest layer
                  of the Gospel.
                  Do you still agree with Crossan on this basic presupposition?
                  1) I have asked you already two years ago about your textual interpretation
                  of Mark's canonical tomb ending.
                  a). Elsewhere Mark refers to O.T. passages by literally repeating the LXX
                  text. In 15,46 he is writing about "a tomb hewn from the rock" words that
                  literally appear in LXX 22,16. Therefore, my question, do you deny or accept
                  that Mark is indeed referring to Isa 22? Would not his readers at least
                  have looked for the meaning of Mark's text by comparing the context of both
                  passages (the destruction of the temple)?
                  b). Was Mark not inspired with his story by the words "I (JWHW) will open
                  your graves, o my people" in Ezek 37:12? It is the only instance in Tenach
                  where the notion of the opening of graves appears! Is it not logical Mark
                  used that symbolism for his own message, when his Judean readers would have
                  then likewise?
                  c). Mark should have omitted "anablepsasai" (looking on high) in 16,4
                  indicating a heavenly vision and he should have written in the plural with
                  an accusative in 16 vs 6, "idete ton topon,[ hopou ethekan auton]". But he
                  wrote in good Hebraic style, "Behold, the (holy) Place" - ide - ho topos
                  [where they laid him]." How do YOU explain these obvious grammatical
                  mistakes in case Mark presupposed an historical EMPTY TOMB or for that
                  matter given a metaphorical meaning inspired by Isa 22,16?
                  These questions can hardly be answered by exponents of a historical and
                  literal EMPTY Tomb, they certainly need to be explained on the assumption
                  Mark did not have a literal empty grave in mind, as I attempted. Crossan
                  oldest layer leaves that historical option open.
                  d). How do you explain Mark's seemingly textual mistake by thrice repeating
                  "...and AFTER three days rise again", while the women's vision takes place
                  "on the third day", the Sunday after the crucifixion. I have offered a
                  detailed exegesis on the calendar problem, have you?
                  How would you answer a, b,c and d, Ted, without eluding the challenge with a
                  simple "I don't share your presuppositions"? It is the text itself that
                  counts.

                  2) I also asked you recently about my exegesis of Mark 3, 18-35 versus yours
                  and 3) your explanation of how Mark's Gospel was ACCEPTED into the canon if
                  he - as you say- shows opposition to Simon Peter and to Jesus' family
                  (including his brother James) . You stated before, "Throughout his Gospel,
                  Mark portrays Jesus' twelve disciples in a most denigrating light. He does
                  so with the apparent intention of exposing them as apostates (??!! KH) and,
                  thereby, undermining and discrediting their post-Easter apostolic authority
                  and stature".
                  Were first century readers not able to detect this so-called aversion to
                  apostate's like Peter, the twelve apostles and to Jesus' family and still
                  adopt Mark into the canon?. If I understand you rightly, you are reading
                  this apostasy into it, aren't you ?
                  4) You finally and rightly indicated that Mark was opposed to the Judean
                  Temple establishment, but you also say that he was NOT hostile to the Roman
                  occupation forces (??!). I wonder how you can write this when he is
                  extolling MESSIAH Jesus who was crucified by the ROMAN prefect Pontius
                  Pilate!! Why then does Mark appeal to the vision of the Human One (like a
                  bar hash) in Dan 7 written by someone also suffering under a foreign
                  occupying regime, that time under the heel of Antiochus Epiphanes? Was not
                  the entire Judean population suffering under Roman occupation? Mark refers
                  to the 'desolating sacrilege' (cited from Daniel) which most interpreters
                  apply to Caligula's attempt to erect the statue of Zeus in the temple - a
                  horror to all Judeans - or to the standards of the victorious Roman legions
                  after the fall of Jerusalem? Was Mark immune to what happened to the Judean
                  people?
                  If that is not de-judaizing the Gospel in line with liberal pre-World
                  War II interpreters, what is? I do have sympathy with the struggle American
                  liberal scholars have with a fundamentalistic evangelical right - but this
                  should not impede anyone to acknowledge a polarized attitude regarding Jesus
                  of Nazareth within the Judean population itself both in Galilee and
                  Jerusalem. It will not do to transpose that basic Judean polarization on to
                  the relatively minor, Christian Judean quarrel between Simon Peter and Saul,
                  as you apparently do.

                  cordially,

                  Karel




                  I do not think that John Mark was the author of the
                  > Gospel. I am convinced, because of the evidence I have been able to
                  > amass,
                  > that Mark was written in Caesarea Philippi and not Rome. I do not think
                  > in
                  > this regard that Papias is a trustworthy source for the historicity behind
                  > the composition of the Gospel. I think Papias has an "orthodox" ( or
                  > "orthocractic") axe to grind. And I do not find Mark to be writing a
                  > Passover Haggadah, as you contend. The genre Mark employs for his
                  > composition of his Gospel is neither "history" (as in the case of
                  > Graeco-Roman histories) nor bios, but, rather, parable, as Gordon Raynal
                  > has
                  > argued on XTalk and a number of Markan scholars have suggested (e.g., John
                  > Donahue). You, yourself, have admitted to Jeffrey Gibson in your post of
                  > March 12 to him that there is no evidence of a pre-70 Christian record of
                  > a
                  > Haggadah which Mark could have revised. Moreover, contra, your position,
                  > I
                  > do not find evidence of there being an Ur-Markus or any written
                  > "proto-Gospel" text prior to Mark, much less one upon which he was
                  > dependent. Mark did draw upon oral tradition, and he drew upon OT texts
                  > for
                  > composing his passion narrative, as well as, likely, Josephus for his
                  > trial
                  > accounts, as I have argued. I see Mark not just as a redactor but in
                  > every
                  > sense an author, fully capable of creating de novo material for his own
                  > purpose. In this regard, I do not think that there was a pre-Markan
                  > passion narrative. Mark alone is responsible for the passion narrative as
                  > we know it.
                  >
                  > So Karel, we are not only geographically continents apart, but, also, and
                  > unfortunately, hermeneutically continents apart.
                  >
                  > Best wishes,
                  >
                  > Ted
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                    ... Excuse me, but what?  Where do you get the idea that ANABLEPW itself, or any of its participial forms,  means looking on high and indicates a
                  Message 8 of 26 , Mar 30 8:06 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                     

                    Karel Hanhart wrote:

                    > c). Mark should have omitted "anablepsasai" (looking on high) in 16,4
                    > indicating a heavenly vision

                    Excuse me, but what?  Where do you get the idea that ANABLEPW itself, or any of
                    its participial forms,  means "looking on high" and indicates a heavenly vision?

                    It certainly doesn't mean or indicate this in Aristophanes Comic.Nub 346; Plu
                    676;  Xenophon Hist.Cyr 6.4.9; Cyr 8.3.29;  Plato Phaed 116.d.3; Resp 621.b.6;
                    Posidonius Phil. Fragmenta 247.55; 1052 003 2a,87,F.36.70; Liber Jubilaeorum frag
                    r.4;  Philo Judaeus Cher 62.3; Post 17.3; Immut 181.4;  Som 1.64.6; Som 1.67.2 ;
                    Som 1.197.3; Som 1.199.1; Abr 79.1 Spec 3.187.2; Plutarch Marc 7.3.2; CatMi
                    68.2.3; `Dem 29.3.2; De genio Socratis 590.C.4; Quaestiones convivales 727.D.11;
                    Flavius Josephus AJ 7.327.4;  AJ 11.162.2; `AJ 12.24.1; Dio Chrysostom Orationes
                    64.6.7; Testament of Abraham 12.9.
                     

                    > and he should have written in the plural with
                    > an accusative in 16 vs 6, "idete ton topon,[ hopou ethekan auton]". But he
                    > wrote in good Hebraic style, "Behold, the (holy) Place" - ide - ho topos
                    > [where they laid him]."

                    Why is this good Hebraic style?  And what do you make of Gundry's claim that IDE
                    hO TOPOS is perfectly acceptable Greek in the light of the emphatic nature of the
                    pronouncement? And what justifies your reading "holy" into a text which does not
                    have this adjective?
                     

                    > How do YOU explain these obvious grammatical
                    > mistakes in case Mark presupposed an historical EMPTY TOMB or for that
                    > matter given a metaphorical meaning inspired by Isa 22,16?

                    Since it is by no means certain either that there ARE grammatical mistakes, let
                    alone obvious ones, here, or that, despite you claims to the contrary, that  Isa.
                    22:16 stands as the background of this text, the idea that there is something to
                    explain seems ill grounded.

                    Sorry, Karel, but all of this  seems to me to be nothing more than special
                    pleading.

                    Jeffrey
                    --

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

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

                    jgibson000@...
                     
                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... FWIW,  I deny it, seeing as Mark is hardly repeating, let alone literally repeating,  the LXX of Isaiah 22:16 in Mk. 15:46 (and because even the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Mar 30 8:29 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                       

                      Karel Hanhart wrote:

                      > 1) I have asked you already two years ago  about your textual interpretation
                      > of Mark's canonical tomb ending.
                      > a). Elsewhere Mark refers to O.T. passages by literally repeating the LXX
                      > text. In 15,46 he is writing about "a tomb hewn from the rock" words that
                      > literally appear in LXX 22,16. Therefore, my question, do you deny or accept
                      > that Mark is indeed referring to Isa 22?

                      FWIW,  I deny it, seeing as Mark is hardly repeating, let alone literally
                      repeating,  the LXX of Isaiah 22:16 in Mk. 15:46 (and because even the authority
                      that you have appealed to as backing your clam, Montifiorre, does not really do
                      so).

                      Here's Mark's text:

                      e)/qhken au)to\n e)n mnhmei/% o(\ h)=n lelatomhme/non e)k pe/traj,

                      Here's the Isaian text,

                      o(/ti e)lato/mhsaj seaut%= w(=de mnhmei=on kai\ e)poi/hsaj seaut%= e)n u(yhl%=
                      mnhmei=on kai\ e)/grayaj seaut%= e)n pe/tr# skhnh/n;

                      (You will need the SGreek Font to see this.)

                      Not only are the words NOT exact, as we would expect them to be on **your**
                      criterion of what Mark does when he quotes/refers to OT passages,  but the Isaian
                      text speaks of a "**dwelling** in the rock".

                      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]
                    • Ernest Pennells
                      [Ted Weeden] ... Jesus and his company if anything like the Triumphal Entry occurred, .... Any such demonstration would have been perceived by Pilate as a
                      Message 10 of 26 , Mar 30 9:31 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        [Ted Weeden]
                        >I cannot imagine that Pilate would have *not* reacted immediately to remove
                        Jesus and his company if anything like the Triumphal Entry occurred, ....
                        Any such demonstration would have been perceived by Pilate as a threat to
                        the stability of the Roman rule in Judea and a challenge to the Imperial
                        public transcript.<

                        In a study that compares Jesus' entry to Jerusalem with Pilate's (among
                        others), Brent Kinamen contends that the former eclipsed the latter to such
                        an extent that it would seem harmless to onlookers. Naturally enough, the
                        Gospels present this as a climactic event. On the other hand, one unarmed
                        man riding a donkey amid a cheering crowd brandishing palm fronds hardly
                        constitutes a military threat. Isn't that the point of the narrative?

                        [Ted Weeden]
                        >neither the Pharisees nor the Herodians play any role in the plot of the
                        chief priests and scribes to arrest and kill Jesus (14:1). The Pharisees and
                        the Herodians vanish from the stage once the drama of the passion narrative
                        begins. And they are not mentioned as the Markan Jesus' adversaries in his
                        passion
                        predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f.) <

                        ISTM that the explanation for this could be demographic. Given their
                        commitment to attend the temple for major festivals, and again several
                        times in the year when their squad was on duty for routine temple service,
                        it was simply impractical for priests to reside in far off Galilee.
                        Aristocratic priestly families might be absentee landlords of estates there,
                        but working priests needed to be within easy travelling distance of
                        Jerusalem.

                        That opens the option for seeing Pharisees as wannabe priests, meticulously
                        imitating priestly purity so that they could enjoy their kudos in the social
                        order (they love chief seats and fancy titles). So, in Galilee they become
                        the chief spokesmen of the priestly party line. When the action shifts to
                        Jerusalem, they are eclipsed by the real thing.

                        Regards,

                        Ernie Pennells
                        Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
                        Level 12 Apartment 4
                        28 Corniche el Nil
                        Cairo, Egypt
                        http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1982.html
                      • John C. Poirier
                        ... Wasn t it just once a year, for a two-week period? (Perhaps also at the three major festivals?) And wouldn t it have made sense for the Temple (or the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Mar 30 9:48 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ernest Pennells wrote:

                          > [snip] Given their commitment to attend the temple for major festivals,
                          > and again several times in the year when their squad was on duty for
                          > routine temple service, it was simply impractical for priests to reside
                          > in far off Galilee.

                          Wasn't it just once a year, for a two-week period? (Perhaps also at the
                          three major festivals?) And wouldn't it have made sense for the Temple (or
                          the priests themselves) to arrange for priests to be distributed throughout
                          farm country for the sake of collecting tithes?

                          > That opens the option for seeing Pharisees as wannabe priests,
                          > meticulously imitating priestly purity so that they could enjoy their
                          > kudos in the social order (they love chief seats and fancy titles). So,
                          > in Galilee they become the chief spokesmen of the priestly party line.
                          > When the action shifts to Jerusalem, they are eclipsed by the real
                          > thing.

                          Two comments: First, the idea that the Pharisees' concern for purity had to
                          do with imitating priests has already been knocked in the head by E. P.
                          Sanders, Eyal Regev, and others. Second, Ithamar Gruenwald has argued that
                          many of the Pharisees *were* priests. I don't recall all of his arguments,
                          but the suggestion is one that I think makes a lot of sense.


                          John C. Poirier
                          Middletown, Ohio
                        • Ernest Pennells
                          [John Poirier] ... three major festivals?) And wouldn t it have made sense for the Temple (or the priests themselves) to arrange for priests to be distributed
                          Message 12 of 26 , Mar 30 9:43 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            [John Poirier]
                            >Wasn't it just once a year, for a two-week period? (Perhaps also at the
                            three major festivals?) And wouldn't it have made sense for the Temple (or
                            the priests themselves) to arrange for priests to be distributed throughout
                            farm country for the sake of collecting tithes?<

                            Don't have access to my copy of 'Judaism: Practice and Belief' at hand to
                            check, John, but my notes mention pilgrimage festivals plus once each
                            twenty-four weeks.

                            I am not aware of any hard data on the distribution of priests. The
                            north-south divide, and the contrast in the Gospels between their dominance
                            at Jerusalem and the rarity of their appearance in Galilee, add weight to
                            the logistical argument.


                            Regards,

                            Ernie Pennells
                            Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
                            Level 12 Apartment 4
                            28 Corniche el Nil
                            Cairo, Egypt
                            http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1982.html
                          • Bob Schacht
                            ... Wasn t this the role of the Levites? Supposedly, there were Levites everywhere, as they were one of the clans and were by design distributed throughout the
                            Message 13 of 26 , Mar 30 11:12 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 07:43 PM 3/30/2005, Ernest Pennells wrote:
                              >[John Poirier]
                              > >Wasn't it just once a year, for a two-week period? (Perhaps also at the
                              >three major festivals?) And wouldn't it have made sense for the Temple (or
                              >the priests themselves) to arrange for priests to be distributed throughout
                              >farm country for the sake of collecting tithes?<
                              >
                              >Don't have access to my copy of 'Judaism: Practice and Belief' at hand to
                              >check, John, but my notes mention pilgrimage festivals plus once each
                              >twenty-four weeks.
                              >
                              >I am not aware of any hard data on the distribution of priests. The
                              >north-south divide, and the contrast in the Gospels between their dominance
                              >at Jerusalem and the rarity of their appearance in Galilee, add weight to
                              >the logistical argument.

                              Wasn't this the role of the Levites? Supposedly, there were Levites
                              everywhere, as they were one of the clans and were by design distributed
                              throughout the country, urban and rural. The Levites, according to Tanakh
                              tradition, were the only one of the Twelve Tribes without a geographical
                              focus. But of course, that's the theory of the Tanakh; to what extent the
                              Levitical system was operational in NT times is not clear to me. The
                              Levites were the clan that was also supposed to supply the priests. That
                              this system wasn't totally dead is shown in Luke 10:32, John 1:19, and Acts
                              4:36. Unfortunately, the ABD article on Levites does not extend to
                              post-Exilic times. My Harper-Collins Study Bible writes that "Levites in NT
                              times assisted the priests in the temple rituals and worked as
                              administrators, guards, musicians, singers, etc." Unfortunately, most of my
                              other books are in storage.

                              What does Josephus say about Levites?

                              Wasn't there a tradition that Matthew was a Levite?

                              Bob


                              Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                              Northern Arizona University
                              Flagstaff, AZ

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Ernest Pennells
                              [Bob Schacht] ... and were by design distributed throughout the country, urban and rural.
                              Message 14 of 26 , Mar 31 1:49 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                [Bob Schacht]
                                >Supposedly, there were Levites everywhere, as they were one of the clans
                                and were by design distributed throughout the country, urban and rural.<

                                ISTM that several factors make this a confused picture in NT times:
                                captivity and return; mixed population in Galilee; the Hasmonaean
                                expansion and alleged forced conversions; priestly landholdings; rival
                                temple in Samaria; no comparable Yahweh temple in Galilee ... ...

                                Numbers requires tithes to the Levites, who in turn give a tithe to
                                priests. One can see that system being practical within the confines of
                                communities with easy access to Jerusalem, but from northern Galilee to
                                Jerusalem is over a hundred miles. Given transportation options
                                (predominantly foot), the nature of roads, the topography and the climate,
                                a trip to Jerusalem must have taken a week and more from the northern limits
                                of Galilee. I find it hard to believe that successive generations of
                                priestly families serving at the temple would find it viable to live that
                                far away. Each round of duty would take a month - maybe more. If HJ was
                                rebuffed by Samaritans, it's hard to imagine priests en route to Jerusalem
                                would be welcome on that route. If they had to take the Jordan Valley route
                                year round, that final 3000ft. climb from Jericho would be a real killer in
                                summer.


                                Regards,

                                Ernie Pennells
                                Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
                                Level 12 Apartment 4
                                28 Corniche el Nil
                                Cairo, Egypt
                                http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1982.html
                              • John C. Poirier
                                ... You may have a point with the length of time it would take a priest to travel to Jerusalem. This in turn brings up an additional problem, although it s
                                Message 15 of 26 , Mar 31 4:39 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Ernest Pennells wrote:

                                  > Numbers requires tithes to the Levites, who in turn give a tithe to
                                  > priests. One can see that system being practical within the confines of
                                  > communities with easy access to Jerusalem, but from northern Galilee to
                                  > Jerusalem is over a hundred miles. . . .

                                  You may have a point with the length of time it would take a priest to
                                  travel to Jerusalem. This in turn brings up an additional problem, although
                                  it's not a very major one: The idea that Levites collected the tithes in the
                                  North and delivered them to the priests in the Temple works well, except
                                  that if we imagine them pooling the priestly share of the tithe then that
                                  requires us also to imagine the use of an armed guard to deliver all those
                                  goods. Perhaps, just as the second tithe could be turned into money
                                  (Deuteronomy 14), the Levites were also allowed to turn the first tithe into
                                  money. That would make the transporting of the tithe easier, but it would
                                  probably make the problem of *safe* transportation greater. Perhaps the
                                  Temple arranged for an armed guard.

                                  Alternatively, each Levite could handle his own priestly portion (again,
                                  perhaps in the form of money) when it came time to go to Jerusalem for one
                                  of the festivals. In other words, if most (or all?) of the priests lived in
                                  and around Jerusalem(/Jericho, etc.), then perhaps the distribution of the
                                  priests' share all took place in Jerusalem.


                                  John C. Poirier
                                  Middletown, Ohio
                                • John C. Poirier
                                  Taking another look, I see that my point was probably the same as Ernie s. Sorry to overlook that, Ernie, and I guess it means we re more in agreement on some
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Mar 31 4:45 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Taking another look, I see that my point was probably the same as Ernie's.
                                    Sorry to overlook that, Ernie, and I guess it means we're more in agreement
                                    on some things. Your overall case looks stronger than mine.

                                    John C. Poirier

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: John C. Poirier [mailto:poirier@...]
                                    Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:40 AM
                                    To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [XTalk] collecting tithes


                                    Ernest Pennells wrote:

                                    > Numbers requires tithes to the Levites, who in turn give a tithe to
                                    > priests. One can see that system being practical within the confines of
                                    > communities with easy access to Jerusalem, but from northern Galilee to
                                    > Jerusalem is over a hundred miles. . . .

                                    You may have a point with the length of time it would take a priest to
                                    travel to Jerusalem. This in turn brings up an additional problem, although
                                    it's not a very major one: The idea that Levites collected the tithes in the
                                    North and delivered them to the priests in the Temple works well, except
                                    that if we imagine them pooling the priestly share of the tithe then that
                                    requires us also to imagine the use of an armed guard to deliver all those
                                    goods. Perhaps, just as the second tithe could be turned into money
                                    (Deuteronomy 14), the Levites were also allowed to turn the first tithe into
                                    money. That would make the transporting of the tithe easier, but it would
                                    probably make the problem of *safe* transportation greater. Perhaps the
                                    Temple arranged for an armed guard.

                                    Alternatively, each Levite could handle his own priestly portion (again,
                                    perhaps in the form of money) when it came time to go to Jerusalem for one
                                    of the festivals. In other words, if most (or all?) of the priests lived in
                                    and around Jerusalem(/Jericho, etc.), then perhaps the distribution of the
                                    priests' share all took place in Jerusalem.


                                    John C. Poirier
                                    Middletown, Ohio





                                    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


                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • Ernest Pennells
                                    [Bob Schacht] ... Quite a bit in the Moses era, including the allocation of forty-eight good and fair cities to the Levites; and permit them to enjoy their
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Mar 31 8:02 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      [Bob Schacht]
                                      >What does Josephus say about Levites?<

                                      Quite a bit in the Moses era, including the allocation of "forty-eight good
                                      and fair cities to the Levites; and permit them to enjoy their suburbs, as
                                      far as the limit of two thousand cubits would extend from the walls of the
                                      city. And besides this, he appointed that the people should pay the tithe
                                      of their annual fruits of the earth, both to the Levites and to the
                                      priests." (Ant. 4.4.3)

                                      The establishment of twenty-four courses is attributed to David, and said
                                      to hold true till Josephus' day (Ant. 5.14.7)

                                      Levites also get frequent mention in the era of the return from captivity,
                                      in Ant; but not much in the Herodian era.

                                      It is all a bit confusing because of variations between Deu and Num/Lev over
                                      tithe; and the apparent discrepancy between the notion that priests and
                                      Levites should not hold land title; but cities were allocated. Can anyone
                                      shed more light on this? e.g. I am wondering whether the cities of Levites
                                      still had relevance in the NT era?


                                      Regards,

                                      Ernie Pennells
                                      Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
                                      Level 12 Apartment 4
                                      28 Corniche el Nil
                                      Cairo, Egypt
                                      http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1982.html
                                    • Richard H. Anderson
                                      Ernest, On my blog earlier this month on March 19, 2005, I posted information about the 24 courses from 4Q321 and also access to 4Q321. Richard H. Anderson
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Mar 31 9:05 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ernest,

                                        On my blog earlier this month on March 19, 2005, I posted information about
                                        the 24 courses from 4Q321 and also access to 4Q321.
                                        Richard H. Anderson
                                        http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/2005/03/4q321.html
                                      • Bob Schacht
                                        ... I don t know why this should surprise you. Every Empire since Sargon of Akkad (ca. 2,500 B.C.) has had to deal with the problem of administrators living
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Mar 31 10:20 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 11:49 PM 3/30/2005, Ernest Pennells wrote:
                                          >[Bob Schacht]
                                          > >Supposedly, there were Levites everywhere, as they were one of the clans
                                          >and were by design distributed throughout the country, urban and rural.<
                                          >
                                          >ISTM that several factors make this a confused picture in NT times:
                                          >captivity and return; mixed population in Galilee; the Hasmonaean
                                          >expansion and alleged forced conversions; priestly landholdings; rival
                                          >temple in Samaria; no comparable Yahweh temple in Galilee ... ...
                                          >
                                          >Numbers requires tithes to the Levites, who in turn give a tithe to
                                          >priests. One can see that system being practical within the confines of
                                          >communities with easy access to Jerusalem, but from northern Galilee to
                                          >Jerusalem is over a hundred miles. Given transportation options
                                          >(predominantly foot), the nature of roads, the topography and the climate,
                                          >a trip to Jerusalem must have taken a week and more from the northern limits
                                          >of Galilee. I find it hard to believe that successive generations of
                                          >priestly families serving at the temple would find it viable to live that
                                          >far away.

                                          I don't know why this should surprise you. Every Empire since Sargon of
                                          Akkad (ca. 2,500 B.C.) has had to deal with the problem of administrators
                                          living away from home in order to administer the state. Does it make any
                                          difference whether or not they're "priestly"? The Babylonians had a similar
                                          issue.

                                          It seems to me that I recall something about the Maccabeans, following
                                          their conquest of Galilee, sought to re-institute the Levitical system. Of
                                          course, that was not a particularly popular move, but we know from the
                                          example of Sepphoris that Judean elites could be posted to Galilee for
                                          purposes of administration, as Stevan Davies has tirelessly reminded us
                                          from time to time. Of course, these elites then make their territory their
                                          home, and over generations can marry and otherwise engage in local networks.

                                          Bob



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Bob Schacht
                                          ... Sometimes I neglect to state the obvious, which in this case is that the Maccabees themselves were from a priestly family. I ve seen claims on the web that
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Mar 31 11:32 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 08:20 AM 3/31/2005, Bob Schacht wrote:


                                            >...It seems to me that I recall something about the Maccabeans, following
                                            >their conquest of Galilee, sought to re-institute the Levitical system. Of
                                            >course, that was not a particularly popular move, but we know from the
                                            >example of Sepphoris that Judean elites could be posted to Galilee for
                                            >purposes of administration, as Stevan Davies has tirelessly reminded us
                                            >from time to time. Of course, these elites then make their territory their
                                            >home, and over generations can marry and otherwise engage in local networks.


                                            Sometimes I neglect to state the obvious, which in this case is that the
                                            Maccabees themselves were from a priestly family. I've seen claims on the
                                            web that they were also Levites, but I can't find any historical data on
                                            that. Given this status, it seems unreasonable to suppose that their
                                            Galilean administration left priests and Levites out of the picture.

                                            Bob


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Theodore Weeden
                                            Karel Hanhart wrote on March 30, 2005 [TJW] ... Karel, I have always been indebted to continental scholars. Just check the bibliography of my Mark-Traditions
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Apr 1, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Karel Hanhart wrote on March 30, 2005

                                              [TJW]

                                              >> Karel, you have identified the fundamental issues upon which we disagree,
                                              >> which means that there are chasms that separate us in the way each of us
                                              >> reads Mark and the respective, vastly different interpretations we draw
                                              >> from
                                              >> those readings.
                                              >
                                              > Dear Ted,
                                              >
                                              > You have simply answered by dismissing my presuppositions concerning
                                              > Markan
                                              > authorship, provenance, the issue of genre, the oldest extra biblical
                                              > testimony of Papias and 1 Clemens re. Mark and Peter etc. You wrote
                                              > "Karel,
                                              > we are not only geographically continents apart, but, also, and
                                              > unfortunately, hermeneutically continents apart." I hope you are
                                              > referring
                                              > only to the distance between the two of us. It would be a sorry state of
                                              > affairs when American scholars no longer want to discuss basic questions
                                              > with 'continental' scholars.

                                              Karel, I have always been indebted to continental scholars. Just check the
                                              bibliography of my Mark-Traditions in Conflict_. What I meant with respect
                                              to you and me being hermeneutically continents apart is just that. We
                                              differ in so many ways in our reading of Mark, etc. But in recognizing
                                              that, I am not dismissing you or your work. But for us to engage on all the
                                              issues over which we are in disagreement would just take more time than I
                                              have right now. I am already way behind on trying to revise a number of
                                              book length manuscripts for publication. And it is difficult now to keep up
                                              with responses to posts I submit to XTalk. Rather than dealing with all the
                                              issues over which we disagree, perhaps taking one issue would be more
                                              manageable, say the Markan provenance. Jeffrey Gibson has indicated his
                                              willingness to upload an essay I have written, and need to revise further,
                                              regarding my theory that Mark's community is located in the village region
                                              of Caesarea Philippi. After, I have replied to posts addressing my thesis
                                              about Jesus' hidden transcript as it pertains to the cause of his death, I
                                              would be willing to revise my essay on Mark's provenance and have Jeffrey
                                              upload it --if the issue of the Markan provenance would be something you and
                                              others would be interested in addressing..

                                              > In that respect, European scholars have
                                              > perhaps been more deeply and existentially preoccupied with questions
                                              > concerning the JUDEAN background of the Gospels. For the Shoah took place
                                              > within its borders and, as we know, the pre WW II liberal Protestant
                                              > exegetical exegesis contributed a good deal to what I would call the
                                              > de-Judaization of the Gospel in pre-World War II Europe.

                                              It is not my intent to de-Judaize the Gospels. And I have a deep, soul-felt
                                              distress over the holocaust. My sister is a Jew, having converted to
                                              Judaism after marrying a Jewish physician. I have had close relationships
                                              with her Jewish friends and rabbis. I have some existential awareness of
                                              the terrible, tragic impact of Christian anti-semitism on Jews.

                                              > It will do no good, moreover, if we dismiss the exegesis of the TEXT
                                              > ITSELF
                                              > by simply flinging presuppositions at each other. In this respect I find
                                              > the
                                              > effort of the Funk group commendable to distil from the Gospels through
                                              > Formgeschichte what may have been authentic saying and parables of the
                                              > historical Jesus. It is a necessary branch of our science.

                                              I have never dismissed the need for careful, self-critical exegesis of the
                                              text. However, I have found that many competent scholars can read the same
                                              text and come away with different interpretations founded on very
                                              substantive marshaling of evidence in support of those respective
                                              interpretations. The XTalk exchanges are an example par excellence of
                                              that. Sometimes, those of us who hold widely differing interpretations
                                              cannot find ways of adjudicating the evidence sufficiently to find a
                                              rapproachment. In those cases we can only in good faith and respect for
                                              those of different views agree to disagree.

                                              > I have problems.
                                              > however, with Crossan's presupposed, ORIGINAL so-called "Cross Gospel"
                                              > distilled from the second century apocryphal, anti-Judean and pro-Roman
                                              > Gospel of Peter. For this Cross Gospel includes an open tomb story. In
                                              > other
                                              > words Crossan assumes the pro-Roman EMPTY TOMB STORY to be the oldest
                                              > layer
                                              > of the Gospel.
                                              > Do you still agree with Crossan on this basic presupposition?
                                              > 1) I have asked you already two years ago about your textual
                                              > interpretation
                                              > of Mark's canonical tomb ending.

                                              I have examined Crossan's evidence of a Cross Gospel very closely. There
                                              is much in his marshaling of evidence that appears, or at least at one time
                                              appeared, quite cogent to me. A several years ago I compared the Markan
                                              empty-tomb narrative with the Cross Gospel and discovered to my surprise
                                              that some of the narrative gaps (see on narrative gaps: Meir Sternberg, _The
                                              Poetics of Biblical Narrative_) I find existing in the Markan story can be
                                              explained if Mark used the Cross Gospel as his hypotext. I developed an
                                              essay to show how those narrative gaps are filled or at least accounted for
                                              if Mark knew and used Crossan's Cross Gosepl. Perhaps, sometime I can submit
                                              that essay to XTalk for the considered scholarly jdugment of you and others
                                              as to whether there is any intertextual relationship between Mark's
                                              empty-tomb story and the Cross Gospel. More recently, I have argued that
                                              Mark created the passion narrative, upon which all canonical Gospels, in my
                                              view, are dependent, and that no passion narrative existed prior to Mark.
                                              So you see I am in hermeneutical conflict with myself. Perhaps, if I
                                              submit what appeared several years ago to be intertextual evidence of Mark's
                                              dependemcy on the Cross Gospel, you and others could help resolve my
                                              internal hermeneutical conflict.

                                              > that Mark is indeed referring to Isa 22? Would not his readers at least
                                              > have looked for the meaning of Mark's text by comparing the context of
                                              > both
                                              > passages (the destruction of the temple)?
                                              > b). Was Mark not inspired with his story by the words "I (JWHW) will open
                                              > your graves, o my people" in Ezek 37:12? It is the only instance in Tenach
                                              > where the notion of the opening of graves appears! Is it not logical Mark
                                              > used that symbolism for his own message, when his Judean readers would
                                              > have
                                              > then likewise?
                                              > c). Mark should have omitted "anablepsasai" (looking on high) in 16,4
                                              > indicating a heavenly vision and he should have written in the plural with
                                              > an accusative in 16 vs 6, "idete ton topon,[ hopou ethekan auton]". But he
                                              > wrote in good Hebraic style, "Behold, the (holy) Place" - ide - ho topos
                                              > [where they laid him]." How do YOU explain these obvious grammatical
                                              > mistakes in case Mark presupposed an historical EMPTY TOMB or for that
                                              > matter given a metaphorical meaning inspired by Isa 22,16?

                                              Karel, I think Jeffrey Gibson has recently addressed these exegetical issues
                                              with you regarding your claims for the intertextual relationship between
                                              Mark and these passages. And I find his response to you with respect to
                                              these passages my own response.

                                              > These questions can hardly be answered by exponents of a historical and
                                              > literal EMPTY Tomb, they certainly need to be explained on the assumption
                                              > Mark did not have a literal empty grave in mind, as I attempted. Crossan
                                              > oldest layer leaves that historical option open.
                                              > d). How do you explain Mark's seemingly textual mistake by thrice
                                              > repeating
                                              > "...and AFTER three days rise again", while the women's vision takes place
                                              > "on the third day", the Sunday after the crucifixion. I have offered a
                                              > detailed exegesis on the calendar problem, have you?

                                              This is one of t he narrative gaps to which I referred above. And I found
                                              that if Mark was dependent on the Cross Gospel, then that textual mistake,
                                              as you put it, is compellingly explained and the calendar problem, as you
                                              put it, has a plausible solution.

                                              > How would you answer a, b,c and d, Ted, without eluding the challenge with
                                              > a
                                              > simple "I don't share your presuppositions"? It is the text itself that
                                              > counts.

                                              I think I have responded to this question in what I have stated above.

                                              > 2) I also asked you recently about my exegesis of Mark 3, 18-35 versus
                                              > yours

                                              I am sorry, I cannot recall you posing this exegesis to me. Please refresh
                                              my memory.

                                              > and 3) your explanation of how Mark's Gospel was ACCEPTED into the canon
                                              > if
                                              > he - as you say- shows opposition to Simon Peter and to Jesus' family
                                              > (including his brother James) . You stated before, "Throughout his Gospel,
                                              > Mark portrays Jesus' twelve disciples in a most denigrating light. He does
                                              > so with the apparent intention of exposing them as apostates (??!! KH)
                                              > and,
                                              > thereby, undermining and discrediting their post-Easter apostolic
                                              > authority
                                              > and stature".
                                              > Were first century readers not able to detect this so-called aversion to
                                              > apostate's like Peter, the twelve apostles and to Jesus' family and still
                                              > adopt Mark into the canon?. If I understand you rightly, you are reading
                                              > this apostasy into it, aren't you ?

                                              No, I do not think I am reading it into the text. As I pointed out in my
                                              _Mark_, Matthew and Luke both recognized the Markan vendetta against the
                                              disciples and sought to counter it at numerous points in the text and
                                              finally restore Peter and the other disciples by narrating or referring to
                                              their resurrection experiences which amount to credentialing them as
                                              apostles. If, in my judgment, one reads the Gospel of Mark as the first
                                              hearers heard it read, which was its original way it was presented, and if
                                              one reminds oneself that these first hearers would not have had the other
                                              canonical Gospels to inform their hearing, and if one reminds oneself that
                                              these first hearers, unlike ourselves would not know what follows from one
                                              Markan narrative episodeto the next (in other words they did not know in
                                              advance how the story turned out in the end), then I submit once they heard
                                              how the story ends, the only conclusion that could be drawn, if one sticks
                                              with the text and not read things into it, is that the story ends with Peter
                                              and the Twelve ending up as apostates. The women run from the tomb and do
                                              not inform them of the resurrection of Jesus, and the disciples never enter
                                              the story again after Judas betrayal, Peter's denial and the abandonment of
                                              Jesus by the rest.

                                              Mark was accepted into the canon due to (1) its similarity to Matthew and
                                              Luke, by virtue of the fact that Mark was, of course. one of their sources,
                                              (2) the redactors of Mark providing the longer and shorter endings, thereby
                                              restoring Peter and the others to apostolicity, (3) Papias "saving" Mark by
                                              assuring via orthocracy (see Frederik Wisse) that Mark was only recording
                                              what he heard Peter recount of his and the other disciples' relationship to
                                              Jesus, and (4) Mark being sandwiched in between Matthew and Luke in the
                                              final canonical order of the New Testament Gospels, thereby giving Mark the
                                              appearance of essentially telling the same story, only as an abbreviated
                                              version (so Augustine).

                                              > 4) You finally and rightly indicated that Mark was opposed to the Judean
                                              > Temple establishment, but you also say that he was NOT hostile to the
                                              > Roman
                                              > occupation forces (??!). I wonder how you can write this when he is
                                              > extolling MESSIAH Jesus who was crucified by the ROMAN prefect Pontius
                                              > Pilate!!

                                              What I have been arguing in the thread, "Temple Act not Jerusalem Entry
                                              Caused Jesus' Death," is that Jesus' hidden transcript focused its
                                              opposition on the public transcript of the Judean Temple establishmnet and
                                              not the public transcript of the Roman imperial order. I have not addressed
                                              the issue of who Mark is for or against.

                                              > Why then does Mark appeal to the vision of the Human One (like a
                                              > bar hash) in Dan 7 written by someone also suffering under a foreign
                                              > occupying regime, that time under the heel of Antiochus Epiphanes? Was not
                                              > the entire Judean population suffering under Roman occupation? Mark
                                              > refers
                                              > to the 'desolating sacrilege' (cited from Daniel) which most interpreters
                                              > apply to Caligula's attempt to erect the statue of Zeus in the temple - a
                                              > horror to all Judeans - or to the standards of the victorious Roman
                                              > legions
                                              > after the fall of Jerusalem? Was Mark immune to what happened to the
                                              > Judean
                                              > people?

                                              Again, I have not been addressing who Mark was for or against.

                                              > If that is not de-judaizing the Gospel in line with liberal pre-World
                                              > War II interpreters, what is? I do have sympathy with the struggle
                                              > American
                                              > liberal scholars have with a fundamentalistic evangelical right - but this
                                              > should not impede anyone to acknowledge a polarized attitude regarding
                                              > Jesus
                                              > of Nazareth within the Judean population itself both in Galilee and
                                              > Jerusalem. It will not do to transpose that basic Judean polarization on
                                              > to
                                              > the relatively minor, Christian Judean quarrel between Simon Peter and
                                              > Saul,
                                              > as you apparently do.

                                              I am not de-Judaizing the Gospel of Mark nor Jesus nor Peter nor Paul. I
                                              have only argued at this point on XTalk that Jesus was opposed to the Temple
                                              cult establishment. Jesus was a Galilean Jew who opposed, as a Galilean,
                                              material exploitation and the oppressive dehumanization by the Judean Temple
                                              establishment. That does not mean he was opposed to Judean suborbdinates
                                              who suffered under the oppression of the elite Judean dominants much the
                                              same as the Galilean subordinates did. That distinction must be made.

                                              To be opposed to the Temple establishment, represented by chief priests,
                                              scribes and Pharisees, does not mean that one is anti-Judean or
                                              anti-semitic. It does me that one is opposed to dominants' corrupted use of
                                              power to control subordinates for their own self-serving purposes. I am
                                              also opposed to that corrupted use of power by the elite dominants of the
                                              institutional Church, Catholic or Protestant , fundamentalist, mainstream or
                                              liberal. That does not make me, in my view, anti-Christian or
                                              de-Christianizing the Gospels in my interpretation of them over against the
                                              institutional Church when it oppresses and dehumanizes people, such as women
                                              and homosexuals in more recent times, to say nothing of the sordid history
                                              of the instititional Church with respect to its oppression and
                                              dehumanization of others.

                                              Regards,

                                              Ted
                                            • Theodore Weeden
                                              Ernie Pennells wrote on March 30, 2005: , ... Ernie, I apologize for the delay in my response. The issue as I see it is not whether or not Jesus was armed but
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Apr 2, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Ernie Pennells wrote on March 30, 2005:
                                                ,
                                                > [Ted Weeden]
                                                >>I cannot imagine that Pilate would have *not* reacted immediately to
                                                >>remove
                                                > Jesus and his company if anything like the Triumphal Entry occurred, ....
                                                > Any such demonstration would have been perceived by Pilate as a threat to
                                                > the stability of the Roman rule in Judea and a challenge to the Imperial
                                                > public transcript.<
                                                >
                                                > In a study that compares Jesus' entry to Jerusalem with Pilate's (among
                                                > others), Brent Kinamen contends that the former eclipsed the latter to
                                                > such
                                                > an extent that it would seem harmless to onlookers. Naturally enough,
                                                > the
                                                > Gospels present this as a climactic event. On the other hand, one
                                                > unarmed
                                                > man riding a donkey amid a cheering crowd brandishing palm fronds hardly
                                                > constitutes a military threat. Isn't that the point of the narrative?

                                                Ernie, I apologize for the delay in my response. The issue as I see it is
                                                not whether or not Jesus was armed but that, if Jesus did enter Jerusalem as
                                                Mark portrays him, his entry would have been viewed as indocility on the
                                                part of a subordinate with possible sedititous implications, given the
                                                response of the crowd. Pilate, if he knew that Jesus had entered as
                                                described by Mark would have arrested Jesus for indocility and possibly
                                                formenting sedition among the Passover pilgrim crowds. See my March 31 post
                                                to Stephen Carlson.
                                                >
                                                > [Ted Weeden]
                                                >>neither the Pharisees nor the Herodians play any role in the plot of the
                                                > chief priests and scribes to arrest and kill Jesus (14:1). The Pharisees
                                                > and
                                                > the Herodians vanish from the stage once the drama of the passion
                                                > narrative
                                                > begins. And they are not mentioned as the Markan Jesus' adversaries in
                                                > his
                                                > passion
                                                > predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f.) <
                                                >
                                                > ISTM that the explanation for this could be demographic. Given their
                                                > commitment to attend the temple for major festivals, and again several
                                                > times in the year when their squad was on duty for routine temple service,
                                                > it was simply impractical for priests to reside in far off Galilee.
                                                > Aristocratic priestly families might be absentee landlords of estates
                                                > there,
                                                > but working priests needed to be within easy travelling distance of
                                                > Jerusalem.
                                                >
                                                > That opens the option for seeing Pharisees as wannabe priests,
                                                > meticulously
                                                > imitating priestly purity so that they could enjoy their kudos in the
                                                > social
                                                > order (they love chief seats and fancy titles). So, in Galilee they
                                                > become
                                                > the chief spokesmen of the priestly party line. When the action shifts to
                                                > Jerusalem, they are eclipsed by the real thing.

                                                The issue is for me, following Anthony Saldarini and Morton Smith, is that
                                                the Pharisees would not be ubiquitously present in Galilee as the Markan
                                                narrative tends to suggest. Furthermore, if they were present at all in
                                                Galiee, it would likely be in the general area of Sepphoris and Tiberias,
                                                the Judean cult's administrative centers in Galilee. I am doubtful that
                                                they would be as present in the area directly north of the Sea of Galilee,
                                                which is the region where Mark places Jesus' Galilean ministry. Further,
                                                still, the issue for me also is the conjoining of Pharisees and Herodians in
                                                Mk. 3:6 and 12:13. I find it quite implausible that the Pharisees of Jesus'
                                                time would have linked up with the "Antipas" Herodians. "Agrippa" Herodians
                                                post Roman-Jewish War? Yes. Thus, Mark has retrojected the Sitz im Leben of
                                                the post-war era back upon Jesus Galilean ministry. See my March 29 post to
                                                Bob Schacht.

                                                Regards,

                                                Ted
                                              • Karel Hanhart
                                                ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Prelude to
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Apr 3, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                                                  To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:06 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Prelude to Replies: Jesus' Hidden Transcript

                                                  Jeffrey,

                                                  Thank you for your reaction concerning my reply to Ted Weeden. Before
                                                  answering your questions in detail, let me state again what questions
                                                  spurred me on in my research: 1) Those who take Mark's tomb story to be a
                                                  METAPHOR for a transcendental truth are obliged to build this new house of
                                                  Mark's meaning through using every word and every turn of phrase as building
                                                  blocks in search of that assumed intended meaningful truth. We owe that to
                                                  our fellow believers in the pew.
                                                  Ted has made clear he accepts the metaphorical character of the tomb story,
                                                  at least as I understand him, just as I do. I believe, however, he neglected
                                                  certain typical words and phrases of Mark, so that the house of meaning he
                                                  is building fails the exegetical test. I challenged him to explain certain
                                                  features of that text.
                                                  2) I want to combat a history of injurious anti-judaic exegesis that issued
                                                  in the church's paralysis in preventing the Holocaust. For a literal 'empty'
                                                  tomb implied a historical and irrefutable, because divinely initiated, proof
                                                  of a divine condemnation of the entire Sanhedrin responsible for Jesus'
                                                  death, enforcing the patristic claim that the destruction of the temple
                                                  implied God's judgment on the Jewish nation as a whole. Since Crossan
                                                  claimed that the so-called 'Cross Gospel' ( distilled from the second
                                                  century apocryphal Gospel of Peter- patently anti-Judean and pro-Roman and
                                                  including an opened tomb story!), was a very EARLY SOURCE used by Mark for
                                                  his resurrection story, the conclusion is inevitable that the Gospel of Mark
                                                  itself was the source of the anti-Judaic vein that poisoned the goodly,
                                                  broad river of Christian tradition. Ted appears to agree with Crossan. I
                                                  believe both he and Crossan are working with the wrong assumption; Mark did
                                                  not use this anti Judaic Cross Gospel; he composed the open tomb midrash
                                                  himself in the wake of the trauma of 70 and this midrash contains a message
                                                  of hope not of condemnation. I raised two questions re. the citation of Isa
                                                  22,16 and the grammar of "behold, the place where they laid him". For I
                                                  conclude Mark did not intend to convey a literal EMPTY tomb nor did he imply
                                                  an unrelieved, utterly vindictive, divine condemnation of the Judean nation
                                                  with Rome as the obedient instrument in divine hands.

                                                  Now about your two questions"

                                                  > Karel Hanhart wrote:
                                                  >> c). Mark should have omitted "anablepsasai" (looking on high) in 16,4
                                                  >> indicating a heavenly vision

                                                  Jeffrey's question:
                                                  > Excuse me, but what? Where do you get the idea that ANABLEPW itself, or
                                                  > any of its participial forms, means "looking on high" and indicates a
                                                  > heavenly vision? It certainly doesn't mean or indicate this; in
                                                  > Aristophanes Comic.Nub 346; Plu 676; Xenophon Hist.Cyr 6.4.9; > Cyr
                                                  > 8.3.29; Plato Phaed 116.d.3; Resp 621.b.6; Posidonius Phil.
                                                  >Fragmenta 247.55; 1052 003 2a,87,F.36.70; Liber Jubilaeorum frag
                                                  > r.4; Philo Judaeus Cher 62.3; Post 17.3; Immut 181.4; Som 1.64.6;
                                                  > Som 1.67.2 ; Som 1.197.3; Som 1.199.1; Abr 79.1 Spec 3.187.2;
                                                  > Plutarch Marc 7.3.2; CatMi 68.2.3; `Dem 29.3.2; De genio Socratis
                                                  > >590.C.4; Quaestiones convivales 727.D.11; Flavius Josephus AJ
                                                  > >7.327.4;
                                                  > AJ 11.162.2; `AJ 12.24.1; Dio Chrysostom Orationes
                                                  > 64.6.7; Testament of Abraham 12.9.

                                                  Karel's reply:
                                                  Anyone can copy this impressive list from a concordance of Greek literature;
                                                  of course, I
                                                  checked the various meanings of the verb 'anablepo' myself. The primary
                                                  meaning of 'anablepein' is 'to look up', 'to see again'. However, we are
                                                  dealing here with religious language and with an author, Mark, who chose his
                                                  vocabulary with great care within the ingenuous structure of his gospel.
                                                  The verb 'anablepein' occurs just TWICE in his Gospel. In the miraculous
                                                  feeding, Jesus prays 'looking on high' [anablepsas. Mk 6,41] - the obvious
                                                  meaning is in such religious language, " he looked up TO HEAVEN" while
                                                  praying. This is strong evidence that in the highly religious atmosphere of
                                                  the resurrection story, the women ( - wondering whoever would be able to
                                                  remove the very heavy stone from before the 'door' ! - ) "looked up" to
                                                  heaven; read in the wider context the participle implies that what the women
                                                  'beheld' ( Gr theorousin) occurred in a vision. This evidence is bolstered
                                                  by the heading of chapter Isaiah 22: the valley of VISION, dealing with an
                                                  attack on Jerusalem. Mark had just cited Isa 22,16 with the phrase "tomb
                                                  hewn from the rock", a metaphor for the temple under threat; hence my
                                                  interpretation of 'anablepsasai' as indicating a vision of the temple's
                                                  destruction.
                                                  In case a Greek speaking angel was pointing the women 'in real time' to a
                                                  slab of stone within a large tomb on which Jesus' dead body "had been laid",
                                                  Mark should have written "idete ton topon"; however, if the reader knew in
                                                  the post-70 context "the tomb hewn from the rock" in 15,46 was a metaphor
                                                  for the temple, the verb in the singular "idou" -[Hb re'ah] would be
                                                  Septuagint language, "behold, the Place" (meaning the temple). It would
                                                  suggest a curtain was drawn away before their earthly eyes and they could
                                                  see the future state of that temple; it is metaphorical language, just as
                                                  the rending of the temple's curtain, prior to this narrative also refers to
                                                  the destruction of the temple.

                                                  Briefly, if Mark 15, 42 - 16,8 is not a post-70 midrash, as you and Ted
                                                  claim and if Crossan's anti-Judean, pro Roman Cross Gospel was Mark's
                                                  Vorlage, as Ted claims, would not the conclusion be inevitable that in Mark
                                                  we have the fountainhead of Christian anti-Judaism? I simply ask, do you -
                                                  like Ted - DENY that Mark (with his 'tomb hewn from the rock') was citing
                                                  lxx Isa 22,16? Is not my interpretation of anablepsasai legitimate in view
                                                  of the 'anablepsas' in Mark 6,41? Therefore, I insist on your producing an
                                                  alternative house of meaning different from the literal interpretation that
                                                  is in concord with the precise building blocks.

                                                  I asked Ted, if Mark had wanted to relate the historical discovery of an
                                                  EMPTY TOMB:
                                                  >> should he not have written in the plural with an accusative in 16 vs >>6,
                                                  >> "idete ton topon,[ hopou ethekan auton]". But now he wrote in
                                                  >> good Hebraic style, "Behold, the (holy) Place" - ide - ho topos
                                                  >> [where they laid him]."

                                                  You, Jeffrey, replied:
                                                  > Why is this good Hebraic style? And what do you make of Gundry's claim
                                                  > that IDE hO TOPOS is perfectly acceptable Greek in the light of the
                                                  > emphatic nature of the pronouncement?

                                                  My answer:
                                                  a) Gundry with a large number of interpreters is defending a historical
                                                  empty tomb, just like fundamentalistic interpreters do. My concern as stated
                                                  above, is in a different direction: "those who (like me) take Mark's tomb
                                                  story to be a metaphor are obliged to build a new house of Mark's meaning
                                                  using every word and every turn of phrase as building blocks in search of
                                                  that assumed original meaning. We owe that to our fellow
                                                  believers in the pew.
                                                  b) I claim Mark was a Judean familiar with the vivid manner of speaking in
                                                  the Torah and the prophets. The Hebrew figure of speech " re'ah - Greek
                                                  "idou" is similar to the French "voici" or the English: 'Lo, behold'. To
                                                  cite some examples Gen 31,50 ["See, God is witness between you and me!"]; cf
                                                  Gen 27,27; 41,41.

                                                  In the context of Isa 22,16, the 'door' of the temple would stand for the
                                                  grand Nicanor gate giving access to the "Holy Presence"; the readers would
                                                  have understood that the sealing off that 'door' by a large stone, referred
                                                  the excommunication of the followers of Jesus to enter the "Holy". I
                                                  concluded this in view of the ominous Nisan 16 date of the 'funeral' story
                                                  and the Nisan 17 date of the resurrection message. The interpretation is
                                                  reinforced by the well known Hebrew metaphor "the Place" [Hb maqom, Gr.
                                                  Topos] when referring to the central section of the Temple: the 'Holy' and
                                                  the 'Holy of Holies', symbolizing the 'holy Presence'. Both in Tenach and in
                                                  the Talmud, the Presence of God is frequently simply called "the Place", as
                                                  you well know.
                                                  My interpretation doesn't rest purely, of course, on grammar - in any
                                                  midrash the evidence is cumulative. It is the context of situation of the
                                                  first readers that should guide the interpreter. I am simply arguing, that
                                                  while the grammar in a literal EMPTY tomb story, requires 'idete (plur) ton
                                                  topon (accus), the Hebraic rendition "Behold, the Holy Place" fits very
                                                  well indeed in a midrash re. a temple that had just been destroyed. In 70
                                                  CE the readers had been confronted by that horrible fact ( the women flee in
                                                  horror); they also remembered the persecution of their leaders in Jerusalem,
                                                  which Mark also evokes with his midrash. For the burial and the rolling of
                                                  the heavy stone before the "door" of the tomb take place on Nisan 16!, the
                                                  new date for the beginning of the harvest that was forced on the entire
                                                  population approximately 41 CE. It eliminated the Sunday as the festive
                                                  beginning annually of Pentecost and by that excommunicated Peter and the
                                                  apostles in a sense ( the sealing off of the Nicanor gate. The bitter
                                                  persecution of leaders of the Jesus' movement (John decapitated! and Peter,
                                                  imprisoned) by Herod Agrippa MOST likely coincided with this introduction
                                                  of the NEW (Pharisaic) Nisan 16 date by Herod.

                                                  It is this creative way of writing a midrash, with a compact, visual
                                                  depiction of invisible realities, that is typical of the art of Mark's
                                                  writing. For the modern reader, used to the Easter story (either accepting
                                                  it or rejecting it as a fairy tale), this interpretation seems unfamiliar,
                                                  strange, even phantastic. But in view of the post-70 context of Mark's first
                                                  readers and placed in the preceding heavy emphasis on Jesus' passion on
                                                  Sion, (- the passion story takes place in or near the temple -) it is not
                                                  strange at all.

                                                  Finally, you were asking why Mark did not use the exact word order and word
                                                  form when citing lxx Isa 22,16 "a tomb hewn from the rock".

                                                  Of course, Mark does not literally following that word order. His citation
                                                  fits the grammar needed for his narrative. It is a citation 1) because three
                                                  words (a verbal form and two nouns) are the same and 2) the expression a
                                                  "monument hewn from the rock" occurs just ONCE in Tenach, assuring the
                                                  author that his audience, - at least the presbyter knowing the Scripture by
                                                  heart - would remember the incident that referred to the destruction of the
                                                  first temple. For the sake of the modern reader in the pew,

                                                  cordially,

                                                  Karel
                                                • Karel Hanhart
                                                  ... From: Theodore Weeden To: Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Prelude to
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Apr 3, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...>
                                                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:37 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Prelude to Replies: Jesus' Hidden Transcript


                                                    Ted wrote:

                                                    Karel, I have always been indebted to continental scholars. Just check the
                                                    > bibliography of my Mark-Traditions in Conflict_.

                                                    Reply:

                                                    Ted, I followed the train of your argumentation from the very start at the
                                                    shunting-yard, your "Traditions in conflict". you didn't reach the meaning
                                                    MARK INTENDED.


                                                    What I meant with respect
                                                    > to you and me being hermeneutically continents apart is just that. We
                                                    > differ in so many ways in our reading of Mark, etc. But in recognizing
                                                    > that, I am not dismissing you or your work. But for us to engage on all
                                                    > the
                                                    > issues over which we are in disagreement would just take more time than I
                                                    > have right now. I am already way behind on trying to revise a number of
                                                    > book length manuscripts for publication. And it is difficult now to keep
                                                    > up
                                                    > with responses to posts I submit to XTalk. Rather than dealing with all
                                                    > the
                                                    > issues over which we disagree, perhaps taking one issue would be more
                                                    > manageable, say the Markan provenance. Jeffrey Gibson has indicated his
                                                    > willingness to upload an essay I have written, and need to revise further,
                                                    > regarding my theory that Mark's community is located in the village region
                                                    > of Caesarea Philippi. After, I have replied to posts addressing my thesis
                                                    > about Jesus' hidden transcript as it pertains to the cause of his death, I
                                                    > would be willing to revise my essay on Mark's provenance and have Jeffrey
                                                    > upload it --if the issue of the Markan provenance would be something you
                                                    > and
                                                    > others would be interested in addressing..
                                                    >
                                                    >> In that respect, European scholars have
                                                    >> perhaps been more deeply and existentially preoccupied with questions
                                                    >> concerning the JUDEAN background of the Gospels. For the Shoah took place
                                                    >> within its borders and, as we know, the pre WW II liberal Protestant
                                                    >> exegetical exegesis contributed a good deal to what I would call the
                                                    >> de-Judaization of the Gospel in pre-World War II Europe.
                                                    >
                                                    > It is not my intent to de-Judaize the Gospels. And I have a deep,
                                                    > soul-felt
                                                    > distress over the holocaust. My sister is a Jew, having converted to
                                                    > Judaism after marrying a Jewish physician. I have had close relationships
                                                    > with her Jewish friends and rabbis. I have some existential awareness of
                                                    > the terrible, tragic impact of Christian anti-semitism on Jews.
                                                    >
                                                    >> It will do no good, moreover, if we dismiss the exegesis of the TEXT
                                                    >> ITSELF
                                                    >> by simply flinging presuppositions at each other. In this respect I find
                                                    >> the
                                                    >> effort of the Funk group commendable to distil from the Gospels through
                                                    >> Formgeschichte what may have been authentic saying and parables of the
                                                    >> historical Jesus. It is a necessary branch of our science.
                                                    >
                                                    > I have never dismissed the need for careful, self-critical exegesis of the
                                                    > text. However, I have found that many competent scholars can read the
                                                    > same
                                                    > text and come away with different interpretations founded on very
                                                    > substantive marshaling of evidence in support of those respective
                                                    > interpretations. The XTalk exchanges are an example par excellence of
                                                    > that. Sometimes, those of us who hold widely differing interpretations
                                                    > cannot find ways of adjudicating the evidence sufficiently to find a
                                                    > rapproachment. In those cases we can only in good faith and respect for
                                                    > those of different views agree to disagree.
                                                    >
                                                    >> I have problems.
                                                    >> however, with Crossan's presupposed, ORIGINAL so-called "Cross Gospel"
                                                    >> distilled from the second century apocryphal, anti-Judean and pro-Roman
                                                    >> Gospel of Peter. For this Cross Gospel includes an open tomb story. In
                                                    >> other
                                                    >> words Crossan assumes the pro-Roman EMPTY TOMB STORY to be the oldest
                                                    >> layer
                                                    >> of the Gospel.
                                                    >> Do you still agree with Crossan on this basic presupposition?
                                                    >> 1) I have asked you already two years ago about your textual
                                                    >> interpretation
                                                    >> of Mark's canonical tomb ending.
                                                    >
                                                    > I have examined Crossan's evidence of a Cross Gospel very closely. There
                                                    > is much in his marshaling of evidence that appears, or at least at one
                                                    > time
                                                    > appeared, quite cogent to me. A several years ago I compared the Markan
                                                    > empty-tomb narrative with the Cross Gospel and discovered to my surprise
                                                    > that some of the narrative gaps (see on narrative gaps: Meir Sternberg,
                                                    > _The
                                                    > Poetics of Biblical Narrative_) I find existing in the Markan story can be
                                                    > explained if Mark used the Cross Gospel as his hypotext. I developed an
                                                    > essay to show how those narrative gaps are filled or at least accounted
                                                    > for
                                                    > if Mark knew and used Crossan's Cross Gosepl. Perhaps, sometime I can
                                                    > submit
                                                    > that essay to XTalk for the considered scholarly jdugment of you and
                                                    > others
                                                    > as to whether there is any intertextual relationship between Mark's
                                                    > empty-tomb story and the Cross Gospel. More recently, I have argued that
                                                    > Mark created the passion narrative, upon which all canonical Gospels, in
                                                    > my
                                                    > view, are dependent, and that no passion narrative existed prior to Mark.
                                                    > So you see I am in hermeneutical conflict with myself. Perhaps, if I
                                                    > submit what appeared several years ago to be intertextual evidence of
                                                    > Mark's
                                                    > dependemcy on the Cross Gospel, you and others could help resolve my
                                                    > internal hermeneutical conflict.
                                                    >
                                                    >> that Mark is indeed referring to Isa 22? Would not his readers at least
                                                    >> have looked for the meaning of Mark's text by comparing the context of
                                                    >> both
                                                    >> passages (the destruction of the temple)?
                                                    >> b). Was Mark not inspired with his story by the words "I (JWHW) will
                                                    >> open
                                                    >> your graves, o my people" in Ezek 37:12? It is the only instance in
                                                    >> Tenach
                                                    >> where the notion of the opening of graves appears! Is it not logical Mark
                                                    >> used that symbolism for his own message, when his Judean readers would
                                                    >> have
                                                    >> then likewise?
                                                    >> c). Mark should have omitted "anablepsasai" (looking on high) in 16,4
                                                    >> indicating a heavenly vision and he should have written in the plural
                                                    >> with
                                                    >> an accusative in 16 vs 6, "idete ton topon,[ hopou ethekan auton]". But
                                                    >> he
                                                    >> wrote in good Hebraic style, "Behold, the (holy) Place" - ide - ho topos
                                                    >> [where they laid him]." How do YOU explain these obvious grammatical
                                                    >> mistakes in case Mark presupposed an historical EMPTY TOMB or for that
                                                    >> matter given a metaphorical meaning inspired by Isa 22,16?
                                                    >
                                                    > Karel, I think Jeffrey Gibson has recently addressed these exegetical
                                                    > issues
                                                    > with you regarding your claims for the intertextual relationship between
                                                    > Mark and these passages. And I find his response to you with respect to
                                                    > these passages my own response.
                                                    >
                                                    >> These questions can hardly be answered by exponents of a historical
                                                    >> and
                                                    >> literal EMPTY Tomb, they certainly need to be explained on the assumption
                                                    >> Mark did not have a literal empty grave in mind, as I attempted. Crossan
                                                    >> oldest layer leaves that historical option open.
                                                    >> d). How do you explain Mark's seemingly textual mistake by thrice
                                                    >> repeating
                                                    >> "...and AFTER three days rise again", while the women's vision takes
                                                    >> place
                                                    >> "on the third day", the Sunday after the crucifixion. I have offered a
                                                    >> detailed exegesis on the calendar problem, have you?
                                                    >
                                                    > This is one of t he narrative gaps to which I referred above. And I found
                                                    > that if Mark was dependent on the Cross Gospel, then that textual mistake,
                                                    > as you put it, is compellingly explained and the calendar problem, as you
                                                    > put it, has a plausible solution.
                                                    >
                                                    >> How would you answer a, b,c and d, Ted, without eluding the challenge
                                                    >> with
                                                    >> a
                                                    >> simple "I don't share your presuppositions"? It is the text itself that
                                                    >> counts.
                                                    >
                                                    > I think I have responded to this question in what I have stated above.
                                                    >
                                                    >> 2) I also asked you recently about my exegesis of Mark 3, 18-35 versus
                                                    >> yours
                                                    >
                                                    > I am sorry, I cannot recall you posing this exegesis to me. Please
                                                    > refresh
                                                    > my memory.
                                                    >
                                                    >> and 3) your explanation of how Mark's Gospel was ACCEPTED into the canon
                                                    >> if
                                                    >> he - as you say- shows opposition to Simon Peter and to Jesus' family
                                                    >> (including his brother James) . You stated before, "Throughout his
                                                    >> Gospel,
                                                    >> Mark portrays Jesus' twelve disciples in a most denigrating light. He
                                                    >> does
                                                    >> so with the apparent intention of exposing them as apostates (??!! KH)
                                                    >> and,
                                                    >> thereby, undermining and discrediting their post-Easter apostolic
                                                    >> authority
                                                    >> and stature".
                                                    >> Were first century readers not able to detect this so-called aversion to
                                                    >> apostate's like Peter, the twelve apostles and to Jesus' family and
                                                    >> still
                                                    >> adopt Mark into the canon?. If I understand you rightly, you are reading
                                                    >> this apostasy into it, aren't you ?
                                                    >
                                                    > No, I do not think I am reading it into the text. As I pointed out in my
                                                    > _Mark_, Matthew and Luke both recognized the Markan vendetta against the
                                                    > disciples and sought to counter it at numerous points in the text and
                                                    > finally restore Peter and the other disciples by narrating or referring to
                                                    > their resurrection experiences which amount to credentialing them as
                                                    > apostles. If, in my judgment, one reads the Gospel of Mark as the first
                                                    > hearers heard it read, which was its original way it was presented, and if
                                                    > one reminds oneself that these first hearers would not have had the other
                                                    > canonical Gospels to inform their hearing, and if one reminds oneself that
                                                    > these first hearers, unlike ourselves would not know what follows from one
                                                    > Markan narrative episodeto the next (in other words they did not know in
                                                    > advance how the story turned out in the end), then I submit once they
                                                    > heard
                                                    > how the story ends, the only conclusion that could be drawn, if one sticks
                                                    > with the text and not read things into it, is that the story ends with
                                                    > Peter
                                                    > and the Twelve ending up as apostates. The women run from the tomb and
                                                    > do
                                                    > not inform them of the resurrection of Jesus, and the disciples never
                                                    > enter
                                                    > the story again after Judas betrayal, Peter's denial and the abandonment
                                                    > of
                                                    > Jesus by the rest.
                                                    >
                                                    > Mark was accepted into the canon due to (1) its similarity to Matthew and
                                                    > Luke, by virtue of the fact that Mark was, of course. one of their
                                                    > sources,
                                                    > (2) the redactors of Mark providing the longer and shorter endings,
                                                    > thereby
                                                    > restoring Peter and the others to apostolicity, (3) Papias "saving" Mark
                                                    > by
                                                    > assuring via orthocracy (see Frederik Wisse) that Mark was only recording
                                                    > what he heard Peter recount of his and the other disciples' relationship
                                                    > to
                                                    > Jesus, and (4) Mark being sandwiched in between Matthew and Luke in the
                                                    > final canonical order of the New Testament Gospels, thereby giving Mark
                                                    > the
                                                    > appearance of essentially telling the same story, only as an abbreviated
                                                    > version (so Augustine).
                                                    >
                                                    >> 4) You finally and rightly indicated that Mark was opposed to the Judean
                                                    >> Temple establishment, but you also say that he was NOT hostile to the
                                                    >> Roman
                                                    >> occupation forces (??!). I wonder how you can write this when he is
                                                    >> extolling MESSIAH Jesus who was crucified by the ROMAN prefect Pontius
                                                    >> Pilate!!
                                                    >
                                                    > What I have been arguing in the thread, "Temple Act not Jerusalem Entry
                                                    > Caused Jesus' Death," is that Jesus' hidden transcript focused its
                                                    > opposition on the public transcript of the Judean Temple establishmnet and
                                                    > not the public transcript of the Roman imperial order. I have not
                                                    > addressed
                                                    > the issue of who Mark is for or against.
                                                    >
                                                    >> Why then does Mark appeal to the vision of the Human One (like a
                                                    >> bar hash) in Dan 7 written by someone also suffering under a foreign
                                                    >> occupying regime, that time under the heel of Antiochus Epiphanes? Was
                                                    >> not
                                                    >> the entire Judean population suffering under Roman occupation? Mark
                                                    >> refers
                                                    >> to the 'desolating sacrilege' (cited from Daniel) which most interpreters
                                                    >> apply to Caligula's attempt to erect the statue of Zeus in the temple - a
                                                    >> horror to all Judeans - or to the standards of the victorious Roman
                                                    >> legions
                                                    >> after the fall of Jerusalem? Was Mark immune to what happened to the
                                                    >> Judean
                                                    >> people?
                                                    >
                                                    > Again, I have not been addressing who Mark was for or against.
                                                    >
                                                    >> If that is not de-judaizing the Gospel in line with liberal pre-World
                                                    >> War II interpreters, what is? I do have sympathy with the struggle
                                                    >> American
                                                    >> liberal scholars have with a fundamentalistic evangelical right - but
                                                    >> this
                                                    >> should not impede anyone to acknowledge a polarized attitude regarding
                                                    >> Jesus
                                                    >> of Nazareth within the Judean population itself both in Galilee and
                                                    >> Jerusalem. It will not do to transpose that basic Judean polarization on
                                                    >> to
                                                    >> the relatively minor, Christian Judean quarrel between Simon Peter and
                                                    >> Saul,
                                                    >> as you apparently do.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am not de-Judaizing the Gospel of Mark nor Jesus nor Peter nor Paul. I
                                                    > have only argued at this point on XTalk that Jesus was opposed to the
                                                    > Temple
                                                    > cult establishment. Jesus was a Galilean Jew who opposed, as a Galilean,
                                                    > material exploitation and the oppressive dehumanization by the Judean
                                                    > Temple
                                                    > establishment. That does not mean he was opposed to Judean suborbdinates
                                                    > who suffered under the oppression of the elite Judean dominants much the
                                                    > same as the Galilean subordinates did. That distinction must be made.
                                                    >
                                                    > To be opposed to the Temple establishment, represented by chief priests,
                                                    > scribes and Pharisees, does not mean that one is anti-Judean or
                                                    > anti-semitic. It does me that one is opposed to dominants' corrupted use
                                                    > of
                                                    > power to control subordinates for their own self-serving purposes. I am
                                                    > also opposed to that corrupted use of power by the elite dominants of the
                                                    > institutional Church, Catholic or Protestant , fundamentalist, mainstream
                                                    > or
                                                    > liberal. That does not make me, in my view, anti-Christian or
                                                    > de-Christianizing the Gospels in my interpretation of them over against
                                                    > the
                                                    > institutional Church when it oppresses and dehumanizes people, such as
                                                    > women
                                                    > and homosexuals in more recent times, to say nothing of the sordid history
                                                    > of the instititional Church with respect to its oppression and
                                                    > dehumanization of others.
                                                    >
                                                    > Regards,
                                                    >
                                                    > Ted
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > 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
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                  • Theodore Weeden
                                                    ... Bob, I apologize for not getting back to you by now. You have posed below some very good issues to me which I want to address adequately. To do so I
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Apr 8, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Bob Schacht wrote on March 30, 2005:

                                                      >>[snip]
                                                      >>
                                                      >> > Since we are relying here on the Gospels, I think we must remember that
                                                      >> > they were written at a time when the Temple Hierarchy was no longer to
                                                      >> > be
                                                      >> > feared; hence, with respect to them, the "transcript" had no further
                                                      >> > reason
                                                      >> > to be "hidden," even though during Jesus' life, that was a factor to
                                                      >> > consider. Thus, that which was hidden, as regards the Temple
                                                      >> > bureaucracy,
                                                      >> > could at that time be revealed without fear.
                                                      >>
                                                      >>Bob, I am not relying upon the Gospels, per se. But, rather, in my
                                                      >>reconstruction of Jesus' hidden transcript, I am relying primarily upon
                                                      >>oral
                                                      >>tradition that goes back to the historical Jesus himself. The five
                                                      >>parables
                                                      >>I cite, along with other aphoristic material identified in the Jesus
                                                      >>Seminar
                                                      >>data base of the _Five Gospels_, in particular, as being authentic sayings
                                                      >>of Jesus, are cases in point
                                                      >
                                                      > Ted,
                                                      > Thank you for taking my comments seriously and for providing an exhaustive
                                                      > response. However, I do not want the main points to be lost in the thicket
                                                      > of a line-by-line rejoinder, so please allow me to try to summarize a
                                                      > little.

                                                      Bob, I apologize for not getting back to you by now. You have posed below
                                                      some very good issues to me which I want to address adequately. To do so I
                                                      found I needed to review some recent Q scholarship, as well as
                                                      socio-scientific works on the character of Graeco-Roman culture in the first
                                                      century CE. One of the works I have had to order via interlibrary loan. I
                                                      hope to reply to the issues you raise as soon as I can. The analytical work
                                                      I have been doing on Q with the help of the insights of Bill Arnal (_Jesus
                                                      and the Village Scribes_) holds promise of providing additional support for
                                                      my reconstruction of Jesus' hidden transcript.

                                                      Regards,

                                                      Ted
                                                      >
                                                      > If I recall correctly, you raised two main points about Jesus' message:
                                                      > one
                                                      > with regard to the Temple establishment in Jerusalem, and another with
                                                      > regard to the Roman occupation of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. You claim
                                                      > that Jesus had a problem with the former, but none with the latter. You
                                                      > claim (later on in this message) that the Gospels were not themselves
                                                      > "hidden transcripts," even though they were not intended for Roman eyes
                                                      > (possibly excepting Luke). Nevertheless, you were able to reconstruct
                                                      > Jesus' "hidden transcript" about the Temple establishment from the
                                                      > Gospels,
                                                      > but fail to find any hidden transcripts in these same Gospels that the
                                                      > Romans would find offensive-- until the Temple Incident, when Pilate
                                                      > suddenly took such offense that he had Jesus killed.
                                                      >
                                                      > I will try to express my point, that I don't think you have addressed
                                                      > sufficiently, with greater clarity and brevity
                                                      > * Roman power during the period when the Gospels were written was
                                                      > greatly to be feared, and Roman persecution of Christians was no merely
                                                      > theoretical possibility, but a present danger.
                                                      > * The power of the Jewish Temple establishment during the period when
                                                      > the Gospels were written had already been thoroughly crushed and not to be
                                                      > feared.
                                                      > * The gospels were written for the purpose of evangelism, and were
                                                      > regarded as open, not secret, books. This is revealed with consistent
                                                      > clarity in contrast to the emerging work of the Gnostics by the time of
                                                      > Valentinian, and likely sooner.
                                                      > * At the time the Gospels were written, there was no need for "hidden
                                                      > transcripts" about the Temple Establishment in Jerusalem.
                                                      > * During Jesus' life, there probably was a need for "hidden
                                                      > transcripts" *in Judea* with respect to any subversive feelings about the
                                                      > Temple. However, it is not clear to me that there was any such need during
                                                      > the life of Jesus, *in Galilee.*
                                                      > * In Galilee, it is clear that Mark has taken pains to depict Jesus as
                                                      > at odds with those in power, whether or not his use of Pharisees was
                                                      > anachronistic. And it seems that this conflict extends well beyond
                                                      > whatever
                                                      > Jesus thought about Herod Antipas' treatment of John the Baptist. However,
                                                      > Mark seems to portray these differences in a rather different light than
                                                      > Jesus' differences with the Temple authorities in Jerusalem.
                                                      > * One of the clearest and most rock solid things we know about what
                                                      > Jesus talked about is that he talked about the Kingdom of God. And he
                                                      > seems
                                                      > to have done so quite openly, both in Galilee and in Jerusalem. The
                                                      > "hidden" part of that transcript, however, is what he meant by it. The
                                                      > Parables of the Kingdom are notoriously opaque and unhelpful in this
                                                      > regard. But yet its not clear to me that all this talk about the Kingdom
                                                      > had anything to do with the Temple incident. I think you are
                                                      > underestimating the political repercussions of his Kingdom speech.
                                                      > In your effort to follow Scott, you make a great deal of when Jesus was
                                                      > "on
                                                      > stage" and when he was not, asserting that it was only in Jerusalem,
                                                      > during
                                                      > the Temple Incident, that Jesus finally went "on stage." This seems to me
                                                      > a
                                                      > rather peculiar reading of the Gospel of Mark, and must require a very
                                                      > technical definition of what it means to be "on stage" that defies popular
                                                      > usage. In fact, Mark makes a big deal of when Jesus is "on stage" and when
                                                      > he is not throughout the Gospel:
                                                      >
                                                      > NRS Mark 3:8 hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great
                                                      > numbers from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region
                                                      > around Tyre and Sidon.
                                                      >
                                                      > In fact, I count the word "crowd" (ochlos) 29 times in Mark before they
                                                      > even get to Jerusalem. It is hard not to regard Jesus as being "on stage"
                                                      > at these times, especially since he wasn't just hanging out with the boys,
                                                      > but "teaching" them, etc.
                                                      >
                                                      > But then of course we also have Mark 4
                                                      > 10 When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve
                                                      > asked
                                                      > him about the parables.
                                                      > 11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom
                                                      > of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables;
                                                      > 12 in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed
                                                      > listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be
                                                      > forgiven.'"
                                                      >
                                                      > and Mark 8:14-21, etc., where Jesus and the disciples are clearly
                                                      > represented as being "off-stage".
                                                      >
                                                      > Thus, your use of Scott seems somewhat contrived or laborious to me.
                                                      >
                                                      > Please excuse my snipping of your detailed and learned arguments. I hope I
                                                      > have adequately summarized them above, and have not in the process lost
                                                      > or,
                                                      > worse yet, trivialized your meaning. If I have overlooked important
                                                      > segments of your case, please bring them once again to my attention.
                                                      >
                                                      > Thanks,
                                                      > Bob
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > 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
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                    • Theodore Weeden
                                                      David Hinley wrote on April 2, 2005 ... David, I apologize for not replying to your post already. It so happens that some of the issues you raise with me in
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Apr 8, 2005
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        David Hinley wrote on April 2, 2005

                                                        > Ted,
                                                        >
                                                        >>>In perusing the Jesus Seminar's data base of sayings of Jesus
                                                        > (authentic ["red" or "pink"] or inauthentic ["gray" or "black"]:
                                                        > see Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, _Five
                                                        > Gospels_, 549-553) and the data base of specific acts of Jesus
                                                        > (again, authentic or inauthentic: see Robert W. Funk and the
                                                        > Jesus Seminar, _The Acts of Jesus_, 556-569), I can find nothing
                                                        > in either data base that indicates that Jesus' kingdom-of-God
                                                        > ideology was formulated against the ideology of the public
                                                        > transcript of Roman imperial rule. At best, from what I can
                                                        > ascertain from these data bases is that Jesus took at an
                                                        > ambivalent, almost value-neutral position toward Roman rule and
                                                        > domination. The only saying attributed to Jesus in which he
                                                        > specifically mentions the oppressiveness of Roman imperial rule
                                                        > is his saying about paying taxes to the emperor. When shown a
                                                        > coin with Caesar's image, and questioned about payment of taxes
                                                        > to Caesar, Jesus replied, "Render to Caesar the things that are
                                                        > Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Mk.
                                                        > 12:16f.7/GThom 100; cf. Mt. 22:21; Lk. 20:25).<<
                                                        >
                                                        > Ted, IMHO I think you are placing much too much weight on the
                                                        > Gospel accounts of Jesus' actions and sayings as Jesus' own
                                                        > unedited transcripts! You were just arguing for a strong
                                                        > fictional element in Mark, so this puzzles me.

                                                        David, I apologize for not replying to your post already. It so happens
                                                        that some of the issues you raise with me in your post are similar to those
                                                        that Bob Schacht has raised with me in his post of March 30, 2005. I am
                                                        having to do some research that is taking quite a lot of time in order to
                                                        respond to the issues Bob has raised. I will respond to your post as soon
                                                        as I complete my reply to Bob. My reply to him may well address the issues
                                                        you raise in your post here.

                                                        Regards,

                                                        Ted.
                                                        >
                                                        > Assuming that a written account of Jesus' life would be a form
                                                        > of public transcript rather than a special "backstage" view if
                                                        > the real Jesus that closely follows his unedited transcript,
                                                        > isn't it better to proceed as if the authors of the NT Gospels
                                                        > and Acts present a partial rendering of the *author's* (or their
                                                        > congregation's) full transcript, with the missing transcript
                                                        > replaced with a "performance," rather than assume they preserve
                                                        > Jesus' actual "hidden transcript?" (1)
                                                        >
                                                        > Hence the reason I see the Gospels and Acts as essentially
                                                        > apologies for Christianity as it existed in the Gospel author's
                                                        > own time and place, directed to the power structure. "We are not
                                                        > dangerous people. Our founder was a misunderstood moral teacher
                                                        > fulfilling a God-given role in the cosmic scheme of things.
                                                        > Killed on account of the jealousy of the rulers of his own
                                                        > people the Jews, who were unable to see God's cosmic plan, we
                                                        > Christians, though non-Jews, have now grasped the true
                                                        > significance of his role and have been adopted as God's favored
                                                        > children in the place of Jesus' own people, who did not
                                                        > understand. [i.e., the "Jews" revolted, while we are observers
                                                        > of a private mystery cult that accepts the Roman order of
                                                        > things, please don't root us out like rebels]"
                                                        >
                                                        > Any true words of or accounts about Jesus must be recovered from
                                                        > the edited "performance." These sayings and accounts are
                                                        > mentioned because they relate to the power struggle between the
                                                        > Roman elites and the Christian movement (as reflected in the
                                                        > NT), perhaps as examples of bad things elites charged Christians
                                                        > or their founder with doing/being. Christians found it necessary
                                                        > to refashion them to better fit the perceptions of Roman elites.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Scott has a lot to say about both rich and poor (that is,
                                                        > classes of folk) rationalizing the validity of their particular
                                                        > transcript.
                                                        >
                                                        > Sincerely,
                                                        >
                                                        > David Hindley
                                                        > Cleveland, Ohio USA
                                                        >
                                                        > 1) Scott, James C, _Weapons of the Weak_, Yale UP, 1985:
                                                        >
                                                        > "Dissimulation is the characteristic and necessary pose of
                                                        > subordinate classes everywhere most of the time ..." (p. 284)
                                                        >
                                                        > "The fact is that power-laden situations are nearly always
                                                        > inauthentic ... the *normal* tendency will be for the dependent
                                                        > individual to reveal only that part of his or her full
                                                        > transcript in encounters with the powerful that it is safe and
                                                        > appropriate to reveal ... The greater the disparity in power
                                                        > between the two parties, the greater the proportion of the full
                                                        > transcript that is likely to be concealed" (p. 286, emphasis in
                                                        > original)
                                                        >
                                                        > "[T]he weaker party is unlikely to speak his or her mind; a part
                                                        > of the full transcript will be withheld in favor of a
                                                        > 'performance' that is in keeping with the expectations of the
                                                        > powerholder." (p. 287)
                                                        >
                                                        > If we wish to recover more than just the performance, we must
                                                        > move backstage [into safe settings where class members can
                                                        > communicate as more-or-less equals] where the mask can be
                                                        > lifted, at least in part." (p. 287)
                                                        >
                                                        > PS: Boy I wish Scott used "point of view" rather than
                                                        > "transcript!" Sounds like Scott is influenced by the issue of
                                                        > intertextuality, but didn't like the term.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > 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
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.