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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Apr 1 12:37 PM
      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 2 of 26 , Apr 2 5:06 AM
        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 3 of 26 , Apr 3 12:33 PM
          ----- 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 4 of 26 , Apr 3 12:54 PM
            ----- 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 5 of 26 , Apr 8 5:04 PM
              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 6 of 26 , Apr 8 5:11 PM
                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.