Re: [XTalk] From the HJ to the historical disciples
- Jospeh wrote:
Can a midrash be written by an eyewitness? A midrash, it seems to me,
can only be produced by a non eyewitness and in the midst of a community
who has specific views as far as political and religious questions are
The midrash reflects the condition of place and time in which
the said community was trying to say itself by redefining its distant
Why distant past?
I don't accept this definition. I suspect this confirms my view of "midrash" as the "new myth".
Is there a historical kernel to a theological event? This is possible
but not necessary. In what pertains to my theory, only the theological
events that are attributable to the disciples and eyewitnesses are of
interest. The way Matthew has altered the profession of faith of Peter
as it had reached him in the Markan version has no importance for my
The question is not whether or not it is necessary, but whether or not it is true. Granted that we might not be able to recover it, but anytheory which simply brushes it aside is open to question.
Right now, I can only notice the dual parallelism between those
two events and the confrontations with the demons. The disciples
identified themselves with the demons, and peter is identified with
Satan. Connections of this nature are very important in my theory. They
allow me to see what is going on in the mind of the disciples and what
they are struggling with.
Is that parallelism significant in these terms, or simply part of the wider dualism of a Judaism and Christianity which believed itself to be in a permanent struggle with Satan and sin? And does the language arise from Jesus, from the disciples (in this significant way), from the disciples (in a differently significant way), from Mark, etc?
I have been asking questions of this sort since the beginning this thread. I have yet to see an answer to my questions. I have seen frequent re-assertions of your theory, but without any really attempt to address the difficulties I have with the grounds for your theory. It's a bit frustrating, Joseph. How can a conversation take place when the participants simply talk past each other?
One last remark. I don't think there was a historical kernel to the
triple prediction of the resurrection. The reason is simple. The
witnesses who are responsible for that theological event are honest
enough to admit, in a coded language, that no such prediction ever took
I will stop here. I want to go back to the parable of the sower.
And here we are again, with this stubborn return to assertions of "coded language" and a theological event. You have not yet established that there really is a coded language. What you term coded language can be explained by existing means of analysis, and arguably better explained by those means. In order to demonstrate that your theoory is better, and prior theories inadequate, you must address some of the questions which are raised by your claims. If you can do that, I wll take your theory and its method seriously. But I do need to feel that you are taking other points seriously. How can you simply assert that "no such prediction ever took place"? You weren't there. It might be likely that Jesus didn't make *that* prediction, but I have already offered you a perfectly possible alternative explanation, which I you simply ignore.
So you have some work to do, I think, before you are in a position to carry listmembers with you in your exposition of the sower.
Rev Tony Buglass
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 01/07/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Joseph Codsi writes
> How do I propose to "prove" my theory?It seems to me, Joseph, that you simply don't have enough evidence yet to
> Everything is based on the gospel of Mark. The proof takes the form of a
> novel reading of the Markan texts. Among the major passages I have
> identified as important, the parable of the sower and the
> misunderstanding about the yeast of the Pharisees play a pivotal role.
> They allow me to identify the question that was troubling the disciples.
> On the one hand, they acknowledge that Jesus initiated them into the
> mystery of the Kingdom of God. He treated them as those who are
> "inside". He told them: "To you has been given the mystery of the
> Kingdom of God" (parable of the sower). On the other hand, they admit
> that Jesus treated them as those who are "outside" (the yeast of the
> Pharisees). This different treatment cannot be pertaining to the Kingdom
> of God. It must be about something else. So the first thing we should do
> is identify the topic in relation to which Jesus kept them "outside".
> Here we do not have a clear identification of the Christian mystery as
> it is said in the Easter revelation. The identification is done
> indirectly, and through the mediation of the Eucharist. The allusions to
> the feedings of the five and four thousand are linked, in the mind of
> the disciples, to the Eucharist. Now the Eucharist is a recollection of
> the death of Jesus and a participation in the Easter mystery. The
> reference to the Eucharist allows me to link the blindness of the
> disciples to the Easter mystery.
> This dual admission, on the part of the disciples, means that they had
> been initiated into the Kingdom of God, not into the Easter mystery.
> This is how I prove that, on the basis of the disciples' own testimony,
> they had not been instructed in the Easter mystery. What follows
> immediately and without any doubt is that all the things that are
> mentioned in the gospel and which locate, in a pre-Easter context,
> things that pertain to the Easter revelation are not historical.
prove your point. Mere plausibility is not enough. There is probably no such
thing as "proof" of such a hypothesis. Even if Mark appeared before us in
the flesh and admitted that he lied, that would not be proof. Even if we
discovered an ancient copy of Ur-Mark that told the story as you claim it
really happened, and all scholars in the field agreed in dating the text to
the early first century, that would not be proof.
But we can amass evidence, and assign a weight of probability. Here is one
example of the kind of evidence I am looking for: You might give historical
examples of other literature (in any field) where other scholars have said
that the text clearly betrays that the writer knows he is creating a lie
because of certain artifacts in the text. Failing that, can you at least
give other examples from the text of Scripture, outside of Mark, where this
same phenomenon occurs?
As soon as you claim to "prove" something or assert that "what follows . . .
without any doubt," you run into trouble. If that were true, then everyone
on this list would immediately agree with you. If instead you would use
language like "it seems compelling to me that . . ." it might be more