The Timing of the Gospel of Mark

[TimRout]

BTF

I sure hope you don't sense a patronizing tone in my writing. Certainly none is intended. I am merely trying to grasp the implications of your position. Thank-you for clarifying it.

Given that you believe the Gospel writers "applied the sayings (of Jesus) as best they could to the situations that they were living in", where does this leave you on the matter of biblical inerrancy?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I sure hope you don't sense a patronizing tone in my writing. Certainly none is intended.

Ok fair enough, I guess I just supplied a negative tone to what I was reading in my head.

Given that you believe the Gospel writers "applied the sayings (of Jesus) as best they could to the situations that they were living in", where does this leave you on the matter of biblical inerrancy?

No, I do not hold to inerrancy. I do not believe that the primary function of the Bible is to give an exact record of historical accounts. Rather, its function is to lay down the terms of the new covenant and how God relates to His people

 

[TimRout]

No, I do not hold to inerrancy. I do not believe that the primary function of the Bible is to give an exact record of historical accounts. Rather, its function is to lay down the terms of the new covenant and how God relates to His people.

Without reading in angst where none exists, please help me understand your position -- because I truly am having difficulty grasping your logic.

You speak of the Scriptures laying down the terms of the new covenant. I agree. They do. But since you believe the canon is not inerrant as originally given, this generates a significant problem.

How does one apprehend the requisite particulars of the new covenant in Christ's blood, when one cannot view the Scriptures as a reliable source?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

How does one apprehend the requisite particulars of the new covenant in Christ's blood, when one cannot view the Scriptures as a reliable source?

I really think that we are talking past each other at this point. I said that the Scriptures were not inerrant. I said nothing about infallibility. Therefore, I do not think that the Bible is 100% factual. That does not mean that it is unreliable on theological grounds. In fact because I do believe in infallibility, I believe that it is reliable on theological grounds.

In other words, I am perfectly fine saying that particular stories in the Bible did not literally happen as they are recorded. However, the theology behind said stories is completely true. As an example that is well removed from what we are discussing now, I do not believe that there was actually a global flood. I do not see the geological record for a flood of that magnitude. Hence, I think that the Bible is not inerrant. But, the story of the flood is to demonstrate that God is in control. The myth of a flood would have been very well known to the Israelites but it would have included the idea that other Mesopotamian or Canaanite gods were the ones involved. Hence, the Israelites took the story and said that, no it wasn't these foreign gods who have this power, it is YHWH and YHWH alone who wields that kind of power. As such, in my opinion, the story did not literally happen, but the theological meaning behind the story (that God is in control and the other gods do not exist) is completely true.

Does that make more sense?

 

[TimRout]

I really think that we are talking past each other at this point. I said that the Scriptures were not inerrant. I said nothing about infallibility. Therefore, I do not think that the Bible is 100% factual. That does not mean that it is unreliable on theological grounds. In fact because I do believe in infallibility, I believe that it is reliable on theological grounds.

In other words, I am perfectly fine saying that particular stories in the Bible did not literally happen as they are recorded. However, the theology behind said stories is completely true. As an example that is well removed from what we are discussing now, I do not believe that there was actually a global flood. I do not see the geological record for a flood of that magnitude. Hence, I think that the Bible is not inerrant. But, the story of the flood is to demonstrate that God is in control. The myth of a flood would have been very well known to the Israelites but it would have included the idea that other Mesopotamian or Canaanite gods were the ones involved. Hence, the Israelites took the story and said that, no it wasn't these foreign gods who have this power, it is YHWH and YHWH alone who wields that kind of power. As such, in my opinion, the story did not literally happen, but the theological meaning behind the story (that God is in control and the other gods do not exist) is completely true.

Does that make more sense?

Thank-you for clarifying your position. My confusion is understandable, given that conservative evangelicals generally view the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" as synonyms when speaking of Scripture.

If I understand you correctly, a biblical story need not be rooted in actual history to have theological value. Given your stated hermeneutic, what do you make of the Lord's resurrection?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Thank-you for clarifying your position. My confusion is understandable, given that conservative evangelicals generally view the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" as synonyms when speaking of Scripture.

Perfectly fine and understandable.

If I understand you correctly, a biblical story need not be rooted in actual history to have theological value.

Precisely. However, that does not mean that everything in the Bible is not historical which brings us to this...

Given your stated hermeneutic, what do you make of the Lord's resurrection?

Do not worry, I would never deny the resurrection. The problem with claiming to not believe in inerrancy is that people start to assume that you do not believe that any of it happened (and I am not accusing you of this, your question was very important).

However, and I am going to say something controversial so bear with me. As far as inerrancy goes, I view the Bible in a similar way as I view other documents from the ancient near east. That is not to say that there is nothing else to the Bible, there is, that is where my belief in infallibility comes in. However, for actual factual questions, the Bible should be viewed as other documents are. What is interesting is that this yields unexpected results. For instance, I think that there is an amazing historical case for the resurrection and many of the other miracles.

 

[TimRout]

Do not worry, I would never deny the resurrection. The problem with claiming to not believe in inerrancy is that people start to assume that you do not believe that any of it happened (and I am not accusing you of this, your question was very important).

However, and I am going to say something controversial so bear with me. As far as inerrancy goes, I view the Bible in a similar way as I view other documents from the ancient near east. That is not to say that there is nothing else to the Bible, there is, that is where my belief in infallibility comes in. However, for actual factual questions, the Bible should be viewed as other documents are. What is interesting is that this yields unexpected results. For instance, I think that there is an amazing historical case for the resurrection and many of the other miracles.

I am thrilled to hear that you espouse the resurrection. You are indeed my brother in Christ.

What I find somewhat difficult to grasp is HOW you espouse the resurrection. What leads you to believe Jesus' return from the dead is actual, while other biblical accounts are not?

Dear OP: Don't worry. Believe it or not this is relevant to our discussion of Mark.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I am thrilled to hear that you espouse the resurrection. You are indeed my brother in Christ.

Most definitely. We may quibble on details but we are both on basically the same page.

What I find somewhat difficult to grasp is HOW you espouse the resurrection. What leads you to believe Jesus' return from the dead is actual, while other biblical accounts are not?

I was half hoping you would ask and half hoping you wouldn't (ha ha).

The reason I say that is because it is a rather long argument. The short answer is this: Jesus was a messianic figure and contrary to popular belief there were several other people that had claimed to be the Messiah before him. They were all pretty much killed as well. The difference between them and Jesus is that their movements either died out with their death or their followers just began following someone else (like their brother). Then they would abandon their rhetoric of that person being the messiah because he was obviously a failed messiah. He died. The difference between them and Jesus is that when Jesus died, his followers kept following him. In fact they became even more fanatical. Why was that? Something must have happened and the only logical thing to believe is that his disciples at least believed that they had seen him raise from the dead. Even John Dominic Crossan admits that. But unlike Crossan's mass hallucination hypothesis, I believe that it actually makes more historical sense to believe that he rose from the dead.

Many people argue that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because he does not fulfill the expectations of a Jewish messiah, which he doesn't. But this actually lends more credence to his messianic vocation because even though he didn't fulfill their expectations he was still followed.

That as a bit rushed because I gotta run. Also, I am going home for Easter so I might not be be to post for a while (I will try to chech CF occasionally, but family comes first). Sorry if the explanation didn't make sense, I can clarify later.

 

[TimRout]

Most definitely. We may quibble on details but we are both on basically the same page.



I was half hoping you would ask and half hoping you wouldn't (ha ha).

The reason I say that is because it is a rather long argument. The short answer is this: Jesus was a messianic figure and contrary to popular belief there were several other people that had claimed to be the Messiah before him. They were all pretty much killed as well. The difference between them and Jesus is that their movements either died out with their death or their followers just began following someone else (like their brother). Then they would abandon their rhetoric of that person being the messiah because he was obviously a failed messiah. He died. The difference between them and Jesus is that when Jesus died, his followers kept following him. In fact they became even more fanatical. Why was that? Something must have happened and the only logical thing to believe is that his disciples at least believed that they had seen him raise from the dead. Even John Dominic Crossan admits that. But unlike Crossan's mass hallucination hypothesis, I believe that it actually makes more historical sense to believe that he rose from the dead.

Many people argue that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because he does not fulfill the expectations of a Jewish messiah, which he doesn't. But this actually lends more credence to his messianic vocation because even though he didn't fulfill their expectations he was still followed.

That as a bit rushed because I gotta run. Also, I am going home for Easter so I might not be be to post for a while (I will try to chech CF occasionally, but family comes first). Sorry if the explanation didn't make sense, I can clarify later.

Thank-you for your explanation. Would it be fair to characterize you as a neoorthodox thinker?

So herein lies the rub: How does one affirm the historicity of the resurrection yet deny the actuality of the flood, when the flood is clearly asserted by the very same NT writers we depend on for our understanding of the resurrection?

[see: Matthew 24:36-39; Luke 3:36; Luke 17:26-27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5]

One can see the difficulty of your position, given that a literal Noah is clearly established in the lineage of Christ, Jesus Himself is reported as speaking of a literal flood in two of the four Gospels, and Peter (the likely source for Mark) confirms the same. Can you help me understand your hermeneutic?