Very interesting! We surely can’t doubt that Mark considered himself to be advocating a form of Judaism - his Transfiguration narrative makes it clear how happy he thought his fellow believers were within Judaism’s broad tent. But the reason why he chose to make this point is likely to be because it was becoming controversial both ways, particularly under the shadow of the dire events of 70.
He chose to write not in Aramaic, which would have connected him with the anti-Roman Jews of the East, but in Greek, the language shared with the imperialists, and in a fashion that often treats Jewish customs as something to be explained, which surely gives support to the fairly common idea that part, at very least, of his implied audience was the (mainly Jewish) Jesus Movement members in Rome, who must have been wondering amid great anxiety which side they were on, The answer surely is ‘not on the side of the Jewish insurrectionists’.
I’d appeal more than anything to the overall force, thrust, impact of the narrative, whatever we say about individual episodes and phrases, which is that Jewish people of the wrong persuasion pushed a Roman governor who did not originally take their accusations seriously into the murder of the great teacher. He speaks as a Jewish thinker of the right persuasion but he could not help opening up a gulf which would end up with ‘different religions’. I can’t see how the implied Roman audience, somewhat out of touch with Jewish tradition, would have been able to read Mark’s account as a coded reverse of what it appears to be.
We should note, I think, that one of the Jewish customs identified is Corban. The sacralisation of moneys was regarded by Gessius Florus as unethical tax avoidance and that matter was a major issue leading to the grievous War. Mark’s presentation of Corban as suspect and self-serving is taking sides with the imperialists, surely.
I can’t see - lot of things I can’t see today! - how the interpretation of the Centurion’s remark as a pagan cry of triumph can really comport with the development of the story by Mark and Luke.
An extraordinary process went on over a long time whereby a Movement of ‘right-thinking Jews’ became a very non-Jewish, very imperialist faith. It had to begin somewhere. I think the failure of Mark’s effort to hold the thrusts of his narrative - from Transfiguration to Crucifixion - together is a good candidate for the point where it started to happen.
I’m sure this post is too long, sorry
Very interesting! We surely can’t doubt that Mark considered himself to be advocating a form of Judaism - his Transfiguration narrative makes it clear how happy he thought his fellow believers were within Judaism’s broad tent. But the reason why he chose to make this point is likely to be because it was becoming controversial both ways, particularly under the shadow of the dire events of 70.
He chose to write not in Aramaic, which would have connected him with the anti-Roman Jews of the East, but in Greek, the language shared with the imperialists, and in a fashion that often treats Jewish customs as something to be explained, which surely gives support to the fairly common idea that part, at very least, of his implied audience was the (mainly Jewish) Jesus Movement members in Rome, who must have been wondering amid great anxiety which side they were on, The answer surely is ‘not on the side of the Jewish insurrectionists’.
I’d appeal more than anything to the overall force, thrust, impact of the narrative, whatever we say about individual episodes and phrases, which is that Jewish people of the wrong persuasion pushed a Roman governor who did not originally take their accusations seriously into the murder of the great teacher. He speaks as a Jewish thinker of the right persuasion but he could not help opening up a gulf which would end up with ‘different religions’. I can’t see how the implied Roman audience, somewhat out of touch with Jewish tradition, would have been able to read Mark’s account as a coded reverse of what it appears to be.
We should note, I think, that one of the Jewish customs identified is Corban. The sacralisation of moneys was regarded by Gessius Florus as unethical tax avoidance and that matter was a major issue leading to the grievous War. Mark’s presentation of Corban as suspect and self-serving is taking sides with the imperialists, surely.
I can’t see - lot of things I can’t see today! - how the interpretation of the Centurion’s remark as a pagan cry of triumph can really comport with the development of the story by Mark and Luke.
An extraordinary process went on over a long time whereby a Movement of ‘right-thinking Jews’ became a very non-Jewish, very imperialist faith. It had to begin somewhere. I think the failure of Mark’s effort to hold the thrusts of his narrative - from Transfiguration to Crucifixion - together is a good candidate for the point where it started to happen.
I’m sure this post is too long, sorry