Just finished: Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views

While at Southeastern I was fortunate enough to get to attend a conference on the last twelve verses in Mark. Speakers included Daniel Wallace, David Alan Black, Maurice Robinson, J.K. Elliott, and Darrell Bock as the "moderator". Fortunately, B&H Academic has published their papers in a short book titled Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views.

I won't go into great detail about the papers, but I will say that I find a great deal of Elliott's argument very persuasive as well as Dr. Black's and Dr. Robinson's. That is to say, I suppose, the only argument I didn't find persuasive is Dr. Wallace's. Dr Wallace argues that the ending at 16:8 with the postpositive γαρ is original. Elliot notes that if this were some kind of clever device on Mark's part, a cliff-hanger, then it was entirely too clever for Mark's immediate audience. Already by Justin Martyr's time the longer ending seems to be known. Robinson also cites Larry Hurtado who shares the belief that if Mark ended with a γαρ it was so clever that nobody got it until modern scholarship came along.

I think a conglomeration of the three views I find persuasive could work. One thing I'm thinking about is Elliott's proposal that a leaf was lost (a leaf perhaps containg Mk 1:1-3 as well, though Elliott admits the leaves could have been lost at different times). Lets say that Mark published a Gospel that did not end at 16:8 and then due to either scribal error (which Elliott finds unlikely) or due to a leaf being lost, the LE found its way into the manuscript witness. It would have to have happened extremely early, I think, in order for both Justin Martyr and Origen to know of the LE. The manuscript(s) containing the LE would have had to have found their way, or served as exemplars for manuscripts which found their way, into both Judea (where Justin was) and Alexandria (where Origen was) within a very short amount of time.

Another issue I thought about is the Patristic witness of the LE. Unless one of the Fathers wrote a commentary or worked their way through a lectionary, how would you know that a Church Father only knew up to 16:8?

Brant Pitre's Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile - Chapter 1

Big thanks to myself for buying me a copy of Brant Pitre's Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Baker Academic, 2005). As mentioned previously, this is Pitre's Notre Dame dissertation edited for publication.

Pitre opens his book by stating that he is attempting "to trace the development and shape of the concept of eschatological tribulation in late Second Temple Judaism (Pg 2, emphasis his). Secondly, Pitre desires "to determine whether the historical Jesus ever spoke of or acted ont he basis of his own expectation of a period of eschatological tribulation."(Pg 3, emphasis his). Pitre discusses various historical criteria that he employs and adds another: the criterion of "historical congruence" or "contextual plausability" (pg 28). He defines this criterion thusly:

The basic principle of this criterion is as follows: to the extent that features of a saying or deed of Jesus "fit" or are congruent with what is known of his historical setting, especially the context of late Second Temple Judaism, the plausability that they originated with Jesus is increased.

He gives a brief overview of the work of various scholars, showing us a snapshot of contemporary academic work on this question. The most important assessment, in my mind, is that of N.T. Wright's work. Wright's work on Exile is absolutely critical and a breath of fresh air in New Testament scholarship. However, according to Pitre, Wright has accented the wrong exilic syllable, stating: "To put it bluntly: while Wright is absolutely right about the importance of the 'exile', he is fundamentally wrong in his understanding of it." (Pg 32). Pitre critiques Wright's notion that Jews (i.e. those from Judea) considered themselves still in exile, that the Babylonian exile had not ended, though they were back in the land, because there was a foreign force occupying the land (the Romans). However, Pitre notes that Wright does so by confusing the terms "Israelite" and "Jew" (whereas all Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are of the Tribe of Judah) and thus forgets that "there was not only one exile in Israel's history, but two." (Pg 33). Wright also has to redefine what "exile" means in order for it to fit his theory. Pitre's work is here to correct this notion and build upon it.

As such, the Second Temple literature that Pitre surveys in Chapter 2 shows that though the Jews were in the land, their laments of still being in exile were for the fact that the Assyrian Exile of the 8th Century BCE had not yet ended. Israel was still in exile in the Second Temple period and this is the key to understanding much of what Jesus does and teaches.

More on Chapter 2 later...

Carlson's The Gospel Hoax

Not being in school this semester has afforded me a few positive things - one is that I can read anything I want whenever I want, unhindered by school reading (which I usually enjoy anyway). Last Sunday I checked out a few books from the library and Stephen Carlson's The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark. "Wow" is really all I can say. It was so good that I read it in one sitting. Carlson puts to work his legal training, looking through evidence carefully and even-handedly. There's no sense of a vendetta, there's no condescending tone (in fact, if anything, you get the idea that Carlson is kind of proud of Smith for pulling off such a great hoax). "Hoax" is also something that Carlson explains as being different from an outright forgery. Carlson maintains that Smith, or atleast part of Smith, wanted to be caught, and thus hid clues within the text that allow us to see it for what it is : a hoax. Unfortunately, I've already returned the book to the library, so I can't do an extensive review - but I highly recommend it. It's engaging, obviously well-researched, and precise in its argumentation. I look forward to what Carlson publishes in the future.

Book Reviews

After speaking with the master of all book reviews, Chris Tilling, I have decided that I want to do a full-out book review on the blog. Granted, I don't think I have the time or mental faculties to write one as long as his series on Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, but I would like to go section-by-section through a book and critically review it. I figure this will be a good stretch of the mental muscles and will perhaps be the practice swings I take before writing real reviews in grad school (one of my goals). So.....for one, I'd like any advice you have. Secondly, out of the two books by Dr. Bock or the E.P. Sanders books listed below, which would you like to see me review? You didn't know you'd have so much control over it, did you? Well, there you have it. It's like an episode of American Idol. Vote for your favorite contestant.

A side note: I was going to put either Zwingli or Bultmann as an option too, but I figured they would just be the Sanjaya of the competition. (Kidding, Jim!)

Downing's The Bible and Flying Saucers Part II

"The degree of probability of my hypothesis depends on (1) the probability of the existence of flying saucers (which transport beings from another world to ours) and (2) the probability that these space vehicles are the same ones the Bible describes as having been pivotal in the development of the Biblical religion."[1]


This is how Downing opens his second chapter, titled What is the probability that Flying Saucers exist? However, Downing never answers either of those questions. Indeed, his writing style is haphazard, jumping from topic to topic. As a result, this review will probably follow the same style.

On his first issue, the probability of flying saucers, Downing does not offer statistics or scientific facts. Rather, Downing tips his hand early by saying, “the degree of probability which I emotionally feel about the existence of UFOs is 70 per cent belief and 30 per cent doubt, or something on that order.”[2] After stating this, in his usual slapdash fashion, Downing jumps into a discussion on Angels in History.

Downing traces a short history of Angelology, differentiating from the Greek and Biblical thoughts on Angels. The main difference, according to Downing, is that Greek Angels were “geometric soul-points” out in distance space, whereas the Biblical angels are “essentially humanlike beings that have come from above.” After the comparative discourse, Downing puts forth the idea that the Hebrew religion was brought to earth from another planet and being primitive (thus gullible), the Hebrew people accepted it as truth. Downing doesn’t imagine that all of Judaism was given by the angels/aliens, as he notes that the Bible is both “witnessed and digested revelation.”[3] The “primitive” people of this time looked upon the UFO(s) and created a religion out of what they saw.


The author then deals with a few stories he heard from Air Force pilots seeing UFOs, or stories he heard about Air Force pilots seeing UFOs. Speaking about a pilot with whom he had a personal encounter, Downing confesses, “I have, of course, no way of knowing that the pilot was telling me the truth. But this contact was personally important for me because it tended to support what men such as Keyhoe and Edward maintain; that is, that it is Air Force personnel who have the only overall picture of the UFO situation.”[4] Do you notice a trend? “I emotionally feel” that this is the probability. This contact is “important for me” regardless of the veracity of the pilot’s claim. In fact, the man with whom Downing spoke may not even be a pilot for all he knows! I’m not statistician, but I’m pretty sure one can’t “feel” the probability of something.

Once again taking to task the “demythologizers”, Downing writes that “if flying saucers do exist…theologians attempting to develop a realistic Biblical interpretation will have one good historic example of how ‘demythologizers’ have drawn premature conclusions”[5] Similarly, Downing writes “I believe that this will automatically have importance consequences for theology, whether or not modern UFOs have anything to do with the Bible…”[6] Downing’s use of the non sequitur is impressive. Even if UFOs do exist, you have a great deal of hermeneutical work to do to put them in the Bible. Also, I have no idea how, if UFOs have nothing to do with the Bible, they would have any impact on theology.

Getting back to Bishop Robinson, Downing states that Robinson “has the right to maintain that the ascension is highly improbable, but it is by no means impossible in the light of present scientific thinking, particularly if one provides Christ with an adequate space vehicle.” Later, Downing makes a similar statement that if “flying saucers exist, then perhaps we can again argue for a realistic interpretation of the Ascension of Christ (honestly).”[7] At this point, I have to interject. The idea that you cannot argue for a literal Ascension of Christ as is stated in the Bible is unfounded. It may be simplistic, it may be en vogue to find some “demythologized” version of the Ascension, but it is in no way impossible that Jesus literally rose into Heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father. I appreciate what Downing is trying to do here, to be an apologist against the Bultmannians and Bishop Robinsons, but one doesn’t need to appeal to UFOs in order to do so.

A second point on which I want to comment is the use of the word “primitive”. Numerous authors employ it in the same fashion that Downing does, denoting this “gullible” culture that just couldn’t understand the truth of an event, so they come up with wild tales. This is ridiculous and pompous. I don’t like the use of “primitive” to mean “simple-minded”. If you want to describe farming tools as being primitive, then fine. Of course today’s culture is more technologically advanced, but this in no way means that we’re inherently less “primitive” than people who lived during Jesus’ time and before. Indeed, studying the cultures of Biblical times shows advanced thinking. Perhaps we should be mindful of the way we use the term, in order to pay due respect to earlier cultures.

[1] Downing, 45.
[2] Downing, 46.
[3] Downing, 47.
[4] Downing, 59.
[5] Downing, 62.
[6] Downing, 65.
[7] Downing, 67.

Downing's The Bible and Flying Saucers Part I

Downing’s first chapter in The Bible And Flying Saucers (hereafter TBAFS) is on “Space and the Bible”, yet he deals more with the theological scene of his day. The chapter deals with two main camps: the “honest to God” followers of Bishop John A.T. Robinson and the demythologizers following Bultmann.

Beginning with Robinson’s ideas on the Ascension being “mythical”, Downing poses his argument that instead of the “either or” proposed by Robinson, the possibility of a third option exists: Jesus did ascend, but that it was on a “flying saucer” shaped like a cloud. The flaw in Robinson’s argument, according to Downing, is that he “failed to add that the Bible provided a vehicle – a “cloud” – to do the lifting.”[1] Downing never makes mention that Jesus on a cloud is a reference to the Son of Man in Daniel (7:13), however, it would fit well within his theory.

Downing then stumbles crudely over to the demythologization camp. He gives a brief overview of Bultmann’s ideas. Downing suggests that this ideology has separated the church into two groups: conservatives who want to interpret the Bible “realistically” and liberals who “are more concerned with ‘demythologizing’.”[2] Downing attempts to reconcile the two groups with what he calls his “realistic” reading that boils down to : UFO’s did it. Who led the Israelites out of Egypt? Why, UFO’s of course. Jesus’ ascension? You got it, UFO’s.

Apparently the main scientific criticism to Downing’s theory was that UFO’s were a post-WW II invention. Downing claims that people had seen objects in the sky for hundreds of years, however he gives no sources. He also states that the increase in UFO activity was due to the human discovery of nuclear power.[3] Downing sees nuclear power, satellites, and radio waves as a sort of cosmic “fishing hook” by which humans have managed to attract life from other planets.

Back to theological matters, Downing takes to task the demythologizers and John 20:25, the account of Thomas’ doubt. Downing rightly states that “if the Resurrection is mythological, then this passage is meant deliberately to deceive us.”[4] Downing believes that if the Resurrection is mythical, then “we have little right as a Church to preach that the ‘existential resurrection’ of Christ will ensure Christians eternal life.’”[5]

Downing concludes his first chapter with his differentiation between “truth” and “honesty”. Essentially, honesty is internal whereas truth has an external referent. Downing gives the example of a blind man being “honest” about there being no light, but not really subscribing to the truth of the matter: that light exists. Downing discusses the main difference between science and theology; that science is more focused on truth while theology is focused more on honesty. He believes Robinson and Bultmann both are being honest, but not focused on the truth.

Downing closes his chapter with a short critique on demythologization and how it limits theology to a small sphere – the world. Downing’s theory, however, leads into a whole new realm – space. The next chapter in TBAFS deals with the inhabitants of space and the probability of Flying Saucers.

_____________________
[1] Downing 26
[2] Ibid. 31
[3] Ibid. 22
[4] Ibid. 34
[5] Ibid. 34