Some might argue that this just represents two different ways of characterizing the same metholodology. I leave it up to the reader to figure out whether it really is or not.
The point is that when we develop the answers to basic questions we come up with solutions. For instance if anyone dared ask how the heck did Christianity learn to love the MEANS OF EXECUTION of its God Jesus? we might be able to develop an answer to the question of the origins of 'Cross worship' in Christianity.
As it is scholars simply take for granted that it developed 'naturally' - i.e. innocently - and go on to investigate 'deeper questions.'
Nevertheless I have always been stuck on the simple things. I can't get my mind around how the first Christians learned to venerate the ancient version of the electric chair. It doesn't seem at all natural to me or even plausible.
I don't doubt that Jesus might have been crucified but I can't argue that it had to have happened just because Mark says that he was. The only thing that should raise eyebrows is the fact that the religion of the Cross was raised in an age where massive numbers crucifixions were being established in Palestine.
One can't prove that there was a causality here. Nevertheless the contemporary context is worth considering.
One doesn't need to accept that it was necessarily part of the war effort. Mark could have just 'noticed' the crosses being established by Titus and 'connected' them with the Jesus crucifixion that he witnessed years earlier.
Yet there is more to the story. The gospel that Mark wrote is fascinated with Daniel 9:24 - 27 and its connection to the modern age. Almost all early Christian Church Fathers make the connection with the Jewish War. It is difficult to argue against some sort of 'monkey see, monkey do' here.
Mark - whoever he was - was influenced by the contemporary crucifixions in Palestine if one accepts the 70 CE date for the establishment of his gospel. The question comes down to establishing what that relationship between author and contemporary historical environment was.
You don't have to accept Marcus Agrippa as Mark. You don't have to accept my tentative attempts to identify parallel theologies of the cross developed by contemporary Palestinian Mark figures. The Agrippa theory in my mind represents a theory which hammers a great number of nails into place and actually develops an explanation of the foundation of Christian in real historical time which actually beats the Catholic model.
I am always welcomed to other theories. I just can't come up with anything better to explain the underlying historical phenomena as I see it on my own.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
