Another Great Revelation

I know thinking is a dangerous thing especially within the study of the early Church - but why doesn't someone try it for a change?

We have been talking (see previous posts) about the cross-cultural 'Markan' interest in the idea that only the ten utterances (Ten Commandments) came from heaven. We saw that this idea is associated with Mark in Samaritanism (Mark the son of Titus), Judaism (Marcus Julius Agrippa) and Christianity (St. Mark the son of Aristobulos according to the Copts).

Now let's go beyond this little 'interesting coincidence' and actually think about matters for a moment.

Why would we find someone named Mark - undoubtedly Marcus Agrippa, the son of Aristobulos the son of Herod the Great - promoting the idea that only the ten utterances came from heaven in the late first century?

Hmmmm ...

Clock is ticking ...

It's so difficult to actually THINK about things in these terms. We are so used to FORCING ideas through 'supernatural arguments' involving a 'holy wind' it is difficult to get accustomed to actually applying logic to these things.

What else happened in the late first century?

The Flavians ruled the Empire.

No, that's not it ...

Josephus wrote his Jewish history.

No, that's not it either ... but ...

What was the great historical event mentioned in that history that involved the Flavian Emperors Vespasian, Titus and Marcus Agrippa?

Hmmm ... something about a building being destroyed in Jerusalem.

Yes, Titus destroyed the temple of Jerusalem on his daughter's birthday.

But what could that have to do with Marcus Agrippa promoting the idea that only the ten utterances (Ten Commandments) came from heaven?

Geez, I am drawing a blank.

Wait a minute ...

What was it they did in the temple?

Played bingo?

No.

Oh, yeah they fulfilled many of the other six hundred and three commandments that Agrippa is identified by Jewish sources as NOT COMING from heaven and ONLY having been written on the human all too human authority of Moses.

Yeah, but what does this have to do with the gospel?

Well, didn't this 'Mark the son of Aristobolus' develop a narrative where Jesus aka 'God' walks around transgressing a number of those six hundred and three commandments?

Yes, but ...

And didn't the Marqione (i.e. 'those of Mark') emphasize that this meant the Law was over only to be replaced by the more perfect revelation of the gospel?

Yes, but ...

And doesn't the Talmud in Shabbath folio 116b say much the same thing, that in this period in Jewish history Marcus Agrippa ruled Palestine establishing judges who promoted this very same idea and used the gospel as the new law of the land?

Yes, but ...

And doesn't St. Mark the son of Aristobolus have Jesus in his gospel explicitly argue that while Moses gave laws on divorce this wasn't so at the beginning, that there was a difference between the law of heaven and the laws established on the authority of Moses?

Yes, but ...

And doesn't the rabbinic literature portray Marcus Agrippa the son of Aristobolus, the son of Herod the Great consistently differentiating between two Torahs in Israel which the eminent rabbinic scholar Abraham Heschel employed over and over again in his book Heavenly Torah?

Yes, but ...

And wouldn't it make sense then that Marcus Julius Agrippa was the historical 'St. Mark' who wrote the gospel to reinforce the idea that Israel COULD just function with the original ten utterances by writing a text called 'the gospel' which portrayed no less and authority than God walking about the land of Israel in the lead up to the destruction preparing the nation for the end of the sacrificial laws established only on the authority of Moses?

Yes, but ...

Yes, but what?

This theory that Marcus Agrippa was St. Mark and he wrote the gospel to support a reconstitution of the Law of Israel in the aftermath of the destruction of the Jewish temple is mere 'speculation.' We are better off employing the account of the canonical Acts of the Apostles as the basis to the understanding of the development of Christianity in the period. You know the one where we see all sorts of Jews who like Gentiles and 'knew' all at the same time that God had chosen the goyim through the Holy Spirit.

Oh yeah ... how could I be so foolish to have even considered that Huller might have a point with his new book. It's all about that 'stupid throne' he found in Venice. I forgot ...