User talk:Samkratzer

Howdy - with some regret I reverted your change to Jesus, because it referred to something outside of the Bible and thus it seemed like "apologetics". If there is something in the Bible itself which explains an otherwise odd action then by all means provide it - we do not oppose citing the Bible itself. However once the door is opened to rationalizing away all the weird bits of the bible using "any damn argument that suits", it seriously defeats the purpose of providing a skeptical framework.

However we also give our own interpretations at times and this is fine. So if you frame opinions with words like "this may mean" then that's OK. It's lengthy passages explaining "the true meaning" will be frowned upon (whether positive or negative in tone). VOX HUMANA  04:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there,

I appreciate your thoughtful comment on my recent edit, and agree with the premises by which you made it. However, aside from having referenced the name generally given to the theory I outlined (and mentioning that it is a widely held one), I believe that the clarification was constructed solely from a literary analysis of the biblical text itself, not from reference to some other source. As I mentioned on the edit page, I am a firm believer that in order to meaningfully engage opposing views, one must always engage their strongest forms. My edit was made in that spirit. With that said, your point regarding potentially dispositive language is well taken. - Sam


 * Your original text was "This anecdote is understood by most Christian scholars to be an analogy to Jesus' renunciation of the Jewish temple, by way of a literary device known as the "Markan Sandwich". The Gospel of Mark divides the fig tree story into two parts, inserting the "Cleansing of the Temple" narrative in between the two, suggesting that Jesus' interaction with the fig tree - whether it is historical fact or literary exposition - is representative of his interaction with a corrupt Jewish temple system."


 * Fair enough. So treat me as completely ignorant - what basis is there for interpreting this as an analogy? If simply being adjacent to some other tale is sufficient, doesn't this open the door to freeform interpretation of the Bible based on adjacency?


 * Please bear in mind that the internet (and Christian scholarship) is rife with people "explaining away the Bible" using almost any idea that comes to hand. These analyses (while not necessarily being wrong) are starting from a position of bias - ie. "The Bible is inherently good". We reject that position. However, despite our snark we do not (or should not) have the opposite attitude that the Bible is inherently wrong. We want to maintain a skeptical position in that the Bible must stand or fall on its own merits, not by extensive post facto rationalization. VOX  HUMANA  05:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As the following response runs the risk of violating your original standard - ie. that an argument in defense of the Bible not refer to anything outside the Bible itself - it seems necessary that I further clarify the intention of my argument. I do not endorse or attempt the use of cherry-picking to rationalize otherwise unreasonable positions, nor do I believe that it is appropriate to assign meaning via "extensive post facto rationalization".


 * However, I do contend that the literary context in which a text was originally written is an important consideration in deciding how that text might be appropriately interpreted, especially in the recognition of literary devices. The passage in question (I refer to the version in Mark 11) has a chiastic structure, meaning that it follows an A-B-A thematic organization; more complex chiasmi have progressively deeper levels of this pattern (A-B-C-B-A, etc.). Chiastic form of this kind is typical of ancient literature - including that of Greek literature at the time the Gospels were written - and used to establish a relationship between the contained ideas. The Gospel of Mark in particular is full of passages that follow this A-B-A pattern, wherein Mark interrupts the telling of one story to introduce another related story, then proceeds to finish the first story. In this case, the pattern is:


 * A: Jesus curses a fig tree for bearing no fruit
 * B: Jesus curses the practices of the Temple of Jerusalem, casting out money changers
 * A: Peter notices that the fig tree that Jesus cursed has withered


 * The degree to which Mark's writing conforms to chiastic patterns may suggest that it is reasonable to interpret this passage to mean that Jesus was drawing a connection between the himself, the Jewish system, and the fig tree. Symbolism relating the fig tree to various Messianic concepts in the rabbinic traditions of Jesus' time, contained in the "Oral Torah" (redacted into the Mishnah in the 3rd century A.D., but dating back in tradition thousands of years before then), may offer clues to what such a connection might be. This, however, enters into the realm of purer speculation. Suffice it to say that, given the information laid out here, I personally find it more likely that Jesus - who, it must be remembered, was a rabbi - was seizing an opportunity to teach his talmidim (disciples), and not merely carrying on a misplaced bout of anger. - Sam