Sunday, August 1, 2021

My reply to Taylor Brown on Adoptionism in Mark

 Christian apologist Taylor Brown posted an article (here) reviewing Dr. Michael Bird's "Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology".  I replied as follows.  I'm cross posting it here because Taylor has set up his blog to require him to approve replies before they post.


Full text:

barryHold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Christian Revolution.

Hello,

I'd like to see your response to two skeptical contentions, namely, whether reasonableness can coexist with inaccuracy, and if so, whether accusing Mark of adoptionism can be reasonable even if wrong:

First argument:
If it be true that not all positions that are false, are also unreasonable (i.e., sometimes we make innocent mistakes), does this create at least a logical possibility that a person who derives Adoptionism out of Mark's gospel, despite being "wrong", might be "reasonable" nonetheless?

Second argument:
Since Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth, the 4 most viable possibe explanations would seem to be:

1 - Mark mentioned the virgin birth, but this part of his gospel is lost to us.
2 - Mark accepted the virgin birth as truth, but knowingly "chose to exclude" it from his gospel.
3 - Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth because he didn't know about it.
4 - Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth because he thought it was false.

Option # 1 seems unlikely since no Christian scholar argues this and nothing in patristics says Mark mentioned the VB.

Option 2 - seems unlikely since the VB would strongly support Mark's theory of Jesus' true identity. Mark choosing to exclude it is akin to an author who "chooses to exclude" Abraham Lincoln from a study of the Emancipation proclamation.

Option 3 - seems unreasonable assuming the a.d. 70 date the Christian scholarly majority assign to Mark, for then Mark must be thought to have somehow never have heard about the VB even 40 years after Jesus died. If the VB stories are historical truth, seems unreasonable that none of Mark's companions or associates during those 40 years said anything to him about the VB. And if we believe Irenaeus that Cerinthus the low-Christology Gnostic lived at the same time as the apostles, seems likely Mark would have been hearing "Jesus wasn't born of a virgin" at least a few times during that 40 year period.

Then again, Option 3 might be reasonable given we'd reasonably expect a person with a goal to prove Jesus' divine origin to find the VB a powerfully supporting evidence he wouldn't likely "chose to exclude"

Option 4 seems reasonable because even conservative scholars of Markan Priority persuasion affirm that Matthew often upgrades Mark's Christology (e.g. he changes Mark's "Jesus COULD not" to "Jesus DID not", and its probably not sheer coincidence that this change just happens to add a layer of protection to high-Christology. That is, the author of Mark is not a person who would likely ascribe to the high Christology found in the VB (I am not a Christian, and so i don't automatically assume that whatever we find in Mark is authentically from Mark, so I will not worry that my interpretation of something about Mark is wrong if it cannot be harmonized with something else found in "Mark").

Assuming that Mark thought the VB story true, can't Option 3 or 4 be "reasonable" even granting for the sake of argument that they are "wrong"?
I mean, it's not like Mark's reasons for omitting the VB are equally as clear as his association with Peter. And it's not like the reason most NT authors remain silent about the virgin birth is equally as clear as their reasons for thinking Jesus is Lord. The more obscure the "truth" that skeptics are denying, the more reasonable they can be to deny it, amen? barryjoneswhat@gmail.com


No comments:

Post a Comment

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...