Thursday, January 28, 2010

Rescuing Detroit's public schools Robert Bobb









































1-12-10 Time Magazine p48 Cleanup Artist
http://time.com/detroit_kids











  • To cleanup the Detroit school system's financial crisis due to widespread corruption
  • Saging enrollments due to emerging charter school and exodus to the subu
  • Budget deficit,and erosion of revenuesBobb's self perception of mission-to improve miserable academic performance of the system.Detroit's graduation rate is 58%.
  • abandonment of Detroit's schools. Tax base nearly gone.Poverty and unemployment pervasive.

  • Bobb arrived last spring and found the following: the district could not afford new books.The district met payroll by borrowing money. Bobb had a reputation of restoring fiscal sanity to city governments and school districts.
  • Denial of budget deficits though Bobb showed a deficit of 303 million. Closed 29 of the district's 194 schools and trimmed payroll of 14000 to 13000.Hired outside firms to restructure 17 schools
  • Bobb's unconventional war- 1.born New Orleans and grew up on a sugarcane plantation 2.During summers he worked in the sulphur pits,3.to cover tuition to Grambling State University,he buffed floors,4. had a series of city management jobs mentioned in next bulleted post.,,,
  • Kalamazoo MI Oakland CA Wash DC's mayor hired him as City Manager and deputy mayor managing a 48 billion dollar budget (annual) and 20000 employees.Three years later President of DC's board of education,

  • Why save Detroit's public schools? .."I wanted to go to an urban school district,the roughest and the toughest.Why? Because I understand the dynamics ,the grit,the opportunities,that are prevalent in urban America.
  • Cost shaving -High school classrooms look like lecture halls - Clashes of student from rival schools likely.Neighborhoods suddenly thrown under same roof137 guidance counselors cut and hired back. Cuts: "Is this good for the kids?" Barbara Byrd Bennett former CEO of Cleveland public schools.
  • Broad academic reforms. 1. system wide standards for prerequisite classes; extension of school day; shuffling of principals; percentage of 4th and 8th graders who perform at grade level in math and reading, wants significant gains in achievement and numbers;
  • By 2015 he wants 90% of all students to complete at least one Advanced Placement course before graduating. "Ambitious goals,he admits." Politics may hinder the attainment of these goals. The elected board states he is overstepping his financial portfolio.He must relinquish academic control to the acting superintendent. Ambitious project to build or renovate 18 schools approved by the voters last November. "We cannot be afraid to win or fail". "Change is painful."

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Anwar al -Awlaki the double life of a terrorist

1-12-2010 Time Portrait of Anwar al -Awlaki
The Al qaeda connection-He hasw been leading a double life as a gentle Imam cleric yetFBI has ben unable to make connections of his stick to al Qaeda.
  1. In 2000 he met with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi two of 5 men who on 9-11 jijacked 2001 would hijack American Airlined Flight77 and fly it into the Pentagon.
  2. Connections to the hijackers after5 9/11. Investigated by US intelligence agencies. Al-Awlaki's phone number found in the Hamburg residence of Ramzi Binalshibh a Yemeni and plotter of the 9/11 debacle.
  3. Left the US for Yemen in March 2002. In October,made one final trip to the US. He was then briefly dwetained at JFK sirport in NYC. FBI's attemto arrest him on false information on a passport came to nothing
  4. Left US and spent two years in London. In 2004,returned to Yemen where he taught at a radical University and was arrested by Yemeni authorities and imprisoned for 18 months for unknown reasons but was never charged. Al-Awlaki blamed the US for pressuring Yemeni authorities to detain him and claimed FBI inettogated him in prison.
Terrorism speaks your language
His books and CD's have become best sellers -You Tube sermons have had thousands of hits.
His target audience is what distinguishes him Young Muslims in the US and Britain. He is a rare specimen who can communicate as a jihadist cleric effortessly with audiences in the West.He has lived among Muslim immigrants with English speaking children who fear that the children will be severed from their roots.(Jarret Brachman Global Jihadism:Theory and Practice, His blog posts contain his fire and message of the conflict of Islam and the West and the duty of all Muslim to join in a holy war against the West as best they can.He has written "44 ways to support Jihad".
From Propagandist to operational player
-It is enough to have the right intention
-Now the preachings tend toward undiluted involvement as a holy warrior
-Physically fit-spiritually to prepar-pray for martyrdom
-Blog post- " I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies.and the day that happens,and I assure you it will and sooner than you think."
-He is no longer content to preach re:counterterrorism experts and due to his association with AQAP which may be the terrorists' most ambitious franchise.
-Operational role in dispute-sitting and planning attacks? Nothing seems to suggest this role. (Ben Veneke of IntelCenter states his connections with Hasan and Abdulmutallab shows a more than passive role as literature disseminator.Yet he lacks combat experience.Pete Hoeksyta ranking Republican on House Intelligence says he influences operational issues . He plays a role in setting strategic direction fo r AQAP.He is vocally encouraging the killing of Americans.
-Since the missile attack on his house,he is in hiding with his tribe in Shabwa province in Yemen.The likely US alternative will be a drone strike which has precedent, but it is also an unpleasant reminder that al_Walaki is not the first brought up in the West and will not be the last.
-In Nov 2002, one of the frist everdrone operations took place in Yemen killing Ahmed Hijazi a suspected Al Qaeda operative.He was an American.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Dr David Ho AIDS vaccine

HIV Vaccine -is a potent vaccine possible? Dr David Ho answers in the affirmative! Time p44
1-12-10 issuePoints in the article that caught my attention were as follows:
  • Not to awaken the immune system with injecting snipets of the virus.Do not expect the bofy to do all the work of first recognition.
  • Why not present the bofy with a ready made arsenal of antibodis? No prepping and priming the immune system needed.
  • Aaron Diamond Research Center NYC and the Bill Gates Foundation steering 7 million his way.
  • Second key receptor the virus uses to invade cells
  • The virus is a moving target Dr Gary Nabel Nat Inst of Health
  • Malaise at Dr Ho's Lab- Thought he found X Factor and had to retract paper- low morale at the lab
  • Scientific slump at the lab personality conflicts. Certain studies kept under wraps
  • 2004 Merck tests ended 3 years later with disappointing results and incrased the risk for some people.
  • 2007-Ho's discovery of the compound produced possibility of an answer. In Houston, the biotech firm Tanox developed a compound that it thought might interest Ho. IBALIZUMAB. Block's HIV entry into healthy cells.
  • Was it worth developing further? Would the virus resist it?
  • IBALIZUMAB works at a critical juncture where HIV meets a healthy CD4 cell.
  • It prevents the infection from entering the cell.
  • A bypassiong vaccine bypassing the traditional and frustrating process of what the immune system needs to fight HIV.
  • Phoned his lab to investigate the literaure on this drug. Functions of the drug. First CD4 is like an immunological sentinel recognizing various pathogens such as influenza and mark them for destruction by other cells. HIV attaches to this CD4 and intrictaely works to invade this cell.IBALIZUMAB. disrupts this "molecular choreography .It binds to the CD4 cell serving as an immunological snare.
  • Tying up CD4 may not be such a good idea.Patient may be vulnerable to other infectious agents .IBALIZUMAB is kmore agile and does not imapir the CD4 function of immunological defense according to Ho.
  • Not on the level of a polio vaccine to wipe out thedisease but one of many weapons to treat HIV.
  • "It takes more than instinct to make good science".Intuition and technical skill is needed to make contact with a significant treatment.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Infinity in the Palm of Her Hand, Jasmine Cutting Loose

http://bookloons.com/cgi-bin/Review.asp?bookid=10862
http://needmoreshelves.blogspot.com/2009/06/review-cutting-loose-by-nadine-dajani.html


Infinity in the Palm of Her Hand

Gioconda Belli's retelling of the Adam and Eve story begins, as it should, in the Garden. Adam and Eve suddenly are - 'From not being to being conscious that he was.' As they begin to explore their idyllic world, they are aware of the Other, a mysterious being who seems to have some stake in their existence. Adam knows the Other's name is Elokim, and hears the Other speak to him on occasion. They also make the acquaintance of the Serpent, a cryptic being who answers more of their questions than the Other. They soon find out, though, that the Serpent may not necessarily be their friend.Staying true to the major events in the narrative, Belli's Eve eats the forbidden fruit, and gives it to Adam, who also eats. The couple is expelled from the Garden, they make their first clothing, kill their first food, and bear their first children. To many readers who cherish the Biblical story, however, this Adam and Eve may be almost unrecognizable.In her Author's Note, Belli talks about discovering the variations on the Adam and Eve tale found in ancient texts such as the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Drawing inspiration from these and other sources, Belli paints a picture of Eve and Adam much different from the one we are used to reading. Eve is curious, adventurous, and quick-witted, and actively seeks answers to many difficult questions. Adam is more cautious, protective, but driven by his love for Eve, and his desire not to be alone. God, in the form of the Other, is distant and cold, seeming to care little about the creatures he chose to make.Gioconda Belli is a poet, and that is obvious throughout the novel. Her words are incredibly beautiful, and even in translation her narrative sings. Her ideas about the nature of God, good, and evil, are fascinating, and make the well-known story come alive in new and unique ways. While her twisting of the traditional narrative will inevitably bother some readers, Infinity in the Palm of her Hand is an excellent addition to the shelves for those who enjoy biblical retellings.

Bharati Mukherjee Jasmine

When Jasmine is suddenly widowed at seventeen, she seems fated to a life of quiet isolation in the small Indian village where she was born. But the force of Jasmine's desires propels her explosively into a larger, more dangerous, and ultimately more life-giving world. In just a few years, Jasmine becomes Jane Ripplemeyer, happily pregnant by a middle-aged Iowa banker and the adoptive mother of a Vietnamese refugee.
Jasmine's metamorphosis, with its shocking upheavals and its slow evolutionary steps, illuminates the making of an American mind; but even more powerfully, her story depicts the shifting contours of an America being transformed by her and others like her — our new neighbors, friends, and lovers. In Jasmine, Bharati Mukherjee has created a heroine as exotic and unexpected as the many worlds in which she lives.
My thoughts:
Initially, I thought this was going to be another novel to put in my Sunday Shorts post of books that didn't really capture my imagination. However, when I realized I was still thinking about it several days later, I decided maybe it deserved a post of its own after all.
This is, upon first glance, a novel about the immigrant experience in America. Jasmine, and her adopted son, Du, both experience the ups and downs of navigating a new world. The story jumps around in time a bit, so it can be confusing until you are able to figure out exactly what the timeline is. Jasmine's observations about the strange and difficult ways of Americans are funny and pointed, often uncomfortably observant about the life her new country leads:
"In America, nothing lasts. I can say that now and it doesn't shock me, but I think it was the hardest lesson of all for me to learn. We arrive so eager to learn, to adjust, to participate, only to find the monuments are plastic, agreements are annulled. Nothing is forever, nothing is so terrible, or so wonderful, that it won't disintigrate."
She sees the irony of people telling her she fits in - that she is "doing well" - because well, as she is aware, is all a matter of perspective:
"At school they say Du's doing so well, isn't he, considering. Considering what? I want to say. Considering that he has lived through five or six languages, five or six countries, two or three centuries of history; has seen his county, city, and family butchered, bargained with pirates and bureaucrats, eaten filth in order to stay alive; that he has survived every degredation known to this century, considering all those liabilities, isn't is amazing that he can read a Condensed and Simplified for Modern Students edition of A Tale of Two Cities?"But deeper than that, this is a novel about naming your own destiny. Jyoti becomes Jasmine when she stows away to America, and then Jase when she lives with the ultra-cool New York couple, and then Jane when she moves to Iowa. Each of these names brings a shift in personality, and the power of naming is subtly examined with each shift. I think part of the reason I wasn't sure I liked the novel initially is because I don't think I like the choice she ultimately makes, and the persona she finally chooses. Of course, that eventually makes me realize exactly how real Jasmine is to me - real enough that I want to read another chapter, or five, to see if that choice actually does end up being the right one.It's an interesting novel - not high adventure, but a great deal to think about. It may not be my favorite of the year, but I'm certainly glad I read it.

Cutting Loose by Nadine Dajanipublished 9/08384 pagesSynopsis from publisher:Meet three women who are as different as could be—at least that’s what they think—and the men who’ve turned their lives upside down as their paths collide in sizzling, sexy Miami. . . .Ranya is a modern-day princess—brought up behind the gilded walls of Saudi Arabian high society and winner of the dream husband sweepstakes . . . until said husband turns out to be more interested in Paolo, the interior-decorator-cum-underwear-model, than in his virginal new wife.Smart, independent, but painfully shy, Zahra has managed to escape her impoverished Palestinian roots to carve out a life of comfort. But she can’t reveal her secrets to the man she adores or shake off the fear that she doesn’t deserve any of it. She also can’t shake the fear that if she holds on to anything—or anyone—too dearly, they will be taken away in the blink of a kohl-lined eye.Rio has risen above the slums of her native Honduras—not to mention the jeers of her none too supportive family—to become editor in chief of Suéltate magazine, the hottest Latina-targeted glossy in town, and this in spite of Georges Mallouk, her hunky-yet-clueless boss, and in spite of Rio’s totally wrong but oh-so-sinfully-right affair with the boss’s delicious but despicable younger brother, Joe.In this city of fast cars, sleek clubs, and unapologetic superficiality, Ranya, Zahra, and Rio wrestle with the ties that bind them to their difficult pasts, and it just might be time for them to cut loose. . . .My thoughts:I'm not sure I've read a book that was this much fun in a long time. Things are heading toward summer in my neck of the woods (I say heading, because we've had a pretty gray and gloomy week, but I still have hope), and Cutting Loose just FELT like a summer book. It's set mainly in sunny Miami, and has a light, breezy tone that would make it perfect "sitting in the sun with a tropical drink in your hand" fare.Dajani's three main characters take turns narrating the novel, and each voice is distinct and developed. I felt an immediate empathy with both Ranya and Zahra - each was facing issues I could completely relate to, and it made me feel a connection to the characters right away. Rio took a little bit longer to click with me, but I came to appreciate her strength and drive, and by the end of the novel was rooting for her as well.When I say the novel is fun and light, I don't want to imply that it is lacking in depth or emotion. All three women have serious obstacles to face - from money and job situations to difficult family and personal relationship issues, each has to face up to their past and decide which path to take, and how to grasp happiness for themselves. It was this honest journey for each of her characters that kept me turning pages, eager to find out what happened next.I completely enjoyed this novel. It would make a perfect beach or vacation read! It does contain adult language and situations, so if that bothers you, you might want to steer clear of this one. However, if you are looking for a novel that goes deeper than the usual chick-lit fare, but still retains the fun and romance, I would definitely recommend you pick up this book.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

John Eccles Theosophy Dualism The Mind Body Interaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Self_Controls_Its_Brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Interactionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm

World 3 world of culture reciprocal creation . Theory of kaballistic emanations.

Chemical synaptic transmissions-role of acetylcholine.

The private innersensory world of the emotions and feelings.

Unity self or pure ego.

Experimental evidence and philosophic position. Karl Popper. Understanding the Human Brain.

Trialist, he accepts 3 worlds . Cartesian dualism rejected . They embrace monism to escape the "enigma of brain mind interaction".

Interactionism -causal interaction of the mental and physical states.Appealing to common sense but very difficult to prove empirically.

Over the course of several decades, partly in collaboration with the philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, Eccles has developed an alternative theory of the mind, known as dualist-interactionism. His basic philosophical starting point is one with which theosophists can wholeheartedly agree:

I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition. . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world. --Evolution of the Brain, Creation of the Self, p. 241

Theosophy evolving of consciousness, of the brain-our spiritual ancestry

Theosophy, too, assigns human beings a spiritual ancestry, but rejects the belief that they were created by a supernatural, extracosmic, an thropomorphic God. If nature is infinite, divinity cannot be outside nature but must be coeval with it and pervade every atom of life. At the heart of every entity is a spiritual monad -- a deathless spark of divinity, or center of life-consciousness -- which imbodies in an endless variety of forms in an endless variety of worlds in the course of its eternal evolutionary development. The earth is merely the latest station on the evolutionary journey of our spiritual monads. The first protohuman forms on earth were huge, ethereal, nonself-conscious beings which slowly materialized, declined in size, and assumed the present human shape. When these physical forms had attained the necessary degree of complexity, the gradual awakening and unfoldment of our latent intellectual and spiritual powers could begin. (See G. de Purucker, Man in Evolution, ch. 19, "Lost Pages of Evolutionary History"; The Esoteric Tradition, ch. 10, "Esoteric Teachings on the Evolution of Human and Animal Beings.") As for what happens after death, Eccles says: we can regard the death of the body and brain as dissolution of our dualist existence. Hopefully, the liberated soul will find another future of even deeper meaning and more entrancing experiences, perhaps in some renewed embodied existence . . . in accord with traditional Christian teaching. --Evolution of the Brain, p. 242 Given his belief that a new human soul is created for every newborn child, Eccles is probably not referring here to reincarnation on earth. But if our souls are to learn from the past and evolve, it would seem logical that they must not only reap what they have sown (in accordance with the law of karma), but must also reap where they have sown, and must continue to incarnate on earth until they have learned all the lessons the earth can teach. Thus, although Eccles recognizes that the mind is relatively independent of the brain and works through it rather than being identical with it, his views still remain limited by several materialistic and theological dogmas. Nevertheless, his attempt to reach out beyond scientific materialism and develop a more spiritual vision is refreshing. Towards the end of his latest book, he writes: I here express my efforts to understand with deep humility a self, myself, as an experiencing being. I offer it in the hope that we human selves may discover a transforming faith in the meaning and significance of this wonderful adventure that each of us is given on this salubrious Earth of ours, each with our wonderful brain, which is ours to control and use for our memory and enjoyment and creativity and with love for other human selves. --How the Self Controls Its Brain, pp. 180-1 (Reprinted from Sunrise magazine, June/July 1995. Copyright © 1995 by Theosophical University Press)

_______________________________________________________________

Sir John Eccles



Outer Sense
Inner Sense
Pure Ego
Light, Colour, Sound, Smell, Taste, Pain, Touch
Thoughts, Feelings, Memories, Dreams, Imaginings, Intentions
The Self - The Soul
"The first level (outer sense) would be the ordinary perceptions provided by all our sense organs, hearing and touch and sight and smell and pain. All of these perceptions are in World 2, of course: vision with light and colour; sound with music and harmony; touch with all its qualities and vibration; the range of odours and tastes, and so on. These qualities do not exist in World 1, where correspondingly there are but electromagnetic waves, pressure waves in the atmosphere, material objects, and chemical substances.
"In addition there is a level of inner sense, which is the world of more subtle perceptions. It is the world of your emotions, of your feelings of joy and sadness and fear and anger and so on. It includes all your memory, and all your imaginings and planning into the future. In fact there is a whole range of levels which could be described at length. All the subtle experiences of the human person are in this inner sensory world. It is all private to you but you can reveal it in linguistic expression, and by gestures of all levels of subtlety.
"Finally, at the core of World 2 there is the self or pure ego, which is the basis of our unity as an experiencing being throughout our whole lifetime.
"This World 2 is our primary reality. Our conscious experiences are the basis of our knowledge of World 1, which is thus a world of secondary reality, a derivative world. Whenever I am doing a scientific experiment, for example, I have to plan it cognitively, all in my thoughts, and then consciously carry out my plan of action in the experiment. Finally I have to look at the results and evaluate them in thought. For example, I have to see the traces of the oscilloscope and their photographic records or hear the signals on the loudspeaker. The various signals from the recording equipment have to be received by my sense organs, transmitted to my brain, and so to my consciousness, then appropriately measured and compared before I can begin to think about the significance of the experimental results. We are all the time, in every action we do, incessantly playing backwards and forwards between World 1 and World 2.
"And what is World 3? As shown in Fig. 6-1 it is the whole world of culture. It is the world that was created by man and that reciprocally made man. This is my message in which I follow Popper unreservedly. The whole of language is here. All our means of communication, all our intellectual efforts coded in books, coded in the artistic and technological treasures in the museums, coded in every artifact left by man from primitive times--this is World 3 right up to the present time. It is the world of civilization and culture. Education is the means whereby each human being is brought into relation with World 3. In this manner he becomes immersed in it throughout life, participating in the heritage of mankind and so becoming fully human. World 3 is the world that uniquely relates to man. It is the world which is completely unknown to animals. They are blind to all of World 3. I say that without any reservations. This is then the first part of my story.
"Now I come to consider the way in which the three worlds interact..."
[3]



Outer Sense
Inner Sense
Pure Ego
Light, Colour, Sound, Smell, Taste, Pain, Touch
Thoughts, Feelings, Memories, Dreams, Imaginings, Intentions
The Self - The Soul
"The first level (outer sense) would be the ordinary perceptions provided by all our sense organs, hearing and touch and sight and smell and pain. All of these perceptions are in World 2, of course: vision with light and colour; sound with music and harmony; touch with all its qualities and vibration; the range of odours and tastes, and so on. These qualities do not exist in World 1, where correspondingly there are but electromagnetic waves, pressure waves in the atmosphere, material objects, and chemical substances.
"In addition there is a level of inner sense, which is the world of more subtle perceptions. It is the world of your emotions, of your feelings of joy and sadness and fear and anger and so on. It includes all your memory, and all your imaginings and planning into the future. In fact there is a whole range of levels which could be described at length. All the subtle experiences of the human person are in this inner sensory world. It is all private to you but you can reveal it in linguistic expression, and by gestures of all levels of subtlety.
"Finally, at the core of World 2 there is the self or pure ego, which is the basis of our unity as an experiencing being throughout our whole lifetime.
"This World 2 is our primary reality. Our conscious experiences are the basis of our knowledge of World 1, which is thus a world of secondary reality, a derivative world. Whenever I am doing a scientific experiment, for example, I have to plan it cognitively, all in my thoughts, and then consciously carry out my plan of action in the experiment. Finally I have to look at the results and evaluate them in thought. For example, I have to see the traces of the oscilloscope and their photographic records or hear the signals on the loudspeaker. The various signals from the recording equipment have to be received by my sense organs, transmitted to my brain, and so to my consciousness, then appropriately measured and compared before I can begin to think about the significance of the experimental results. We are all the time, in every action we do, incessantly playing backwards and forwards between World 1 and World 2.
"And what is World 3? As shown in Fig. 6-1 it is the whole world of culture. It is the world that was created by man and that reciprocally made man. This is my message in which I follow Popper unreservedly. The whole of language is here. All our means of communication, all our intellectual efforts coded in books, coded in the artistic and technological treasures in the museums, coded in every artifact left by man from primitive times--this is World 3 right up to the present time. It is the world of civilization and culture. Education is the means whereby each human being is brought into relation with World 3. In this manner he becomes immersed in it throughout life, participating in the heritage of mankind and so becoming fully human. World 3 is the world that uniquely relates to man. It is the world which is completely unknown to animals. They are blind to all of World 3. I say that without any reservations. This is then the first part of my story.
"Now I come to consider the way in which the three worlds interact..."[3]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)

In 1966 he moved to the United States to work at the Institute for Biomedical Research in Chicago. Unhappy with the working conditions there, he left to become a professor at the University at Buffalo from 1968 until he retired in 1975. After retirement, he moved to Switzerland and wrote on the mind-body problem.
In 1990 he was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in recognition of service to science, particularly in the field of neurophysiology. [2] He died in 1997 in Locarno, Switzerland.
Eccles was a devout
theist and a sometime Roman Catholic, and is regarded by many Christians as an exemplar of the successful melding of a life of science with one of faith. A biography states that, "although not always a practicing Catholic, Eccles was a theist and a spiritual person, and he believed 'that there is a Divine Providence operating over and above the materialistic happenings of biological evolution'..."

Eccles was President of the Australian Academy of Science from 1957 to 1961 at the time of the construction of the Shine Dome.
In the early 1950s, Eccles and his colleagues performed the research that would win Eccles the Nobel Prize. To study synapses in the peripheral nervous system, Eccles and colleagues used the stretch reflex as a model. This reflex is easily studied because it consists of only two neurons: a sensory neuron (the muscle spindle fiber) and the motor neuron. The sensory neuron synapses onto the motor neuron in the spinal cord. When Eccles passed a current into the sensory neuron in the quadriceps, the motor neuron innervating the quadriceps produced a small excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP). When he passed the same current through the hamstring, the opposing muscle to the quadriceps, he saw an inhibitory postsynaptic potential (IPSP) in the quadriceps motor neuron. Although a single EPSP was not enough to fire an action potential in the motor neuron, the sum of several EPSPs from multiple sensory neurons synapsing onto the motor neuron could cause the motor neuron to fire, thus contracting the quadriceps. On the other hand, IPSPs could subtract from this sum of EPSPs, preventing the motor neuron from firing.
Apart from these seminal experiments, Eccles was key to a number of important developments in neuroscience. Until around 1949, Eccles believed that synaptic transmission was primarily electrical rather than chemical. Although he was wrong in this hypothesis, his arguments led him and others to perform some of the experiments which proved chemical synaptic transmission. Bernard Katz and Eccles worked together on some of the experiments which elucidated the role of acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter.
[edit] Philosophy

Czech psychiatrist Cyril Höschl (left) and Sir John Carew Eccles (1993).
In 'Understanding the Human Brain' (1973), Eccles summarizes his philosophy as follows:
"Now before discussing brain function in detail I will at the beginning give an account of my philosophical position on the so-called brain-mind problem so that you will be able to relate the experimental evidence to this philosophical position. I have written at length on this philosophy in my book 'Facing Reality'. In Fig. 6-1 you will be able to see that I fully accept the recent philosophical achievements of Sir Karl Popper with his concept of three worlds. I was a dualist, now I am a trialist! Cartesian dualism has become unfashionable with many people. They embrace monism in order to escape the enigma of brain-mind interaction with its perplexing problems. But Sir Karl Popper and I are interactionists, and what is more, trialist interactionists! The three worlds are very easily defined. I believe that in the classification of Fig. 6-1 there is nothing left out. It takes care of everything that is in existence and in our experience. All can be classified in one or other of the categories enumerated under Worlds 1, 2. and 3.

WORLD 1
WORLD 2
WORLD 3
PHYSICAL OBJECTS AND STATES
STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS
KNOWLEDGE IN OBJECTIVE SENSE
1. INORGANIC: Matter and Energy of Cosmos
Subjective Knowledge
Records of Intellectual Efforts
2. BIOLOGY: Structure and Actions of All Living Beings; Human Brains
Experience of: Perception, Thinking, Emotions, Dispositional Intentions, Memories, Dreams, Creative Imagination
Philosophical, Theological, Scientific, Historical, Literary, Artistic, Technological
3. ARTIFACTS: Material Substrates of human creativity, of tools, of machines, of books, of works of art, of music.
Theoretical Systems: Scientific Problems, Critical Arguments

"In Fig. 6-1, World 1 is the world of physical objects and states. It comprises the whole cosmos of matter and energy, all of biology including human brains, and all artifacts that man has made for coding information, as for example, the paper and ink of books or the material base of works of art. World 1 is the total world of the materialists. They recognize nothing else. All else is fantasy.
"World 2 is the world of states of consciousness and subjective knowledge of all kinds. The totality of our perceptions comes in this world. But there are several levels. In agreement with Polten, I tend to recognize three kinds of levels of World 2, as indicated in Fig. 6-2, but it may be more correct to think of it as a spectrum.

Outer Sense
Inner Sense
Pure Ego
Light, Colour, Sound, Smell, Taste, Pain, Touch
Thoughts, Feelings, Memories, Dreams, Imaginings, Intentions
The Self - The Soul
"The first level (outer sense) would be the ordinary perceptions provided by all our sense organs, hearing and touch and sight and smell and pain. All of these perceptions are in World 2, of course: vision with light and colour; sound with music and harmony; touch with all its qualities and vibration; the range of odours and tastes, and so on. These qualities do not exist in World 1, where correspondingly there are but electromagnetic waves, pressure waves in the atmosphere, material objects, and chemical substances.
"In addition there is a level of inner sense, which is the world of more subtle perceptions. It is the world of your emotions, of your feelings of joy and sadness and fear and anger and so on. It includes all your memory, and all your imaginings and planning into the future. In fact there is a whole range of levels which could be described at length. All the subtle experiences of the human person are in this inner sensory world. It is all private to you but you can reveal it in linguistic expression, and by gestures of all levels of subtlety.
"Finally, at the core of World 2 there is the self or pure ego, which is the basis of our unity as an experiencing being throughout our whole lifetime.
"This World 2 is our primary reality. Our conscious experiences are the basis of our knowledge of World 1, which is thus a world of secondary reality, a derivative world. Whenever I am doing a scientific experiment, for example, I have to plan it cognitively, all in my thoughts, and then consciously carry out my plan of action in the experiment. Finally I have to look at the results and evaluate them in thought. For example, I have to see the traces of the oscilloscope and their photographic records or hear the signals on the loudspeaker. The various signals from the recording equipment have to be received by my sense organs, transmitted to my brain, and so to my consciousness, then appropriately measured and compared before I can begin to think about the significance of the experimental results. We are all the time, in every action we do, incessantly playing backwards and forwards between World 1 and World 2.
"And what is World 3? As shown in Fig. 6-1 it is the whole world of culture. It is the world that was created by man and that reciprocally made man.
This is my message in which I follow Popper unreservedly. The whole of language is here. All our means of communication, all our intellectual efforts coded in books, coded in the artistic and technological treasures in the museums, coded in every artifact left by man from primitive times--this is World 3 right up to the present time. It is the world of civilization and culture. Education is the means whereby each human being is brought into relation with World 3. In this manner he becomes immersed in it throughout life, participating in the heritage of mankind and so becoming fully human. World 3 is the world that uniquely relates to man. It is the world which is completely unknown to animals. They are blind to all of World 3. I say that without any reservations. This is then the first part of my story.
"Now I come to consider the way in which the three worlds interact..."[3]


Interactionism
Main article: Interactionism (philosophy of mind)
Interactionism is the view that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, causally interact with physical states. This is a position which is very appealing to common-sense intuitions, notwithstanding the fact that it is very difficult to establish its validity or correctness by way of logical argumentation or empirical proof. It seems to appeal to common-sense because we are surrounded by such everyday occurrences as a child's touching a hot stove (physical event) which causes him to feel pain (mental event) and then yell and scream (physical event) which causes his parents to experience a sensation of fear and protectiveness (mental event) and so on.[5]
Over the course of several decades, partly in collaboration with the philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, Eccles has developed an alternative theory of the mind, known as dualist-interactionism. His basic philosophical starting point is one with which theosophists can wholeheartedly agree:
I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition. . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world. --Evolution of the Brain, Creation of the Self, p. 241
According to Eccles, we have a nonmaterial mind or self which acts upon, and is influenced by, our material brains; there is a mental world in addition to the physical world, and the two interact. However, Eccles denies that the mind is a type of nonphysical substance (as it is in Cartesian dualism), and says that it merely belongs to a different world. (How the Self Controls Its Brain, p. 38.) But unless our mind (and the world in which it exists) is pure nothingness -- in which case it would not exist -- it must be composed of finer grades of energy-substance. Indeed, our inner constitution may comprise several nonphysical levels. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake, for instance, proposes that our physical bodies are organized by morphogenetic fields, our habits by behavioral morphic fields, and our thoughts and ideas by mental morphic fields. He suggests that our conscious self may be a higher level of our being which interacts with the lower fields and, through them with the physical brain and body. Theosophy adds to this list spiritual and divine levels, and describes all the different "layers" of our constitution as different phases of consciousness-substance.
Opponents of Eccles' view argue that mind-brain interaction would infringe the law of the conservation of energy. In his latest book, How the Self Controls Its Brain, Eccles, with the help of quantum physicist Friedrich Beck, shows that mind-brain action can be explained without violating the conservation of energy if account is taken of quantum physics and the latest discoveries concerning the microstructure of the neocortex. Eccles calls the fundamental neural units of the cerebral cortex dendrons, and proposes that each of the 40 million dendrons is linked with a mental unit, or psychon, representing a unitary conscious experience. In willed actions and thought, psychons act on dendrons and momentarily increase the probability of the firing of selected neurons, while in perception the reverse process takes place. Interaction among psychons themselves could explain the unity of our perceptions and of the inner world of our mind.
But Eccles' acceptance of the standard interpretation of the conservation of energy actually limits his theory. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the total energy of a closed system (i.e., one which does not exchange matter or energy with its environment) remains constant. Since materialists believe that the physical world is all that exists and therefore forms a closed system, they argue that the quantity of matter-energy within it must remain absolutely the same. According to theosophy, on the other hand, there is a constant circulation of energy-substances through the various planes or spheres of reality, none of which forms a closed system, and the conservation of matter-energy applies only to infinite nature as a whole. Orthodox quantum physics does in fact recognize that energy can be borrowed from the "quantum vacuum" provided it is paid back after a fraction of a second. Furthermore, over the past hundred years or so, a number of physicists, engineers, and inventors, beginning with Michael Faraday and Nicola Tesla, have built electromagnetic "free energy" devices that seem to produce more energy than required to run them, by apparently tapping on a larger scale the "zero-point energy of the vacuum" (or "energy of hyperdimensional space," as some scientists call it) -- that is, nonphysical, etheric energy. (See R. C. Hoagland, The Monuments of Mars, pp. 370-4.) Some scientists believe that "cold fusion" has a similar explanation. (See H. Fox, Cold Fusion Impact in the Enhanced Energy Age, ch. 11.)

Eccles says that the interaction between brain and mind "can be conceived as a flow of information, not of energy." (How the Self Controls its Brain, p. 9.) But information must surely be carried by some form of matter-energy, and if the mind can alter the probability of neural events, it is more likely that it does so by means of subtler, etheric types of force or energy, acting at the quantum or subquantum level. Eccles says that his theory can account for ordinary voluntary actions, but that "more direct actions of the will are precluded by the conservation laws." (Ibid., p. 163.) This is significant, for even if there is no measurable violation of energy conservation in ordinary mental phenomena, this may not be the case with certain paranormal phenomena, especially psychokinesis and materializations. Eccles, however, does not take paranormal phenomena seriously. (Evolution of the Brain, p. 242.)
Eccles is in basic agreement with the neo-Darwinian theory that evolution is driven by random genetic mutations followed by the weeding out of unfavorable variations by natural selection, but he also believes that "there is a Divine Providence operating over and above the materialist happenings of biological evolution." (Ibid., p. 239.) He accepts that mammals (such as dogs, cats, horses, and monkeys) and possibly birds are conscious beings, which experience feelings and pain, but denies conscious experiences to invertebrates and lower vertebrates such as fish and even amphibians and reptiles which, he says, have instinctual and learned responses, but no awareness or sensation. He maintains that the mental (or psychon) world, and therefore conscious experiences, came into existence with the development of the complex neocortex of the mammalian brain, and that the neocortex evolved by natural selection because it enabled the increased complexity of sensory inputs to be integrated, and therefore offered survival advantages. Then,
with hominid evolution there eventually came higher levels of conscious experiences, and ultimately in Homo sapiens sapiens -- self-consciousness -- which is the unique life-long experience of each human SELF, and which we must regard as a miracle beyond Darwinian evolution. -- How the Self Controls Its Brain, p. 139.

In theosophy, rather than the physical world giving rise to the mental world, lower realms are said to unfold from higher, more spiritual realms through a process of emanation, differentiation, and concretion, and all the various planes, and the classes of entities composing and inhabiting them, are manifestations of consciousness -- the ultimate reality. In the words of H. P. Blavatsky:
Nature taken in its abstract sense, cannot be "unconscious," as it is the emanation from, and thus an aspect (on the manifested plane) of the ABSOLUTE consciousness. Where is that daring man who would presume to deny to vegetation and even to minerals a consciousness of their own. All he can say is, that this consciousness is beyond his comprehension. --The Secret Doctrine 1:277n

Thus not only are all animals conscious; plants too have a primitive form of sentient, conscious existence, as various researchers have established. (See "Our Intelligent Companions, the Plants," John Van Mater, Jr., SUNRISE, April/May 1987.) As for the mineral kingdom, "panpsychists" such as B. Rensch and C. Birch believe that all physical matter, including atoms and subatomic particles, possesses a protoconsciousness. Eccles rejects panpsychism on the grounds that modern physics does not admit memory or identity for elementary particles. However, physicist David Bohm believed not only that all forms of matter were alive and conscious to some extent, but also that, at deeper levels, every particle of a particular species is distinguishable and unique, rather than being completely identical as is assumed in orthodox physics. (Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, p. 157; Science, Order & Creativity (with F. D. Peat), pp. 210-11.) Furthermore, newly synthesized chemical compounds have been found to crystallize more readily all over the world the more often they are made -- implying the existence of some sort of memory. (See Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past, p. 131.)


A further weakness in Eccles' approach is his attachment to the ape-ancestry theory. The hominid family includes not only our own species, Homo sapiens, but also more primitive (now extinct) human forms. The oldest generally accepted hominid genus is Australopithecus, which appeared in southern Africa about 4½ million years ago in the early Pliocene. Some researchers have tried to trace a progressive line of evolutionary ascent from Australopithecus through Homo habilis and Homo erectus to modern humans, but such a simplistic interpretation of the fossil record is hotly contested, even among Darwinists. The origin of the hominid family itself is even more problematic. The prevailing theory is that humans and the modern anthropoid apes had a common ancestor, thought to be closely related to the extinct Miocene apes known as the dryopithecines. But as the Encylopaedia Britannica states:
Exactly when the Hominidae, as a separate and independent line of evolution, became segregated from the anthropoid-ape family (Pongidae) is not certainly known; indeed, it is still the most serious gap in the fossil record of the Hominidae. (15th ed. 18:933.)

Eccles at least recognizes that Darwinian evolution cannot account for our self-conscious mind:
Since materialist solutions fail to account for our experienced uniqueness, I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual creation. To give the explanation in theological terms: each Soul is a new Divine creation which is implanted into the growing foetus at some time between conception and birth. --Evolution of the Brain, p. 237
Theosophy, too, assigns human beings a spiritual ancestry, but rejects the belief that they were created by a supernatural, extracosmic, an thropomorphic God. If nature is infinite, divinity cannot be outside nature but must be coeval with it and pervade every atom of life. At the heart of every entity is a spiritual monad -- a deathless spark of divinity, or center of life-consciousness -- which imbodies in an endless variety of forms in an endless variety of worlds in the course of its eternal evolutionary development. The earth is merely the latest station on the evolutionary journey of our spiritual monads. The first protohuman forms on earth were huge, ethereal, nonself-conscious beings which slowly materialized, declined in size, and assumed the present human shape. When these physical forms had attained the necessary degree of complexity, the gradual awakening and unfoldment of our latent intellectual and spiritual powers could begin. (See G. de Purucker, Man in Evolution, ch. 19, "Lost Pages of Evolutionary History"; The Esoteric Tradition, ch. 10, "Esoteric Teachings on the Evolution of Human and Animal Beings.")

As for what happens after death, Eccles says:
we can regard the death of the body and brain as dissolution of our dualist existence. Hopefully, the liberated soul will find another future of even deeper meaning and more entrancing experiences, perhaps in some renewed embodied existence . . . in accord with traditional Christian teaching. --Evolution of the Brain, p. 242
Given his belief that a new human soul is created for every newborn child, Eccles is probably not referring here to reincarnation on earth. But if our souls are to learn from the past and evolve, it would seem logical that they must not only reap what they have sown (in accordance with the law of karma), but must also reap where they have sown, and must continue to incarnate on earth until they have learned all the lessons the earth can teach.
Thus, although Eccles recognizes that the mind is relatively independent of the brain and works through it rather than being identical with it, his views still remain limited by several materialistic and theological dogmas. Nevertheless, his attempt to reach out beyond scientific materialism and develop a more spiritual vision is refreshing. Towards the end of his latest book, he writes:
I here express my efforts to understand with deep humility a self, myself, as an experiencing being. I offer it in the hope that we human selves may discover a transforming faith in the meaning and significance of this wonderful adventure that each of us is given on this salubrious Earth of ours, each with our wonderful brain, which is ours to control and use for our memory and enjoyment and creativity and with love for other human selves. --How the Self Controls Its Brain, pp. 180-1
(Reprinted from Sunrise magazine, June/July 1995. Copyright © 1995 by Theosophical University Press)







Markan account Baptism and Temptation of Jesus


http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark01b.htm


  • And the angels ministered to him in the wilderness as he was with the wild beasts.
  • Other reasons for the baptism of Jesus?
  • Os adoptionism here advocated as the bat qol from heaven seemingly resonates from Ps 2:7.
  • Holy Spirit's descent on Jesus? His distinctness indicated?
  • The voice from God in the early account is only to Jesus - On later Gospels to the entire crowd. What is the plausibility of the message to Jesus only in this early account?
  • Does this account foster adoptionism?
  • The meaning of the wilderness might have indicated and probably did purification and preparation for a holy mission or a holy man.
  • No details ar presented of the temptation, Why are these ommitted? You have the interveing event of the wedding at Cana which contradicts Mark's account that He went immediately into the desert.
  • Was the temptation Jesus' act of coveting? Was the temptation necessary? a type of sin when Jesus was sinless?


9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of
the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon
him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased. 12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the
wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan;
and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Compare:
Matthew 3:13-17; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 3:21,22;
Luke 4:1-13

Jesus is Baptized by John the Baptist
This is
the first appearance of Jesus in the earliest gospel account — full-grown and
ready to begin his ministry. We have nothing here about Jesus’ conception,
birth, or childhood — all very popular stories which play important roles in
Matthew and Luke. If these were known events, why did Mark skip them?
Mark
also skips is why Jesus is being baptized by John. The other baptisms were done
for the remission of sins — was this something needed by Jesus? According
orthodox Christian tradition, Jesus was sinless and wouldn’t need baptism for
such a reason.
But what other reason could there be? Some scholars argue
that this is a tradition about Jesus which predates the idea that he was sinless
— or that he was God. It is argued that what we are reading about here is Jesus
being appointed to a particular, holy position within his lifetime instead of
being destined for it from before birth (again, notice the lack of information
about Mary, his mother, being informed about his identity while she was still
pregnant).

The words spoken by the voice from heaven, “Thou art my beloved
Son,” seem to come from Psalm 2:7, of which the second line is “today I have
begotten you.” Mark leaves this out, so it’s not clear whether he held the
“adoptionist” position which taught that Jesus was just a regular man who was
“adopted” during his baptism to be God’s son. The author of Hebrews, though,
does include both lines, further indicating just how common this position may
have been among early Christians. It is little wonder that Matthew changed the
scene to have the spirit address the entire crowd.
Upon baptism the Holy
Spirit evidently descends upon Jesus. Although being baptized alongside others
would suggest Jesus’ solidarity with others, this points to his separation and
distinctness. The text is specific that this is something that Jesus sees, but
does this mean that no one else was aware of it? And if John is unable to
baptize people in the Holy Spirit (v. 8), why did the Holy Spirit appear at the
baptism — was John mistaken about his abilities?

Presumably the voice from
the heavens is God. In this account, God speaks directly to Jesus (the same can
be found in Luke 3:22), but when these events are described in Matthew 3:17, God
addresses those present at Jesus’ baptism: “This is my beloved son.” Does this
again suggest that in this very early account by Mark, only Jesus is aware of
what is going on and everyone else is kept in the dark? Given the way Jesus
continually tells his apostles to keep quiet about his identity, this is not
implausible. Most likely, though, the announcement is included here for the
benefit of Mark’s audience.
Both of the formulation in Mark and that in
Matthew played a role in the development of the early Christian heresy known as
“adoptionism.” According to this doctrine, Jesus was an ordinary human being who
was “adopted” by God as his son at the point of his baptism. An unsympathetic
person might even suggest that Jesus is experiencing a religious hallucination —
lots of people think that God speaks to them and singles them out for a special
cause. What made Jesus right?
Immediately after baptism, Jesus is driven into the wilderness for forty
days where he is tempted by Satan. It’s not clear what it means to say that
Jesus was “driven.” Did he not want to go? Did God force him? Was he simply
overcome with an irresistible urge after hearing voices?
The word here for
“wilderness” is the same one used to describe the activity of John the Baptist.
People often have a misconception as to what “wilderness” meant. The Middle East
is often thought of as consisting of vast deserts, and therefore the wilderness
that John came out of and Jesus went into is also thought of as desert. This is
not necessarily true. It could have been any uninhabited area, even one used to
graze sheep. It may, then, have had abundant vegetation and water.
This
trope of forty days would have been familiar to audiences at the time — Noah,
for example, rode the ark for forty days and forty nights and the Jews wandered
in the desert for forty years. The idea of a holy man wandering in the
wilderness to tangle with demons, purifying himself for a holy cause, would have
also been familiar — not just to people in the region but for many cultural
groups around the world.
Mark offers no details about what happened during
those forty days or how Satan tempted him. This stands in sharp contrast with
other gospel accounts were we are filled in on at least some of the events that
transpired during that time. This leads us to a couple of questions: why weren’t
the details relevant for this, the earliest gospel? If people knew about them,
why skip them? Then again, it’s strange that people knew about them — Jesus was
alone, after all.
Or was he? According to this account he was, but the
gospel of John relates that between his baptism and his trip through the desert
he called his disciples and attended the wedding in Cana — a direct
contradiction to Mark’s claim that Jesus immediately went into the desert. If
any disciples were around, they might have known something about what happened.
Finally, it is worth wondering just how Jesus could be tempted in the first
place. Sure, we have descriptions in the other gospels about what Satan did, but
that doesn’t explain how and why Jesus was tempted.
To be tempted by something
is to actively covet it, but didn’t Jesus teach that the desire for something
that you shouldn’t have just as bad as actually taking/acquiring it?
Thus,
the experience of temptation is a type of sin and a sign of our human
sinfulness
. Granted, Jesus was fully human, but he was also supposed to be a
sinless human. It was only because of his sinlessness that his sacrifice was
supposed to be sufficient for all the sins of the world. Thus, either being
tempted by things like power and riches is no sin at all, or Jesus sinned.
Neither view seems entirely compatible with orthodox Christianity.
The
common translation of “temptation” may be better rendered as “testing,” but it’s
not clear if that overcomes the questions above. The depiction of this scene in
the other gospels, where we are given more details, definitely appears to
qualify as “temptation” as people usually think of the concept.

What stands out in Mark's Gospel




http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark01.htm

  • Why did MArk skip the accounts of Jesus' cocneption birth and childhood?
  • Mark's framing patterm a chiastic device.
  • The meaning of the cursing of Capernaum, "Jesus' own city."
  • Simon Peter's mother in law is healed of a fever demonstrating the increasing miraculous power of God over physical ailments, and that Peter is a manj married and foresaking family to be associated as a disciple of Jesus.







Unlike the other synoptic gospels, Mark does not open with Jesus’ birth or
childhood. The Jesus we find in chapter 1 of Mark’s gospel is already an adult
and is already capable of powerful actions: healing, exorcisms, etc. Jesus’ fame
also begins to spread, despite his requests that people remain quiet about him
and his activities.
Ministry of
John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-8)
Unlike the other synoptic gospels, Mark does
not open with Jesus’ birth or childhood. The Jesus we find in chapter 1 of
Mark’s gospel is already an adult and is already capable of powerful actions:
healing, exorcisms, etc. Jesus’
fame also begins to spread, despite his requests
that people remain quiet about him and his activities.
Baptism and
Temptation of Jesus (Mark 1:9-13)
This is the first appearance of Jesus in
the earliest gospel account - full-grown and ready to begin his ministry. We
have nothing here about Jesus’ conception, birth, or childhood - all very
popular stories which play important roles in Matthew and Luke. If these were
known events, why did Mark skip them?
Jesus Begins
His Ministry and Calls the Disciples (Mark 1: 14-20)
Only now does Jesus’
ministry begin. The story of John the Baptist has been framed by references to
the gospel - first with the introductory line that this text presents the gospel
and now here again where Jesus actually begins to preach the gospel. This
framing pattern, also called a chiastic device, is used frequently by Mark
because it allows him to use both the internal passages and the framing passages
to explain and interpret each other.
Jesus in
Capernaum: Healing and Casting Out Spirits (Mark 1:21-28)
Capernaum is a city
in Galilee often referenced in the gospels. Jesus is described as having spent
enough time in and around Capernaum that it came to be known as Jesus’ own city.
There are verses referring to Jesus healing and teaching here in all four
gospels. Despite all of this, however, Jesus is also depicted in Matthew and
Luke as having felt rejected by the town’s inhabitants and cursing them.
Jesus Heals
Simon’s Mother-In-Law and Leaves Capernaum (Mark 1:29-39)
Simon Peter’s
mother-in-law is the first person to be healed of something other than
possession by an unclean spirit. She has a fever which Jesus takes away; later
he would also heal the lame, blind, and deaf, demonstrating increasing power
over physical ailments.
Jesus Heals
the Leper, Cautions Silence (Mark 1:40-45)
Here we have a specific illness
that Jesus heals, one which has caused fear and loathing for centuries: leprosy.
Then again, it might have been some other skin disease that was mistaken for
leprosy - or perhaps many skin diseases at the time were all categorized as
leprosy
.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Gospel of Mark background and studies and abrupt ending



The oldest manuscripts do show this abrupt ending . The chapter's remaining material that appears today derives from other later sources, calling into doubt the text's authenticity. The abrupt ending may have been designed with readeras in mind familiar with the traditions of Jesus' post resurrection appearances. The longer ending may have been unknown from patristic times and added during the second century to fill out Jesus' post resurrection traditions. Had the material been lost or the book been stopped in its completion by intervention of the authorities.
  • The directions the narrative would have taken re: the post resurrection appearances. The later meeting in Galilee with the disciples: had that the intention of focusing on further suffering of the community and not the happy return home of Jesus? Post resurrection appearances might have detracted from the message of the necessity of further earthly suffering for the community.
  • The church had not yet experienced power and riches and the abrupt ending may have implied the symbolic nature of Jesus' going ahead in martyrdom, and that the same awaited his true followers maintaining their faith to the end. The abrupt announcement that Jesus has arisen is only the start of their new covenant with God . "And greater works than these shall ye do because I go to the Father."








The oldest manuscripts of Mark end with verse 8 of chapter 16. This is a
very abrupt ending; in fact in Greek it ends almost ungrammatically on a
conjunction. The rest of the chapter that typically appears today contains
language and symbolism which strongly suggest that they were taken from other,
later sources; thus, validity of the rest of Mark is the subject of much
speculation and debate.
Was it Mark’s intention to end the gospel in this
manner? It’s not unreasonable to suppose this as possible. Mark’s audience may
have already been familiar with various traditions of Jesus’ post-resurrection
appearances, so there wouldn’t necessarily have been any great need for Mark to
go into detail. An abrupt ending may have been perceived as more dramatic and
ending on a conjunction, while odd, isn’t totally ungrammatical.
In addition
to being absent on the earliest available manuscripts, the longer ending of Mark
also appears to have been unknown in patristic times
. This suggests that it was
likely added during the second century in order to flesh out Jesus’
post-resurrection traditions. There are any number of reasons for the scribes to
think that a longer ending was appropriate: perhaps that material had since been
lost, or perhaps Mark had been prevented by authorities from completing his
book.
The fact that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark’s material to create
longer endings testifies to an early feeling that something more was needed in
the story — that the clumsy ending of Mark wasn’t adequate to the task at hand.
Many scholars even today tend to agree with this and argue that perhaps Mark did
intend to have more before his story finished. Why we don’t have such an ending,
though, is anyone’s guess.
What direction the narrative would have taken
seems clear. Verse 7 states that Jesus was to meet his disciples in Galilee and
it’s inconceivable that Mark wouldn’t have regarded that meeting as having
occurred
. Mark always depicts Jesus as a reliable prophet whose statements about
the future consistently come to pass. Mark must have been aware of something,
some tradition, but if he had anything to say on the mater we don’t have it.
Then again, perhaps Mark’s audience was expected to fill in the end of the
story themselves — specifically, with themselves. Jesus is supposed to “go
ahead” of the disciples to Galilee, but Jesus’ mission was to be one of
suffering and death, not a return to a happy life back home. Jesus may have
risen, but suffering and persecution remained realities for Mark’s community and
post-resurrection appearances would have detracted from this
.

____________________________________________________________
If the words
were meant symbolically, perhaps the disciples were to understand that Jesus has
“gone ahead” of them in terms of having been martyred and that they would soon
follow, assuming that are able to remain faithful to his message. Mark’s
audience may have been expected to think of themselves as “disciples” as well,
followers of Jesus who have been persecuted for their beliefs and who are
expected to maintain faith even in the face of torture and death.
The
Christian church for Mark was not one that yet enjoyed power, glory, or riches.
It was still characterized by oppression and suffering, both at the individual
level and institutionally. Jesus predicted to his disciples that his death
implied their own later on, a reality being experienced by Christians in Mark’s
day. There is then some sense behind ending the gospel not on a note of hope and
glory, but fear and silence.
Thus, Mark may have regarded his gospel as
simply the beginning of the story. His narrative may end abruptly with the
announcement that Jesus is risen, but for the Christian community this is only
the start of their new covenant with God
.
Mark’s readers may have been expected
to complete the gospel themselves by taking up the cross as Jesus did and
suffering for his sake, just as Mark described him suffering for them.









http://atheism.about.com/od/markcommentaryanalysis1/Gospel_of_Mark_Bible_Study_Analysis_Commentary_Background_History.htm

Gospel of Mark Dating and Origins

  • The gospel is dated 65-75 CE due top references to the 2nd temple's destruction.
  • Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
  • Arhument for a later date is given in this quote: Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after. Rome's xaction of vengeance being obvious is not obvious to me and needs to be clarified. Had it been that obvious would the zealots have directed their efforts so filled with vengeance and savagery even against their fellows?
  • Mark's Latinisms indicate a Roman audience: Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.
  • Written in Rome? Perhaps not due to the prevalence of Latinisms and Roman customs across the empire.Because of the dominance of Roman customs across their empire, though, the existence of such Latinisms really doesn’t require that Mark was written in Rome. It’s quite plausible that people in even the most distant provinces could have become used to using Roman terms for soldiers, money, and measurement. The inference that Mark’s community was suffering persecution is also sometimes used to argue for a Roman origin, but the connection isn’t necessary. Many Christian and Jewish communities suffered at this time, and even if they didn’t, simply knowing that somewhere Christians were being killed just for being Christian would have been sufficient to produce fear and doubt.
  • Responsibility for Jesus' death laid with the Jews , inthe desire to absolve th Romans of all responsibility. It’s likely, though, that Mark was written in an environment where Roman rule was a constant presence. There are many clear signs that Mark has gone to great lengths to absolve Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death — even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be. We cannot use the argument of Pilate's indecisiveness as an absolving factor of Roman complicity in Jesus' death in that Pilate was kinown to be ferocious and tyrranical : even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be.
  • It’s quite plausible that people in even the most distant provinces could have become used to using Roman terms for soldiers, money, and measurement. The inference that Mark’s community was suffering persecution is also sometimes used to argue for a Roman origin, but the connection isn’t necessary. Many Christian and Jewish communities suffered at this time.
  • The Jews' leaders and the people, to a degree, were saddled with blame for th death pf Jesus and this was more palatable to his Gentile audience, his Roman audience.







Dating and Origins of Mark’s Gospel
When Was the Gospel According to Mark
Written?
By , About.com Guide
See More About:
christian history
biblical criticism
gospel of mark

Lion of St Mark
zSB(3,3)
Because of the reference to the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark
was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most
early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
Those
who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author
knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't
know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken
divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another
collision course. Supporters of early dating also need to make room between Mark
and the writing of Matthew and Luke, both of which they also date early — as
early as 80 or 85 CE.
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often
rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE
was a piece of a text which it is claimed was an early version of Mark, thus
allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five
lines with nine good letters and one complete word — hardly a firm foundation
upon which we can rest an early date for Mark.
Those who argue for a later
date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the
Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during
the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on
the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean
more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great
deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the
Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.
Mark's language contains a number of
"Latinisms" — loan words from Latin to Greek — which would suggest that he
thinks in Latin terminology. Some of these Latinisms include (Greek/Latin) 4:27
modios/modius (a measure), 5:9,15: legiôn/legio (legion), 6:37:
dênariôn/denarius (a Roman coin), 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn/centurio (centurion;
both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek). All this
is used to argue that Mark wrote for a Roman audience, perhaps even in Rome
itself, long the traditional location of Mark’s work in Christian beliefs.

Because of the dominance of Roman customs across their empire, though, the
existence of such Latinisms really doesn’t require that Mark was written in
Rome. It’s quite plausible that people in even the most distant provinces could
have become used to using Roman terms for soldiers, money, and measurement. The inference that Mark’s community was suffering persecution is also sometimes used
to argue for a Roman origin, but the connection isn’t necessary. Many Christian
and Jewish communities suffered at this time
, and even if they didn’t, simply
knowing that somewhere Christians were being killed just for being Christian
would have been sufficient to produce fear and doubt.
It’s likely, though,
that Mark was written in an environment where Roman rule was a constant
presence. There are many clear signs that Mark has gone to great lengths to
absolve Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death — even to the point of
painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal
tyrant that everyone knew him to be.
Instead of the Romans, Mark’s author lays
the blame with the Jews — primarily the leaders, but also to the rest of the
people to a certain degree.
This would have made things much easier for his
audience.
Had the Romans discovered a religious movement focused upon a
political revolutionary executed for crimes against the state, they would have
clamped down much harder than they already were doing.
As it was, a religious
movement focused upon on obscure Jewish prophet who broke a few irrelevant
Jewish laws could be largely ignored when there weren’t direct orders from Rome
to increase the pressure.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Gospel of Mark

Description of the forged Byzantin Ms.



  • The gospel of Mark is undated and anonymous without any allusions to context. Figuring it out is supreme detective work.

  • Our paramaters and scholarly standards are broad strokes of brush agreed upon and consist of the following set of hypotheses: knowledge of the Christian communities at the time of its approximate composition; lack of a perfect consensus of the Markan text with regard to authorship, dating or intended audience; note textual references and those found in other texts.

  • It's the shortest oldest and most accurate of the gospels.Theologically complex, it is not a primitive gospel. Repetition and sandwiching techniques in Mark.

  • Understanding of the gospel genre. As a literary form, the gospel has many similarities to martyrologies, lives of philosophers, and even the aretologies of heroic figures. Mythic biographies of various sorts were common to the world at the time and so one doesn’t have to search far in order to find a plethora of possible models or influences.

  • Ready-made vocabularies, tropes, and events were at hand for anyone who wanted to use them. Ultimately, though, Mark represents the introduction of a new type of literature because nothing quite like it can be identified before early Christianity. It is very different from the collections of saying that can be found in other early Christian literature — for example, the collections of sayings that were likely the contents of the Q document or the theological reflections in Paul.

  • It is never questioned by the Church Fathers as an authntic text. There were evidently never any debates about the status of Mark as a canonical text, even though there have been debates about the validity of Mark’s ending. Mark is included in the most authoritative fourth-century manuscripts (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) and it is frequently referenced by early Church fathers.

  • Exclusive material to Mark : Material found only in Mark: 1:1 - Introduction3:19-21 - Jesus' family tries to restrain him4:26-29 - Parable of the seed growing on its own7:31-37 - Jesus heals a deaf man at Decapolis8:22-26 - Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida14:51-52 - Naked young man flees after Jesus' arrest16:14-18 - Commissioning of the eleven
  • Prolonged anonymous authorship of the gospel: the second century postscript "According to Mark" was consequently added.
  • The Marcan tradition : Tradition has it that the Gospel According to Mark was written down by Mark, a companion of Peter, who simply recorded what Peter preached in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) and this person was, in turn, identified with “John Mark” in Acts (12:12,25; 13:5-13; 15:37-39) as well as the “Mark” in Philemon 24, Colossians 4:10, and 2 Timothy 4:1.
  • The frequcny pf the name Mark in the late Empire was a commoplace.It was also common in this age to attribute writings to important figures of the past in order to give them more authority
  • Christian tradition on the Gospel's authenticity reaches back afar to the Chruch Father Papias.Eusebius had doubts of Papias, given to embellishment.This is what Christian tradition has handed down, however, and to be fair, it’s a tradition that dates back pretty far — to the writings of Eusebius around the year 325. He, in turn, claimed to be relying upon work from an earlier writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who wrote about this around the year 120: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.” Papias' claims were based upon things he said he heard from a "Presbyter." Eusebius himself is not an entirely trustworthy source, though, and even he had doubts about Papias, a writer who evidently was given to embellishment. Eusebius does imply that Mark died in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, which would have been before Peter died .
  • Mark wrote accounts and stories after Peter's death which would be contradicted if Mark died before Peter. a contradiction to the tradition that Mark wrote down Peter’s stories after his death. What does “interpreter” mean in this context? Does Papias note that things were not written “in order” to explain away contradictions with other gospels? Even if Mark did not rely on Peter as a source for his material, there are reasons to argue that Mark wrote while in Rome. For example Clement, who died in 212, and Irenaeus, who died in 202, are two early church leaders who both supported a Roman origin for Mark. Mark calculates time by a Roman method (for example, dividing the night into four watches rather than three), and finally, he has a faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography (5:1, 7:31, 8:10).What does the assignation interpreter mean in the context that Papias Bishop of Hierapolis gives to this term? Things not written in order could mean to explain away inconsistencies with other gospels(?) The Roman origin of the Markan gospel seems indisputable due to the support of Clement and Irenaeus (212 and 202 ,are the death dates of these two church Fathers.) His calculations using Roman methods of time and faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography would attest to the Roman origins.
  • Mark's language and Latinisms are further possible proofs of the Latin origin of this gospel.Mark's language contains a number of "Latinisms" — loan words from Latin to Greek — which would suggest an audience more comfortable with Latin than in Greek. Some of these Latinisms include (Greek/Latin) 4:27 modios/modius (a measure), 5:9,15: legiôn/legio (legion), 6:37: dênariôn/denarius (a Roman coin), 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn/centurio (centurion; both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek).
  • Semitic syntactical features bespeak possible Jewish origins of Mark. There is also evidence that the author of Mark may have been Jewish or had a Jewish background. Many scholars argue that the gospel has a Semitic flavor to it, by which they mean that there are Semitic syntactical features occurring in the context of Greek words and sentences. Example of this Semitic "flavor" include verbs located at the beginning of sentences, the widespread use of asyndeta (placing clauses together without conjunctions), and parataxis (joining clauses with the conjunction kai, which means "and").
  • Mark could have worked in Tyre or Sidon. It’s close enough to Galilee to be familiar with its customs and habits, but far enough away that the various fictions he includes wouldn’t arouse suspicion and complaint. These cities would also have been consistent with the apparent educational level of the text and seeming familiarity with Christian traditions in Syrian communities.

Scholars have argued for nearly 70 years over the provenance of what's called
the Archaic Mark, a 44-page miniature book, known as a "codex," which contains
the complete 16-chapter text of the Gospel of Mark in minuscule handwritten
text. The manuscript, which also includes 16 colorful illustrations, has long
been believed to be either an important witness to the early text of the gospel
or a modern forgery, said Mitchell, Professor of New Testament and Early
Christian Literature.
"The mystery is now solved from textual, chemical, and
codicological (bookmaking) angles," said Mitchell, who first became intrigued by
the codex when she saw it as a graduate student in 1982. Comprehensive analysis
demonstrates that it is not a genuine Byzantine manuscript, but a counterfeit,
she said, "made somewhere between 1874 and the first decades of the 20th
century."




What is the Gospel According to Mark? Background of Mark’s GospelBy , About.com GuideSee More About:gospel of mark biblical criticismCodex Argenteus of MarkzSB(3,3)Sponsored
Links
Study The Bible OnlineEarn an Online AA, BA, Masters, or
PhD. Request Free Information!www.eLearners.com/Bible
Free Sermons for Pastorsfrom Nelson Searcy of The Journey
Church - Download them here:www.ChurchLeaderInsights.com
Black GospelFree to Join. 1000's of Pictures of Beautiful
Black Christian Singleswww.BlackChristianPeoplemeet.com
zob();if(zsAtheism Ads Elvis Gospel Music Gospel Study Gospel Luke The Holy Bible Jazz Gospel The Gospel According to Mark is anonymous, undated,

The Gospel According to Mark is anonymous, undated, and has no direct information about the historical, social, or political context in which it was written. Because specific and direct information about where this gospel comes from is absent, scholars have had to act like detectives in order to figure out what, if anything, might be said about it with some authority.
Everything claimed has been inferred and interpreted by comparing what we know of the early Christian communities generally against the text itself. Such research is not an exact science, and as a consequence, there is no perfect consensus on anything — neither authorship, dating, nor the intended audience. There are, however, broad lines of agreement on quite a few matters based upon clues found both in the text and in references to this gospel found in other texts.
The shortest of the four canonical gospels, most biblical scholars regard Mark as the oldest of the four and a primary source for much of the material contained in Luke and Matthew. For a long time Christians tended to ignore Mark in favor of the longer, more detailed texts of Matthew and Luke. After it was identified as the oldest and thus presumably most historically accurate, Mark has gained in popularity.
Mark is not, however, a "primitive" gospel despite its age and length. It also isn’t simply a collection of earlier stories and traditions, even though the narrative style reflects popular storytelling techniques. The Gospel According to Mark is a theologically complex document that interweaves a number of important themes in a manner that communicates its theology in both overt and subtle ways.
The material in the text must have been passed down, retold, and rearranged by multiple people, but in the end someone put it into a final written form, something close to what we currently have, which bears the imprint of their own literary skills. The author of Mark likes to use, for example, repetition to highlight important ideas and a “sandwiching” technique that interweaves two different stories together in a manner that allows each to interpret and explain the other.
Understanding any literary text requires an understanding of the genre it belongs to — you can’t interpret a novel in the same way that you interpret a play. Identifying the genre of the gospels has, however, proven difficult. The word “gospel” comes from Greek and means the “good news” of some important event (like a birth or a victory). It appears often in Paul’s letters in reference to the significance of the person, life, and ministry of Jesus.
As a literary form, the gospel has many similarities to martyrologies, lives of philosophers, and even the aretologies of heroic figures. Mythic biographies of various sorts were common to the world at the time and so one doesn’t have to search far in order to find a plethora of possible models or influences. Ready-made vocabularies, tropes, and events were at hand for anyone who wanted to use them.
Ultimately, though, Mark represents the introduction of a new type of literature because nothing quite like it can be identified before early Christianity. It is very different from the collections of saying that can be found in other early Christian literature — for example, the collections of sayings that were likely the contents of the Q document or the theological reflections in Paul.
Mark is not meant to be a historical record of past events; instead, it is a series of events — some possibly historical, some not — structured in a manner to serve specific theological and political goals. Any resemblance to historical events or figures is, as they say, purely coincidental.
It is also likely that Mark was intended to be read aloud rather than carefully studied in written form like a philosophy text. This makes interpretation difficult because theological analyses tend to be done on the written text and typically attempt to identify large patterns or structures. For a text that is read aloud, however, what matters most are the connections that listeners make from one passage to the next.
There were evidently never any debates about the status of Mark as a canonical text, even though there have been debates about the validity of Mark’s ending. Mark is included in the most authoritative fourth-century manuscripts (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) and it is frequently referenced by early Church fathers.

Material found only in Mark:
1:1 - Introduction3:19-21 - Jesus' family tries to restrain him4:26-29 - Parable of the seed growing on its own7:31-37 - Jesus heals a deaf man at Decapolis8:22-26 - Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida14:51-52 - Naked young man flees after Jesus' arrest16:14-18 - Commissioning of the eleven

___________________________________________________________


AUTHORSHIP OF THIS GOSPEL
The text of the Gospel According to Mark does not specifically identify anyone as the author. Not even “Mark” is identified as the author — in theory, “Mark” could have simply related a series of events and stories to someone else who collected them, edited them, and set them down in the gospel form. It wasn't until the second century that the title “According to Mark” or “The Gospel According to Mark” was affixed to this document.
A number of people in the New Testament — not only Acts but also in the Pauline letters — are named Mark and anyone of them could potentially have been the author behind this gospel. Tradition has it that the Gospel According to Mark was written down by Mark, a companion of Peter, who simply recorded what Peter preached in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) and this person was, in turn, identified with “John Mark” in Acts (12:12,25; 13:5-13; 15:37-39) as well as the “Mark” in Philemon 24, Colossians 4:10, and 2 Timothy 4:1.
It seems unlikely that all of these Marks were the same Mark, much less the author of this gospel. The name “Mark” appears frequently in the Roman empire and there would have been a strong desire to associate this gospel with someone close to Jesus. It was also common in this age to attribute writings to important figures of the past in order to give them more authority.
This is what Christian tradition has handed down, however, and to be fair, it’s a tradition that dates back pretty far — to the writings of Eusebius around the year 325. He, in turn, claimed to be relying upon work from an earlier writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who wrote about this around the year 120:
“Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.”
Papias' claims were based upon things he said he heard from a "Presbyter." Eusebius himself is not an entirely trustworthy source, though, and even he had doubts about Papias, a writer who evidently was given to embellishment. Eusebius does imply that Mark died in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, which would have been before Peter died
a contradiction to the tradition that Mark wrote down Peter’s stories after his death. What does “interpreter” mean in this context? Does Papias note that things were not written “in order” to explain away contradictions with other gospels?
Even if Mark did not rely on Peter as a source for his material, there are reasons to argue that Mark wrote while in Rome. For example Clement, who died in 212, and Irenaeus, who died in 202, are two early church leaders who both supported a Roman origin for Mark. Mark calculates time by a Roman method (for example, dividing the night into four watches rather than three), and finally, he has a faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography (5:1, 7:31, 8:10).
Mark's language contains a number of "Latinisms" — loan words from Latin to Greek — which would suggest an audience more comfortable with Latin than in Greek. Some of these Latinisms include (Greek/Latin) 4:27 modios/modius (a measure), 5:9,15: legiôn/legio (legion), 6:37: dênariôn/denarius (a Roman coin), 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn/centurio (centurion; both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek).
There is also evidence that the author of Mark may have been Jewish or had a Jewish background. Many scholars argue that the gospel has a Semitic flavor to it, by which they mean that there are Semitic syntactical features occurring in the context of Greek words and sentences. Example of this Semitic "flavor" include verbs located at the beginning of sentences, the widespread use of asyndeta (placing clauses together without conjunctions), and parataxis (joining clauses with the conjunction kai, which means "and").
Many scholars today believe that Mark may have worked in a place like Tyre or Sidon. It’s close enough to Galilee to be familiar with its customs and habits, but far enough away that the various fictions he includes wouldn’t arouse suspicion and complaint. These cities would also have been consistent with the apparent educational level of the text and seeming familiarity with Christian traditions in Syrian communities.
Introduction to the Gospel of Mark
Background of Mark's GospelAudience of Mark's GospelWhen Was the Mark's Gospel Written?