You read my work on the Synoptic wilderness temptation pericope. In that paper, you read this.
The combination of this socio-historical evidence provides strong support for a reading of of the wilderness temptation as an account of Jesus’ internal struggle with his own desires, rather than a battle of will against a supernatural evil being.
That’s an explicit declaration of my interpretation of the passages examined in this paper, and it’s on the first page of the paper. You say you wanted a “straightforward, in-your-own-words type paraphrase”, and that’s exactly what that is. Are you saying you read that and you didn’t understand what it means, or you didn’t understand that this is my interpretation of the passages, or something else? I’m not sure why you would say you didn’t see my interpretation of those passages, when it’s right there on the front page.
I don’t see any record of you reading the other paper. Did you read the other paper? If you did read the other paper, you will see that at the end of each section I have an explicit summary, in my own words, of what I think each author means. That’s my interpretation. If any of those summaries are unclear, please let me know why.
I have told you explicitly what I think the text means to me, and an explanation of my methodology, and an example of how I apply that methodology to analogous texts. Please let me know if there’s anything missing.
Because he was one of those Second Temple Period Jews who didn’t believe in supernatural evil demons.
I have no idea how he came to his conclusions, or how other people came to their conclusions. That’s like asking why the prophets of Baal believed in Baal. Maybe their parents taught them? Who knows?
As I have already mentioned several times, I don’t believe he reported it as if he did. Yes he is accommodating his audience. If you compare the Synoptics to John, you will find that they treat the issue of demons in very different ways. In the Synoptics we find demons and demonic possession. In John we do not, even when John is referring to people with disorders which were typically regarded as the product of demonic possession or satanic attack. The reason for this is that the Synoptics and John were written for different audiences. The Synoptics are written for people who aren’t yet Christians, whereas John is writing to mature Christians. In the gospel written for mature Christians, demons have vanished. We find the same in Paul’s letters. In both cases the authors write the same way people write when they don’t believe in demons; they simply don’t mention them, and they don’t attribute to them the activity commonly associated with demons.
Remember that neither paper was making a case for Mark not believing in demons, or making a positive case for that interpretation of Mark, or making a strong case that the “orthodox” case isn’t at least as plausible. As I have said several times before (and I can keep repeating this as often as necessary), those papers were demonstrating the hermeneutic by which I arrive at the conclusion that Mark did not believe in demons. If you don’t find it convincing that’s fine, that’s not my problem.
If you want me to address why I think the “orthodox” interpretation isn’t at least as plausible, I can do that, but we might want to start a new thread. I’ll also need written confirmation from a moderator that such a thread is permitted on this forum, so I don’t have a moderator stepping in two posts later shutting down the thread and warning me not to write stuff like that.
In my previous post I summarized my explanation, citing the material I quoted or cited in order to support my explanation. Please let me know if anything in those three points is unclear.
This is the Ken Ham approach to the Bible. It is called “exegeting the English”. Do you understand why this isn’t considered an acceptable approach to an ancient text by professional interpreters?
When you write that, it tells me absolutely nothing about your understanding of the text. There is literally nothing there. It’s just saying “I think this”, without any process of logical reasoning, without any attempt at justification, and without any method of validation. It’s just pointing at a text saying “I think this”. I have no idea why you would think that, how you would reach such a conclusion, how you would test if your interpretation is accurate, or anything else.
This gets back to an issue raised previously on this forum, how do I know when my interpretation is correct? For most Christians here, it seems that such a process simply just isn’t considered necessary. I read the text in English, I make a conclusion, I’m done. I’ve exegeted the text, my exegesis is correct. I find this an unusual approach.
I have not required you to go through any papers of what scholars think. In my previous post I summarized my explanation in three points, citing the material I quoted or cited previously in order to support my explanation. Please let me know if anything in those three points is unclear. We can use that as the basis of a new thread, if the moderators permit.